I like paying taxes. With taxes I buy civilization. I forget the exact quote and the judge its from. They don’t want to pay into civilization. Which is funny coming from the exact same people who loved saying its Amurica, if you don’t like it get out during the Bush years. So its civilization versus the lizard people.

I like paying taxes. With taxes I buy civilization.

In principle I agree with this, but the thought that a large chunk of my taxes goes toward a bloated military takes the fun out of it.

I blame the media, if it wasn’t for the media, these people would have nothing.

Bartlett is a tax/fiscal policy expert. Nobody should dispute his numbers. He was instrumental in augering in the Reagan supply side revolution that created trillions in new wealth and tens of millions of new jobs.

Setting aside for a moment the fact that the characterization of the supply-side “revolution” is a complete and utter lie, and the fact that commie socialist Bill Clinton’s post-tax-increase economic expansion was bigger, longer and longer-lasting (penile allusions intentional), I like how “nobody should dispute his numbers” because of who he is.

Not because of the numbers, which in fact anyone can look up - the fact that most people’s taxes have gone down is not something you have to be an economist to look up. But he has to be introduced as a member of the tribe in order to believe him.

And even then, there’s no acknowledgment that the fact that he’s right means anyone should rethink anything.

Why is the federal government raising my state taxes?!?!

Anyone still confused how Fratboy Bush got elected… twice?  /facedesk.

Seriously, though, in it’s rush to overhaul the textbook system, I’d have been happy to trade Thomas Jefferson and Oscar Romero for Phillis Schadfly and Newt Gingrich, if someone had bothered to mandate the teaching of the 1040.  Is it too much to ask that a country absolutely obsessed with taxes pass out the basic education on how much we are actually taxed?

My state taxes sure are going up, they’re all extremely regressive taxes, and much of it, I’ll bet, is going to pay for federal mandates that the feds can’t be bothered to fund.  But maintaining the illusion of affordability, by giving paltry tax cuts and deductions to the middle class while giving huge kickbacks to the wealthy, is more important to anti-tax conservatives than anything else.

In principle I agree with this, but the thought that a large chunk of my taxes goes toward a bloated military takes the fun out of it.

Then the correct response is to vote for politicians who will spend taxes the way you’d prefer. I know it’s easier said than done, especially where the military spending is concerned. But it’s a hell of a lot more effective than throwing a tantrum and threatening to take your taxes and go live in the woods until civilization falls, all because <strike>there’s a black man in the white house</strike> you’d rather things were different.

There is a very real kernel of truth to the counter-argument though. I work for a state environmental agency doing community involvement and I can tell you personally that most people really don’t see a distinction between state and federal government; it’s all just “government.” I’d actually wager that a lot of the “government” these people object to is actually enacted by state or local governments. Most people really just don’t understand or follow politics like we we do.

Of course that’s not to defend these people (I wouldn’t mind higher taxes!), but I think a lot of people would be easily confused about who charges what tax.

Have these people ever been to a place where government doesn’t work?  I mean, really doesn’t work, not “I had to stand in line at the post office therefore government can’t do anything right” doesn’t work—more like the third world.  It’s not subtle.  Garbage piles up on the street, police are corrupt, water isn’t drinkable, human misery is everywhere, and the mail can take months to get where it needs to go.  Just try crossing the border from the US into Mexico, or Costa Rica into Nicaragua.  When government fails, you notice it right away.

The problem isn’t that our (US) government does so much wrong, it’s that it does 99% of things it sets out to do correctly.  Thus, the only time Americans notice the government is when it fails—then they really notice it.

He was instrumental in augering in the Reagan supply side revolution that created trillions in new wealth and tens of millions of new jobs.

If “Maggot” had shown a little more insight in the rest of his/her comment, I’d credit him/her with a nice little pun there on “augering,” since the middle class and everyone below them got drilled and all their wealth was siphoned up to the people at the very top. Instead, I’ll just point out that the word “Maggot” was thinking of doesn’t really fit what Bartlett did, since auguring generally means foretelling or presaging, as opposed to laying the groundwork for.

/nerd

“Just try crossing the border from the US into Mexico, or Costa Rica into Nicaragua.  When government fails, you notice it right away.”

You mean” Just try crossing the border from the US into the South.  When government is run by generations of traitorous terroristic bastards, you get Alabama ... and Mississippi ... and Georgia ... and Florida ...”

It would be nice to ignore these people - but their views are considered important by the media and apparently scare the crap out of cowardly DC Dems.

If there are just 5 teabaggers at a protest it morphs into the biggest thing since MLK and Lech Walesa combined. Millions against the war? - not so much.

Dead on.  I also note with amusement when unmarried people make a big deal about all the tax breaks married people get (or rather, DON’T get, we were socked with increased local and federal taxes because we both worked and our expenses were presumed to magically become less), or when militant antibreeders rant about all the tax breaks people with kids get (somehow, a personal exemption for a person becomes a tax break when applied to a child an not to them or to that grandmother they could take on for such a “tax break”).

Its all the same faces of the same ignorance about which pot your paycheck gets poured into versus what flavor your personal righteous indignation is.

phalamir, you get what is left of New Orleans, which isn’t much.  Sure, the French Quarter was located there to be somewhat resistant to the storms and downtown is mostly fixed, but step out of those areas and ... well ... I’m still having nightmares about it.

Hmmm ... maybe somebody should advertise a Tea Party Protest in the 9th ward?

What’s particularly off-pissing about this, to take keshmeshi’s post a little further, is that increases in state levies (such as they are—aggregate state tax burdens are also down in a lot of states because they follow the federal rules) are pretty much a direct result of the federal tax cuts for the rich. Less federal money flowing back to the states, more money that states have to raise from their citizens directly, and for some reason completely unrelated to the political ascendancy of rightwing corporatist nutbags, they seem to often choose to do it in regressive fashion.

So yeah, until the Obama tax cuts for the middle class, the average person was seeing a steady or rising tax burden, precisely because rich people were seeing such a nice drop in their taxes. And of course, when your wages aren’t keeping up with inflation even a steady tax burden feels like it’s getting worse.

But the teabagger were up in arms about Obama cutting their taxes, so the fact that they might have had a point about the previous administration increasing the tax burden on ordinary people is kinda moot.

...people who still wonder why the entire plane isn’t made of out the black box material…

When it comes to plagiarism, I try to be a good boy, I really do. But I am so stealing that line.

My taxes did increase last year - because Mr Bush decided that same-sex couples’ benefits are taxable.  Because that saves het’s marriages or something.

Spot on, about how these people should have to visit the places on earth where the government doesn’t function.  Consider that the best example we have on earth of a perfect libertarian state (ie. none) is Somalia, while the best example of socialism in Sweden.  Even a hardcore teabagger can’t lie about which one they would rather live in.

Pharmakos:

“I like paying taxes. With them I buy civilization.”

—Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes

Heh.  I was just looking at the tags at the top and realized how often “Batsh*t Crazy” and “Conservatives” were on the same post…..

going to pay for federal mandates that the feds can’t be bothered to fund

When the federal government grants states the privilege to figure out on their own how to pay for something, it’s bad because it’s an “unfunded mandate”.  OTOH, when the feds provide the funds to pay for it, then they are “meddling in states rights” and “raising taxes on everybody” when they could have instead let the states decide what funding mechanism works best for them.

It’s a catch-22.

TO Tokay @ # 8

Oh boy, yeah.  Add to the federal and state, a layer of county and town/city.  I have been here about a quarter century.  Most of my neighbors are newer transplants form the city.  THey move to an unincorporated area and then scream when they don’t get services from the nearby town.  “But my mailing address says TOWN, State!!!!”  Add to that that our town and township have the same name - eyeroll.  They think that their post office determines their residency.  And a bank actually lent money to these people who clearly don’t understand a property title???  Tax information???

Most “unfunded mandates” are really perfectly reasonable rules put into the system that the states in an attempt to rob each other of business cut taxes so drastically that they eviscerated their own tax bases so what was easily funded prior is not totally unreasonable. 

It just becomes an issue because states are by nature fighting each other rather than adding to a national value.  Hence the whole argument for tea baggers hinges on this crazy idea that state’s have their (i.e. conservative nutcase) interest in mind. 

I am seriously too tired to make much sense at this point…I’ll just post this and roll off to bed.

“You mean” Just try crossing the border from the US into the South.  When government is run by generations of traitorous terroristic bastards, you get Alabama ... and Mississippi ... and Georgia ... and Florida ...””

Hey, now.  I’d say the lion’s share of Florida’s problems stem from the demographics skewing heavily and consistently towards transplants and snowbirds.

Alabama and Mississippi, I’ll give you.  The fact that there’s a clearly noticeable difference on the way through coastal Alabama and Mississippi is fucked up.  It’s not like the Florida panhandle and Louisiana are particularly progressive bastions of governmental support and well-planned communities.

I’ve just figured out how to destroy the United States using the Teabaggers.

Simply push, as an infiltrator, for a proposed Act that will address all their tax whines.

We’ll call it the “Fair Tax Act”.  Simply, at the beginning of each tax year, you get to nominate the percentage of your income you pay in federal, and in state/local taxes.  It is then up to the elected officials to budget for the money the citizens choose to give them. Flat taxes!  No taxes without consent!  Government bought under control at last!

Oh, and the kicker - statistics have to be made available on the average (not median, but the mean) tax rate paid by each state or region, and by income band of taxpayer.  Just to fan the flames of petty resentment and a race to the bottom.

You can almost certainly sell it to these idiots as a policy for them to push.  And if implemented, the US collapses three or four years later.

xeranar:

You’re misthinking. “State’s Rights” far more strongly implies a divide-and-conquer approach to some social issue or another; note how quickly the Right lapses into federalism when things aren’t going their way on the state level (i.e. gay marriage, etc). Even the current hangup on the 10th amendment is incoherent—there are plenty of cases where the Constitution overrides the 10th, including the Commerce Clause and 14th and 16th amendments. (In this case, pounding on the 10th actually very much resembles quote-mining.)

preying mantis:  Grew up in North Florida.  Virtually every snowbird/transplant I met was really, really pissed off that lynching had gone out of style before they managed to move down to Florida.  And the politics was a handful of self-appointed elites playing feudal party-games by screaming “Look, the negros aren’t being lynched - vote for my designated candidate to put a stop to this injustice come straight from the Yankees!”.  I swear to God that if the Democrats had messaged health reform as “Those Darkies want private health insurance!  Let’s make them deal with single-payer!  Those Damn Yankees!” You would currently have 95% of East Palatka sitting in front of the Capitol demanding mandatory socialized healthcare with no private insurance allowed.

You’re misthinking. “State’s Rights” far more strongly implies a divide-and-conquer approach to some social issue or another; note how quickly the Right lapses into federalism when things aren’t going their way on the state level (i.e. gay marriage, etc). Even the current hangup on the 10th amendment is incoherent—there are plenty of cases where the Constitution overrides the 10th, including the Commerce Clause and 14th and 16th amendments. (In this case, pounding on the 10th actually very much resembles quote-mining.)

I was so tired, 2 hours of sleep and a bathroom break that takes me past the computer made me reply.  I completely understand the state’s right argument as their panacea for anything that upsets them.  It’s just a total cover for their own fascist needs.  You’re right the second they get power on the federal level or another state does something they don’t like they race off to federal court to fight it then go back to the hypocritical position.  The only reason the “state’s rights” argument was invented was for slavery to be protected in the south from the north because they knew in the north slavery had been recently outlawed and the 10th amendment was a technical catch-all for anything not yet decided upon.  You don’t even need to go to the 14/16th amendment.  You just simply need to go the system of federal courts and supreme court where the appellate system is designed to slowly erode any “right” to decide when states are in disagreement.  Once a case is put into federal court regardless of outcome the federal legislature has the right to legislate upon it. 

The 14th & 16th amendments just expand those powers for civil liberties to be more explicit.  The appellate system says anything that two states can’t decide upon and is brought before a federal judge becomes fair game for the federal government to decide.  There have been notable cases on both sides of this theorem but in most cases as federal judges wouldn’t want to hamstring themselves they generally agree the appellate system gives the federal government authority to legislate on the matter.

i always found it amusing (in a black comedy kind of way) that ronald “the commie killer” reagan endorsed “supply-side” economic theory. though he most likely had no real clue what it is, it is actually communist economic theory: a command economy. this is why it’s been a historical failure anywhere it’s been tried. capitalist economies are, by definition, demand economies. this requires that people be employed, so they have income with which to buy things. all you end up with when “supply-side” tactics are applied is huge deficits.

oh, that’s right, we ended up with that under reagan, bush and bush. go figure.

as i noted at digby’s, these people constitute a minute % of the total population. were it not for FOX News, we’d never have heard of them.

It’s been a while since I took Logic 101 but it seems to me that “MaggotatBroad&Wall;” managed to squeeze:

- A ‘Post hoc ergo propter hoc’ fallacy (i.e. the economy grew [long] after Reagan, therefore it grew because of Reagan),

- An ‘Appeal to authority’ fallacy (i.e. believe Barttlet for who he is, not because of the merit of his argument),

- And an indictment against clear taxonomies (i.e. “I bundle all taxes under ‘Federal’ even when they are not)

The fact that Maggot’s firs and third logical flaws actually contradict each other is just a bonus, by the way.

I would love (truly and wholeheartedly cherish) the possibility of discussing policies and ideologies with teabaggers and other right-wingers. The fact is we always get side-tracked onto long and tiring discussions that have little to do with the topic at hand because their very thought process is laughable in the eyes of anybody who took Logic 101 and hasn’t completely forgotten its lessons. I can’t disagree with them because they can’t even articulate anything worth disagreeing with, just like there’s no point disagreeing with someone who insists that Sydney is the capital of Finland or 2+2=Christopher Columbus. I have no intention of giving up, but I get more and more tired as I continue to hear their never-ending nonsense.

Also, Jesse, thanks for a great post. But did you absolutely have to rub salt on the wounds of those of us currenly bleeding Hoya Blue? You leave me with no choice but to quote the words of a late XX century poet: “Do you really want to hurt me? Do you really want to make me cry?”

Our esteemed host wrote:

This is why I disregard Tea Partiers as serious voices in the political dialogue - they are literally too stupid for their feelings to matter.

Except, of course, that regardless of your opinion of their feelings or thoughts or emotions, their votes still count.

their votes still count.

As do the votes of people who think the moon landing was faked and that Obama was born in Kenya and that George W Bush was a good president.

Dana, but they don’t get a voice in the debate or get to have their “side” taken seriously. Why? Because they actually don’t know what they’re talking about. At best they get silent assent at the dinner table this easter while half-drunkenly ranting about Obama raised his property taxes and is going to implement death panels.

The funny thing is that you purport to tell us what America “really” thinks, but the truth is that when the chips were down, “real America,” as defined by, apparently, Catholics east-central PA, went for Obama. Coming in here singing, “nyah, nyah, nyah! I’ll be as stupid as I want and you can’t do anything about it,” isn’t going to change that.

Xeranar:

This is getting off topic, but have you ever noticed how some of the same people who decry law made by judicial precedent are the same ones who argue for “common law”?

I don’t know Jesse, I think you’re being too hard on them.

After all, thinking is hard.  (I kid)

As has been the case from the start, the teabaggers are insecure, often racist a-holes who are afraid of change.  And who are afraid of that which they don’t understand.  And rather than try to understand, they let their fear rule them (and Rush and Glen and other stoke that fear).

And, when people are afraid, they get angry.  So, we end up with a swarm of people who are angry at…stuff.  What stuff?  Uhhh…they’re not sure, they just know that things are a-changing and they don’t like it.  So, they listen to Rush and Glen and others to find out what they should be angry about.  They have their radio on anyway, so it’s not like it requires actual effort.  Besides, to them, Rush is a trustworthy news outlet.  So, they’re angry about deficits and health care and taxes and whatever else Rush tells them.  Why?  Because there are Democrats and Unions and Soshallism and Public Schools and stuff.  And that Black Guy.

If anyone’s been on any forums (fora?) with right wingers on the subject of taxes you’ll quickly see a paste job that’s been slapped together for wide distribution to these morons who think this exhaustive list of taxes, of which no one in the world would pay all and which includes at least a few that don’t exist at all (heading the list is an item called “accounts receivable tax,” e.g.).  Being absurd idiots has never been a deterrent for these teabagger mokes.

Yep, digitus.  The last AGW/climate change argument I got into with one of the denialist who actually cited the OISM list of “scientists.” IN which scientist is defined as anyone who graduated an American college/university with any science or engineering or medical degree between the years 1950 and 1997 and who was compliant enough to return the post card.  Oh, and the college has to sell alumnae lists. 

The logical fallacies and simply geographic/page association of completely unrelated events/terms is laughable if it weren’t so damn evil and dangerous to real knowledge and an educated democracy.

This is why I disregard Tea Partiers as serious voices in the political dialogue - they are literally too stupid for their feelings to matter. 

You needn’t have brought up their opinions on taxes; the “serious voice” qualification was pretty much shot after they started yammering about birth certificates.

phyl, I love that they also include weathermen….yes, the people who come up on your local news and give the local weather report, as “climate scientists”—again demonstrating that they will not admit to not knowing the difference between weather and climate.

This is getting off topic, but have you ever noticed how some of the same people who decry law made by judicial precedent are the same ones who argue for “common law”?

It’s the same argument as state’s rights really.  You just replace the word state with the phrase “judge who believes in what I believe in” and it principally becomes the same argument.  Of course there is a long string of history of activist judges for liberal and conservative agendas and judges who won’t budge from precedent.  Since each court is independent there is technically no legal requirement for them to use precedent more than they do.

To actually discuss “common law” as the law of the generally agreed upon basis of society is really a loose coalition of ideas.  There really is very little “common law” that is up for debate.  The argument about same-sex marriage falls under this usually and they literally are arguing against the reality and accepted lifestyles of the common practices of the same-sex couples. 

So to try and refocus, yes, people will use any argument they can to get their way.  The difference for myself personally is I stick to the same approach I just want to win.  I want the federal government strong, but I want it controlled by liberals every time. If conservatives win it I don’t go running off and wishing my state disagree with them, I simply fight for the liberals to win back the federal government.

Heard about the racial/and other epithets hurled at Adfircan American and gay legislators today - the right fringe is foaming. 

And here’s some video proof of just how off the deep end racist/homophobic, nasty mean bastards they are:
http://shannynmoore.wordpress.com/2010/03/17/who-would-jesus-mock/

Yes, I caught that on CNN.  They were hurling the N word at federal House Representatives and homosexual slurs at Barney Frank.  They’re angry and all their anger isn’t going to stop a health care bill that they were told will fund whatever they’re so angry about.  If the best they can manage is racial slurs then the game is already lost.  Course 2010 isn’t going to be a banner year for the republicans anymore than it will be a banner year for the tea party.  Once the health care debate is over with and the core facts can be brought to bare in repeated campaign commercials the whole pain of this will go away.  Democrats can reap dividends from finishing this bill if they just can vote on it.

because they have no idea what it is they’re angry about, which lets them be really, really fucking angry about anything.

There’s a difference between not knowing what you’re angry about, and not being able to admit what you’re angry about.

The last AGW/climate change argument I got into with one of the denialist who actually cited the OISM list of “scientists.” IN which scientist is defined as anyone who graduated an American college/university with any science or engineering or medical degree between the years 1950 and 1997 and who was compliant enough to return the post card.

Not only that, but a lion’s share of those scientists are employed by right wing think tanks.  Many of the rest are chemists or physicists.  I hadn’t realized that chemists and physicists are climatology experts.  I guess by this same logic I should go to my podiatrist for open heart surgery.

digitusmedius @ 37:
Per my on-line dictionary, both forums and fora are correct in English.

I don’t know whether to laugh at the inanity, or cry because these stupid people have too much power.

I hadn’t realized that chemists and physicists are climatology experts.

Oh gosh, my boss has a Ph.D. in physics and he’s also a climate change denier.  But when I politely tell him that I’ll trust the experts’ analysis over his own, he takes it as a major insult.  He thinks because he’s smart and/or educated, he should be considered an expert on every scientific topic.  I tried to patch his shattered ego back together by reassuring him that he truly is a smart man, but nobody is an expert in every subject.  It doesn’t help the we have an actual climate scientist who works in a different department, and she’s a woman who is clearly more knowledgeable about this subject than he is.

I think you’ll find that most climate scientists are physicists of some kind; you pretty much have to be in order to understand the processes of climate change. They’re just physicists who specialize in a particular field.

you get what is left of New Orleans, which isn’t much.  Sure, the French Quarter was located there to be somewhat resistant to the storms and downtown is mostly fixed, but step out of those areas and ... well ... I’m still having nightmares about it.

Please Kate, I ask you to be mindful of what you say about us.  It is true that the lower 9 still looks like crap, but MOST of the city is bouncing back well.  Both the neighborhood in which I live, and the neighborhood in which I work (neither of which is french quarter or downtown) are looking great and continuing to improve (though I do think that has been in spite of our government rather than because of it.)  I am personally of the opinion that the lower 9th ward should not be rebuilt, it is crappy low-lying land—that’s why it was a nearly all-black neighborhood, it was settled when black people were not allowed to live in the geographically more desirable areas.  But there are fewer of us now, and everybody can live on the high ground!  Sadly, we did not have a government willing to make the tough decisions to make that happen, and some people could only get compensation that allowed them to rebuild in the same place, not relocate.  So we have what they call a “jack-o-lantern effect” going on in that area, and it’s terribly inefficient to provide city services to individual widely-spaced houses.  But I ask you to take care, as we do walk a fine line in trying to accurately present our situation to the world: yes, we do still need help.  But we also depend SO heavily on tourism that it is important not to make it sound like a hellhole, which it is most certainly not.  This is a beautiful place to live and to visit.  The vast majority of the city is looking pretty good.  Please, come visit, you will have a lovely time, I assure you!

Our current problems are more an issue of state government, and very much on-topic here.  Our governor, Bobby Jindal, still hopes to find a place for himself in the national republican scene, and so would rather die than even consider raising taxes.  But our legislature has, over the years, passed so many laws that provide protected funding to various services and programs, that the only areas left hanging out for cuts are health care and education.  And the hit in those two areas has been hard!  The hospitals are struggling, and the University of New Orleans (where I work) now faces a THIRD cut in the SAME fiscal year of up to another $7 million - we don’t have it!!  We are already down to bare bones, we have almost no staff, there are barely enough classes for a student to get a degree at all, and my classes just get bigger & bigger. All adjunct instructors have been let go.  One more cut this year will put us in “financial exigency,” leading to wholesale cuts of entire programs and dismissal of tenured faculty.  Tomorrow, we are holding a “jazz funeral for UNO” protest.  The only ones who can save us from Jindal at this point are our legislature. We’re really heading toward a situation where we have almost no public higher ed and no public hospitals.  So I say to Bobby Jindal: PLEASE RAISE OUR TAXES!!!