Teabagger "reasoning" summed up

[n2doc]

[Lerkfish]

1. gotta love the african american with a swastika

(not that I think there are any black teabaggers) but it highlights in one image the concept of working against your own interests

[gordianot]

5. I do recall an African American speaker on You Tube at the Washington hate fest in September.

Not been able to find it since. Pay someone enough anything is possible. African Americans would not be welcome at the Tea Bag rallies in East Central Missouri there is a strong local KKK element at these rallies.

[me b zola]

22. Keep searching for that *one* Black person

:hurts:

[Naturyl]

2. Yep, that's really about it.

They are trained, brainwashed, and indoctrinated to always put the interests of the rich ruling class first. They believe they are standing up for "freedom" by doing so, because that is what they have been trained to think. ONLY in a society where this is the case can the rich ruling class loot the general populace at will and laugh all the way to the bank again and again. The existence of a large class of people trained to associate the interests of the rich ruling class with positive psychological buzzwords like "freedom" and "fairness" is an absolute necessity for modern capitalism to work.

In reality, some of these people are so far gone that they would thank a firing squad for shooting them, should the cultural leaders and media figureheads decide that was the "American" thing to do. And you can be sure that somebody would be making a tidy profit on selling the bullets...

[gorfle]

3. No, that is not it at all.

They are trained, brainwashed, and indoctrinated to always put the interests of the rich ruling class first.

I believe this is an incorrect assessment.

Let me preface this by saying that I am for single-payer health care. I have voted Democratic since 2006. But my whole family is Republican.

There are a lot of people in this country who believe that accepting charity is shameful. They believe that everyone has a personal responsibility to provide for themselves and their families. This means putting food on your own table by yourself, providing shelter for your family by yourself, and buying health care for your family by yourself. For these people, having to accept charity to have these things is the ultimate disgrace.

These people would be mortified to have to ask their neighbors to provide these things for them, and they would be highly resentful of being forced to provide them for other people.

They do not see this as having anything to do with the interests of rich people. They see this as an exercise in personal responsibility, and if you fail at it, you suffer the consequences.

Now these same folks want some things to be born by the collective. Defense, for example. Police services. Fire services. They just have not yet come around to the idea that health care should be one of those services collectively provided by all.

Personally I've given up trying to convince them of the virtue of health care welfare for all.

I just couch it like this: Would you rather spend trillions of dollars for the welfare if Iraqis and Afghans, or spend it on the welfare of Americans?

[Naturyl]

4. Yes, that's also a big part of it.

I think you're framing it too generously, though. That might be the way your right-wing family frames it to you, and it may be accurate enough insofar as it it only shows the "positive" (as defined by cultural standards) side of their thinking. But it isn't only their own individual pride in slogans such as "hard work" and "personal responsibility" motivating them. It is an also an active desire to DENY any sort of "free ride" to others - even others who do not share their values and do not mind accepting benefits. In this sense, it is a typical sort of values-chauvinism that attempts to force everyone to live by the values of a certain group.

Also, please keep in mind that inculcating values such as "hard work" and "personal responsibility" in the general populace is VERY CRITICAL to the success of the rich ruling class, and that is a HUGE part of why these values are promoted so vigorously in American culture. So, in that sense, it really does all go back to my original explanation.

EDIT: Also, it's possible you've been spending too much time with your self-described right-wing family, because the way slogans like "personal responsibility" were underlined suggests that perhaps there is an excessive respect for such propaganda items. Your summary of their values read very much like I might expect it to read if they had posted it themselves. No offense or slight intended, just calling it like I see it.

[cark]

6. values-chauvinism

" It is an also an active desire to DENY any sort of "free ride" to others - even others who do not share their values and do not mind accepting benefits. In this sense, it is a typical sort of values-chauvinism that attempts to force everyone to live by the values of a certain group."


I want to deny a free-ride to others as well as do most people. Why should anyone get a free ride? Safety net, yes free ride no. Do you have 'values-chauvinism' when you attempt to force others to live by your certain standards? I'm tired of the everyone who has different political desires being declared evil by the other side. It goes both ways and is destroying our country. We need to find common ground and work to let people live as freely as possible.

[Naturyl]

7. Common ground, eh?

"I want to deny a free-ride to others as well as do most people."

Yes, I know. The translation of that is "work or die," and I'm well aware that most Americans favor it. America is an inherently regressive country, where the entire political spectrum is shifted significantly rightward. Here, the idea of allowing people to starve or be without the basic necessities of life due to economic non-compliance is not yet controversial even on the left, which is an unfortunate indication of how far right our "left" has drifted.

"Why should anyone get a free ride?"

Primarily because it is absolutely insane to imagine that of all the six billion people on Earth, each and every one shares a desire to spend the majority of their waking lives pursuing economic activity. In reality, of course, many do not - and if they are forced to do so anyway in order simply to survive, then they are literally enslaved. Yes, enslaved. No lesser term will do, because that is the simple fact of it, and no amount of indoctrinated propaganda can make it go away.

"Do you have 'values-chauvinism' when you attempt to force others to live by your certain standards?"

No, because unlike yourself and most Americans, that is exactly what I *do not* do. I believe that every single human being should be entitled to the basic necessities of life without qualification or obligation. Without regard to color, creed, values, beliefs, employment status, or ANY other factor. In my view, there is nothing more progressive than this view. America is not yet ready for it (even on the left), but I believe that it will someday be the only morally acceptable position.

"I'm tired of the everyone who has different political desires being declared evil by the other side."

You're probably on the wrong website then, because DU opposes right-wing views, often in the strongest possible terms.

"It goes both ways and is destroying our country. We need to find common ground and work to let people live as freely as possible."

I'm not interested in "common ground" with regressive people who hate everything I value. Nor am I interested in "living as freely as possible" (a pretty obvious libertarian giveaway) unless "freedom" is meaningfully defined - and in current American culture, it is most certainly not. Your support for the "work or die" enslavement (and the support of most Americans for it) is ample proof of that.

[tmyers09]

9. + infinite

<33333

[Naturyl]

12. Thanks.

:) I appreciate the support. And welcome to DU!

Not hard to tell the difference between a genuine progressive with under 1000 posts and something... else... with under 1000 posts, is it?

[cark]

10. Moronic

Who should provide these basic necessities to the people that are no longer interested in pursuing economic activity? Are you going to or do you expect someone else to do it?

If you are a member of a society you should feel obligated to put forth enough effort to sustain yourself (to the best of your ability). Anything less then YOU are enslaving others by forcing them to work to support you. Yes enslaved, because no lesser term will do. Helping others is what a decent society should do, not providing a free ride to people that decide they don't want to participate.

[Naturyl]

11. Yadda-yadda, heard it all before.

If I were interested in arguing the matter, I would do so with someone more reasonable than you appear to be.

And in fact I've done so multiple times. The answers to your unoriginal objections are covered in detail in this thread, for example:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x3817932

Have a look or don't, as you please. It's quite evident nothing there will change your mind anyway.

[gorfle]

17. On Guaranteed Minimum Income.

I'm replying here so that it is not lost in the other, old thread.

1. A GMI will instantly and permanently end poverty in America. Unless a citizen, for whatever reason, were to refuse the GMI, he or she could not be poor. With the elimination of poverty would come the eradication or amelioration of the countless (costly) social problems it engenders - problems not limited to crime, poor health practices, a certain number of mental or physical illnesses aggravated by degrading living conditions, etc. The potential for tangible social equity is enormous, and may in time more than offset the entire cost of the GMI.

If someone took their GMI and blew it on bon bons, they would indeed still be poor.

2. Contrary to uninformed claims and our own intuitions, studies show that a GMI would NOT be a significant disincentive to work, and would not result in unmanageable numbers of people refusing traditional employment. An important Canadian study showed only a 2-3% reduction in total hours worked when a GMI was offered, exploding the myth that nobody would stay gainfully employed. Even if we were to triple these numbers for the sake of argument, a 6-9% voluntary reduction in total hours worked could ease unemployment woes for job-seekers and have a positive impact in multiple other areas.

This seems to contradict point #5. In any case, why should anyone be able to force other people to pay for their sustenance?

3. Although a GMI will involve significant cost, it will also also offer the opportunity for considerable savings to taxpayers by making obsolete all of the current social service programs such as welfare, SSI, disability, retirement benefits, food stamps, etc. The billions now spent on these programs could be redirected to the GMI, offsetting a large portion of its cost.

I doubt this. I can easily see people blowing their GMI on bon-bons and then still needing social service programs. I could possibly support GMI if it truly eliminated all the other social programs you mention, but I have little faith in the financial intelligence of people only capable of or willing to take GMI to be able to handle their finances properly so that the would not blow it.

4. By providing income security and de-coupling basic survival from employment, a GMI will allow for much greater flexibility in employment arrangements, allowing employers and workers to explore departures from the traditional "full time/part time" model. By giving both employers and workers more genuine choice in their employment options, new jobs will be created which may not have been economically feasible before.

What sort of departures? What sort of new jobs?

5. A GMI has the potential to vastly improve workplace productivity by ridding the workplace of unmotivated workers and "free riders" who are "only there for the paycheck." As all employers and business owners realize, such workers drag down workplace efficiency and atmosphere through chronic under-performance. By ensuring that all employees truly want to be at work, employers can become and remain more competitive.

This seems to contradict item #2. Further, I'd say that someone pursuing a paycheck is hardly "unmotivated". They are motivated by a paycheck. Money motivates nearly everyone. Now whether or not everyone likes working or not is another story, but one that I'm not terribly sympathetic towards. I work and pull my weight, so can you.

6. A GMI has the potential to reduce excessive consumption by creating a small but significant class of people who voluntarily live with less in order to pursue interests other than traditional employment. Such voluntary simplicity could positively impact problems such as the energy crisis, global warming, pollution, etc. If we are serious about "saving the Earth," perhaps we should consider strongly motivating people to live with less.

I would rather we invest in technologies that allow us to live with more, rather than less. I want to increase our standard of living, not decrease it.

In any case, there is nothing from stopping people from engaging in such "voluntary simplicity" and living with less today.

7. A GMI will strongly encourage the development of a culture conducive to effective democracy by allowing citizens much greater freedom and flexibility in pursuing cultural pillars such as education, art, civics, etc. When basic survival is de-coupled from labor, more hours can be devoted to personal development of the kind our founding fathers deemed necessary to effective democracy.

There is nothing stopping people from pursuing education, art, civics, and similar endeavors today. And if you do well at those endeavors, you will be rewarded for it. And if not, well, why should society subsidize poor endeavors?

8. A GMI has the potential to strongly encourage the formation and continued development of profoundly liberal and progressive values. Human nature being what it is, we know that only when a society puts "its money where its mouth is" can its inspiring rhetoric and its professed values be taken seriously. By ensuring once and for all that no American will ever do without the basic necessities of life for ANY reason, we demonstrate a firm and uncompromising commitment to the compassionate values we hold dear.

I guess my compassion is stronger for people who try and fail and need help while trying again rather than for those who have simply unplugged and refuse to try at all. I guess I'm not profoundly liberal enough.

9. A GMI allows the uniquely American emphasis on "freedom" to be expressed in a way that is profoundly meaningful in our daily lives. Personal liberty is sharply abridged and even made a mockery of when citizens are forced by economic circumstance to spend the majority of their waking lives doing work that is not meaningful to them as individuals. Reporting daily to a degrading job one despises just to keep food on the table and the lights burning is not "freedom" in any meaningful sense, and if we are serious about being a beacon of human liberty, we must make people free in the tangible and immediate ways that really matter each day of their lives.

If you weren't so serious in your writing I'd almost be laughing at this as satire.

I just don't know what to say here. Your ideology is 180 degrees from my own, and I don't know if I will ever be able to reconcile it. In my view, everyone has to pull their own weight. This is the only fair solution. Allowing some people to live off the confiscation of the efforts of others is blatantly unfair to me. I do not believe in a society where everyone is left to fend for themselves completely, but nor can I endorse a vision where some people can simply not fend for themselves at all.

10. Last but far from least, a GMI will cost a lot less than we might imagine. Prevailing estimates put the annual cost at $60-90 billion - which may sound like a great deal of money, but it does not take into account any of the potential institutional and social savings mentioned above. Factoring in such savings as well as the considerable social capital a GMI could create, the "net" cost might be little or nothing. Even so, the un-adjusted full cost of $60-90 would represent just 1/7 to 1/10 of the Pentagon's annual military budget.

I'm skeptical that such a program that is claimed to replace "welfare, SSI, disability, retirement benefits, food stamps" would be so cheap.

[mia]

20. I share your views.

Thanks for your posts on this thread.

[gorfle]

21. No prob. Thanks. n/t

.

[cark]

18. So would you opt for the GMI?

or would you work extra hard to help provide me with a GMI, food, shelter and healthcare so I can concentrate on playing golf?

I changed my mind, I think the GMI is a great idea. Where do I sign up?

Maybe all the fundies will grasp onto your idea, quit their jobs and spend their lives spreading the gospel while taxpayers graciously sponsors their ministry.

[HughMoran]

23. Live and let die

It's the republican motto.

It's also archaic and inhuman.

[gorfle]

16. On being enslaved.

Primarily because it is absolutely insane to imagine that of all the six billion people on Earth, each and every one shares a desire to spend the majority of their waking lives pursuing economic activity. In reality, of course, many do not - and if they are forced to do so anyway in order simply to survive, then they are literally enslaved. Yes, enslaved. No lesser term will do, because that is the simple fact of it, and no amount of indoctrinated propaganda can make it go away.

Yes, we are all enslaved in one way or another. Look, it would be great if we could all unplug from the rat race and just lie back on the beach and eat bon bons all day while others took care of our needs, and I have no doubt you are right that there are lots of the six billion people on Earth who would love that setup.

But the fact is, most people have to trade something of value in order to get food and shelter, and that usually means we have to work to get that something of value to trade.

Some day, if we master energy and matter so that there is no scarcity we can all live lives of luxury. Until then, we are enslaved.

[gorfle]

13. A minor correction.

But it isn't only their own individual pride in slogans such as "hard work" and "personal responsibility" motivating them. It is an also an active desire to DENY any sort of "free ride" to others - even others who do not share their values and do not mind accepting benefits.

Yes absolutely. Like I said, these people are highly resentful of anyone attempting to force them to provide a free ride for others.

In this sense, it is a typical sort of values-chauvinism that attempts to force everyone to live by the values of a certain group.

They would say (and so would I, for that matter) that the only people being forced to live by certain values are those being made to pay for it.

Most of the folks I know that are against single-payer health care are live-and-let-live. They are not interested in forcing their values on anyone. But nor are they interested in paying to support someone else's "values".

Also, please keep in mind that inculcating values such as "hard work" and "personal responsibility" in the general populace is VERY CRITICAL to the success of the rich ruling class, and that is a HUGE part of why these values are promoted so vigorously in American culture. So, in that sense, it really does all go back to my original explanation.

I tend to reject arguments that "the man is keeping us down", as I've never felt I've been kept down in my endeavors in life. Hard work and personal responsibility are very critical to the success of anyone, which is THE reason why these values are promoted so vigorously in American culture.

Also, it's possible you've been spending too much time with your self-described right-wing family, because the way slogans like "personal responsibility" were underlined suggests that perhaps there is an excessive respect for such propaganda items. Your summary of their values read very much like I might expect it to read if they had posted it themselves. No offense or slight intended, just calling it like I see it.

No, you are exactly right, I am a huge proponent of personal responsibility and one of the things I find distasteful is the negative attitude that the deck is stacked and no one can get ahead in life by their own efforts.

I'm one of those new guys under the Democratic Party umbrella tainting the purity of the party, I suppose. :) I'm here not so much because of my views on social welfare, but more so because of my views on wars, erosions of civil liberties, torture, corporatism, and the environment.

[guitar man]

8. I understand that

And I share many of the same values with them. I have worked all my life and do the best I can to provide for my family, managed to pay our home off in '03 by busting my ass.

However, I have always known that I most likely would never be able to provide some things, things that are priced beyond reach for us middle class working stiffs and I'm ok with that. We can live in the house we can afford, drive the cars that we can afford and watch the TV we can afford and so on and so forth. But, when health care is priced out of reach that's a different matter, it's something we can't do without.

I grew up in the country and remember Dr Smith's family practice. He managed to keep his rates reasonable and I can still remember him accepting produce, eggs and chickens etc. from the farmers as payment. Those days are gone, now you either pay up bigtime or they send a collection agency after you.

What we need to get people to realize is that this healthcare thing isn't about money, it isn't about things, it's about people. The "free market" is fine for things, I believe we should be able to trade things on the free market until the cows come home, but people....people should never be "one the market". That's just barbaric :(

[gorfle]

14. I agree.

The "free market" is fine for things, I believe we should be able to trade things on the free market until the cows come home, but people....people should never be "one the market". That's just barbaric :(

I agree, especially when there is always money for wars, or banks, or insurance companies.

[me b zola]

24. Pssst. If you're talking to freep-creeps

You are framing it all wrong. Welfare to them is evil. The term "personal responsibility" makes them salivate.

You think that they are more mortified to accept a handout than liberals or any person is general? WRONG. You should freaking tell them this. It may be slightly more hurtful to them only because of how they treat others who are in need.

They like thinking in terms of "the good old days", so it can be very helpful to bring the conversation to a smaller/tribal nation(where everyone was armed!). If you have 3 thousand members in your tribe, and 25% of them are elderly, and 25% of them are children, you only have 1500--or 50%--to count on for meeting most of the tribes needs/protection. Can they not see that it is the tribe's best interest to feed and keep healthy their tribe members?

You have to explain that most people really want to be important and give back. That the stronger the general populist is the better a person will be able to contribute--which benefits the entire tribe. When you get huge nations such as the US, you can't cripple the nation because there will always be a small percentage that will only take and not give, no one will ever be able to change that.

Ensuring the basic need of citizens is not welfare...its just smart.

[liberal N proud]

15. Well, They see it that way if it is you or me but if they are the ones..

They expect the best treatment regardless if they can afford it.

[malaise]

19. Perfect

sheeple.