Rise of the Tea Party

[NotNow]

That is the silliest thing I have seen all day.   

[BridgeTroll]

Well how can you run from the fact that all of america participates in this Norse Religion stuff?

Both sides do it!  Both Sides!

The Norse worshippers and the non norse worshipers alike.

Good lord Stephen... I am sure you have a satisfyingly obscure point to this...... may we hear it?

Well it goes back to the basic absurdity of trying to find joint authorship of an idea, long after the fact has become fait accompli.

Just because you use the names of the old norse gods for the days of the week doesnt make you complicit in norse mythology or philosophy does it?  You are simply subscribing to the order of the day and the times, and operating in the widely accepted paradigm.  After all, you do have choices.  You could call the days after their numerical value, you could use their french names, you could simply refuse to utter the dreaded norse names after all.

But you don't.  This doesnt mean that you believe in the All Father, his thunderous son or the queen of the norns.

Similarly, the idea of tax breaks for wealthy individuals who contribute to good causes or spend their money in a specific way was a conservative notion that was championed by conservatives on behalf of the wealthy in order to avoid the competing New Deal philosophy that social costs were best paid for by tax money.

The conservatives won the argument, and the outcome has been just as mixed as if the Liberals had won.

But that doesnt mean that operating within the common framework gives any kind of shared 'responsibility' for the origin of the ideas.

And its absurd to try and obfuscate the matter anyways.

The tax breaks represent a pre existing negotiation, and trying to undo the loopholes will have unintended consequences if the conditions that required this negotiated solution arent addressed.

You simply cannot go around blindly, ineptly trying to restructure this stuff without risking disasters.

Seems kinda weird hearing the "We cannot change that because thats the way we have always done it argument" from you...

That would be weird indeed.  Is that what you are interpreting my post as being about?

This...

The tax breaks represent a pre existing negotiation, and trying to undo the loopholes will have unintended consequences if the conditions that required this negotiated solution arent addressed.

You simply cannot go around blindly, ineptly trying to restructure this stuff without risking disasters.

[BridgeTroll]

Yes... I do.  Have I misinterpreted something?  Perhaps I should not think the norse god Woden is creepy?

[BridgeTroll]

  No problemo!

[BridgeTroll]

Perhaps you explain your point slowly for me... minus references to Norse gods... then maybe we can move forward?

[JeffreyS]

Yes... I do.  Have I misinterpreted something?  Perhaps I should not think the norse god Woden is creepy?

So you read the admonition to understand the underlying reasons for something before changing it to mean, "Don't change it because thats the way its always been done"?

Well, ok, Bridge Troll, if thats what you take away from the conversation, it certainly explains a lot about many of your other political posts. 

I though the same thing Stephen that you were saying the loopholes don't work but we can not lose the loopholes. So you just think we need to better understand the loopholes first? Now remember the loopholes change every year in exchange for "contributions" so study fast.

[BridgeTroll]

I think this means Jeffrey and I are truely interested in the point you are trying to make...

[BridgeTroll]

Sorry Stephen... just cause you think something is childish doesn't make it so.  The same holds for your "version" of tax loophole history.  I evade nothing by using Rangel as an example... as I have stated quite often... that he is simply an example.  You may freely substitute any congressmans name you wish... chances are very good they have been involved in something similar.

As for the loopholes themselves.  I am quite aware of the house of cards for which they are built.  Hence my constant annoyance at GG, Faye, or yourself wailing about some corporate welfare for X company or "tax breaks" for the rich BS.  Thank you for making my argument.  The terms Corporate welfare, tax breaks for the rich, Tax evading corporations are no more than BUMPER STICKERS... and I am very happy to hear you finally say so.

I do agree with you that closing the loopholes and breaks is not as simple as most on the left seem to believe...

I also appreciate the complete lack of Norse god references...

[Garden guy]

I'm so happy to be an annoyance to you mrs troll...with out me and those like me the world would be full of you and from what i've heard from your fingers  it would'nt be a place anyone would really want...

[buckethead]

I'm has confused.

[BridgeTroll]

Sorry Stephen... just cause you think something is childish doesn't make it so.  The same holds for your "version" of tax loophole history.  I evade nothing by using Rangel as an example... as I have stated quite often... that he is simply an example.  You may freely substitute any congressmans name you wish... chances are very good they have been involved in something similar.

As for the loopholes themselves.  I am quite aware of the house of cards for which they are built.  Hence my constant annoyance at GG, Faye, or yourself wailing about some corporate welfare for X company or "tax breaks" for the rich BS.  Thank you for making my argument.  The terms Corporate welfare, tax breaks for the rich, Tax evading corporations are no more than BUMPER STICKERS... and I am very happy to hear you finally say so.

I do agree with you that closing the loopholes and breaks is not as simple as most on the left seem to believe...

I also appreciate the complete lack of Norse god references...

And I would appreciate a complete lack of your Democrats as the blood of Jesus equivocations.

And you clearly still don't understand the issue, if you think that moving a corporation to Dubai in order to avoid taxes is the same thing as exploiting a tax loophole.

I'm not that interested in a response, but I would be curious to see a link where I have 'bewailed' corporation x.

Perhaps in the secret little partisan land where you concoct most of these formulaic posts, it exists, but please...do share it with me.

I understand the issue well enough.  I will admit that I probably do not understand the issue from YOUR perspective.  But that would be nothing new.

Partisan Land?? Formulaic??  Really??  I suspect if we could do a word count of the entire site of the words Tea, Conservative, and republican... you would win going away...

[BridgeTroll]

Sorry Stephen... just cause you think something is childish doesn't make it so.  The same holds for your "version" of tax loophole history.  I evade nothing by using Rangel as an example... as I have stated quite often... that he is simply an example.  You may freely substitute any congressmans name you wish... chances are very good they have been involved in something similar.

As for the loopholes themselves.  I am quite aware of the house of cards for which they are built.  Hence my constant annoyance at GG, Faye, or yourself wailing about some corporate welfare for X company or "tax breaks" for the rich BS.  Thank you for making my argument.  The terms Corporate welfare, tax breaks for the rich, Tax evading corporations are no more than BUMPER STICKERS... and I am very happy to hear you finally say so.

I do agree with you that closing the loopholes and breaks is not as simple as most on the left seem to believe...

I also appreciate the complete lack of Norse god references...

And I would appreciate a complete lack of your Democrats as the blood of Jesus equivocations.

And you clearly still don't understand the issue, if you think that moving a corporation to Dubai in order to avoid taxes is the same thing as exploiting a tax loophole.

I'm not that interested in a response, but I would be curious to see a link where I have 'bewailed' corporation x.

Perhaps in the secret little partisan land where you concoct most of these formulaic posts, it exists, but please...do share it with me.

I understand the issue well enough.  I will admit that I probably do not understand the issue from YOUR perspective.  But that would be nothing new.

Partisan Land?? Formulaic??  Really??  I suspect if we could do a word count of the entire site of the words Tea, Conservative, and republican... you would win going away...

I have more than 20 thousand posts, bridge troll.

And writing about something often is not the same thing as formulaic.

look it up.  and while you are there, look up the word 'conflation'.

I see you do not disagree with the winner of the word count... 20k posts or not... and I would not attempt to usurp your mastery of conflation...

[buckethead]

Conflation=Congress?

The two party system?