Tea Party Socialism

[Dennis S]

Pretty much proof that the Republicans don't want to shrink government - they want to funnel money to the already rich.


http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/tea_..._20101005/

[OWC Jamie]

It must be vast white ring conspiracy time.

[cbelt3]

To simplify, I'll point out that the article is about farm subsidies, and the fact that TEA party politicians are tarred with the same subsidy brush that politicians from both major political parties are tarred with.

The relative merit or lack of merit for farm subsidies (or any targeted subsidy or tax break) is not discussed in the article. So it's a simple political attack 'article' that fails to note that suckling at the farm subsidy teat is common to all of 'em, not just a few TEA party activists.

NOW... if you want to talk about subsidies in general, it's important to note that tax breaks, subsidies, and other forms of what are referred to as 'corporate welfare' or 'entitlement programs' are nothing more than social engineering by the government. And such activity is endemic to all governments. And also argued about when fair trade agreements between nations are negotiated.

"You're undervaluing your yuan !"
"You're undervaluing your corn !"
and so forth.

Farm subsidies are a political third rail... politicians that touch them... do not get re-elected.

[hal]

another biased blogger - yawn...

I find hit pieces boring - this writer doesn't try to hide the fact that he HATES repubs and tea baggers... good for preaching to the choir, but not much else...

you certainly can't expect to change conservative minds when they are being constantly insulted as they read... assuming that they would bother and I can't imagine why they would...

[Ted King]

Are there any facts that are incorrect or inferences made in the article that are invalid?

So even though the Tea Party types can have as a central part of their campaign against Democrats that there needs to be strong reductions in non-defense government spending, it's okay that Tea Party types aren't critical of farm subsidies because Democrats favor subsidies too?

[cbelt3]

Ted King wrote:
Are there any facts that are incorrect or inferences made in the article that are invalid?

So even though the Tea Party types can have as a central part of their campaign against Democrats that there needs to be strong reductions in non-defense government spending, it's okay that Tea Party types aren't critical of farm subsidies because Democrats favor subsidies too?

Ted,

Not as such. It's just continued proof that single-sided 'hit pieces' (good term, thanks hal) are mere propaganda, and should be treated as such. We all recognize that 'unbiased' reporting is dead, and 'fair and balanced' means 'written to favor one group'. But that doesn't mean I like it, or will accept it. I'd be perfectly willing to discuss subsidies as a socio-economic force, as long as we recognize that subsidies in general are not unique to any party (with the exception of the ideologically pure libertarians who claim to eschew tham).

[Ted King]

cbelt3 wrote:
[quote=Ted King]
Are there any facts that are incorrect or inferences made in the article that are invalid?

So even though the Tea Party types can have as a central part of their campaign against Democrats that there needs to be strong reductions in non-defense government spending, it's okay that Tea Party types aren't critical of farm subsidies because Democrats favor subsidies too?

Ted,

Not as such. It's just continued proof that single-sided 'hit pieces' (good term, thanks hal) are mere propaganda, and should be treated as such. We all recognize that 'unbiased' reporting is dead, and 'fair and balanced' means 'written to favor one group'. But that doesn't mean I like it, or will accept it. I'd be perfectly willing to discuss subsidies as a socio-economic force, as long as we recognize that subsidies in general are not unique to any party (with the exception of the ideologically pure libertarians who claim to eschew tham).
I agree that truthdig should not label their opinion pieces "reports", but it doesn't take long at all at that site to see that that is what they obviously have to offer - opinion pieces. As such, they aren't significantly different than what you would find in the opinion section of the New York Times or Wall Street Journal. If it is legitimate to call the truthdig opinion article a "hit piece" and "propaganda" then the same could be said of many opinion pieces in those newspapers. That's okay with me, but I just wanted to put it in perspective. I could peruse the "The Weekly Standard" and label a fair chunk, if not a majority of articles with the same labels.

Here's the thing, though. An opinion piece can present factual information and valid logic to try to make a persuasive case. To simply dismiss such an opinion piece as a "hit piece" or "just propaganda" is just a little too easy and convenient isn't it? Isn't it more legitimate to use factual information and valid logic to make a counter-argument?


Yes, support for subsidies are not unique. But Tea Partiers have made the reduction of non-military spending a central principle. If, as seems to be an implication of what you are saying, in spite of having reduction of non-military spending as a central principle, Tea Partiers do support some subsidies, then what is their reasoning behind which subsidies are legitimate and which are not? I've never heard such criteria mentioned by any Tea Party advocate and certainly seems to me that there are no such criteria widely and forcefully espoused. So I say that it is very fair to call for Tea Party advocates to either state that they are against all subsidies or clearly spell out what their criteria are for which subsidies are legitimate subsidies and which are not.