# Tea Party Wins



## Fishbone Jones (14 Sep 2010)

*Tea party favorite wins Delaware GOP Senate nod *  

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/39170344/ns/politics-decision_2010/

WASHINGTON — Virtually unknown a month ago, Christine O'Donnell rode a surge of support from tea party activists to victory in the Delaware Republican Senate primary Tuesday night in an upset as stunning as any other in a season of recession and political upheaval. A second insurgent led for the GOP nomination in New Hampshire. 

O'Donnell defeated Rep. Mike Castle, a fixture in Delaware politics for a generation who campaigned with the strong backing of party officials in his state and in Washington.  

 More on Link

So I have to wonder if people have finally had enough and this is a portent of things to come. There is a lot of anger directed at Washington, not just Obama, but Washington in general. The Republicans thought they could co-opt the Tea Party and the Tea Party just shoved their nose in it. She smoked Castle. I think it would be great to see a three party system in the US.


----------



## Journeyman (14 Sep 2010)

As has been mentioned in some other threads, I think this only further divides the the political right, which may lead to a string of Democratic election victories until the Republicans/Tea Party sort themselves out.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (14 Sep 2010)

Journeyman said:
			
		

> As has been mentioned in some other threads, I think this only further divides the the political right, which may lead to a string of Democratic election victories until the Republicans/Tea Party sort themselves out.



There is that, of course. However, the Tea Party has started to appeal to middle America, not elephants and jackasses in particular. It may take some time as any new party likely would, but eventually they can likely siphon enough from both parties to come up the middle and unbalance both. Maybe not this time, but if they can maintain this kind of momentum, the race in 2012 will be really interesting.


----------



## a_majoor (15 Sep 2010)

The TEA party seems to be consuming the Republican party from within (capturing wards and the party machinery, and nominating their own candidates). 

As a practical matter, I doubt the TEA party will become a separate political entity, but the number of TEA party Republicans will initially be very small, limiting their influence in the House and Senate. They will become important as "swing" votes iin the Congress, and eventually the balance will start tipping in their favour, although we might have to wait for 2014 and 2016 to get enough numbers in the Congress to see a real difference.


----------



## muskrat89 (15 Sep 2010)

> Tea Party has started to appeal to middle America, not elephants and jackasses in particular.



I am fairly active in our local Tea Party - the person that usually sits next to my wife and I is an African-American lady that is a Democrat. Many people are fed-up with both sides.

One of the targets of many Tea Partiers are RINOs. The strategy is to get active within the party of your choice (granted, most are Republicans) to nominate and elect candidates that more closely reflect their values. For us, that means Conservative candidates.

My local group does not endorse candidates for any race. Their goal is to educate members and let them make their own choices. There are many misconceptions about the Tea Party movement; the biggest in my opinion is that the Tea Party is a party; it has no desire to be a party. It's a grassroots movement to shrink government, reduce spending, and hold all elected representatives accountable.


----------



## jollyjacktar (15 Sep 2010)

muskrat89 said:
			
		

> I am fairly active in our local Tea Party - the person that usually sits next to my wife and I is an African-American lady that is a Democrat. Many people are fed-up with both sides.
> 
> One of the targets of many Tea Partiers are RINOs. The strategy is to get active within the party of your choice (granted, most are Republicans) to nominate and elect candidates that more closely reflect their values. For us, that means Conservative candidates.
> 
> My local group does not endorse candidates for any race. Their goal is to educate members and let them make their own choices. There are many misconceptions about the Tea Party movement; the biggest in my opinion is that the Tea Party is a party; it has no desire to be a party. It's a grassroots movement to shrink government, reduce spending, and hold all elected representatives accountable.



Perhaps, it is partly stemming from using the word "party" in your movement's name.  I realize it's roots in the Boston Tea Party incident, but .....  Also, for one who does not really follow the American political system's process (I find it at times bloody confusinga and too lengthy) it gives me a good quick thumbnail of your aims and direction.  I'll admit, I thought it was a whole new party too that aimed to change things ala' Reform Party.


----------



## Edward Campbell (29 Jul 2011)

I wonder if the most recent dissent in the GOP's ranks indicates the birthing pangs of a new political party. Is the Tea Party ready for independence?

It appears, to me, that there is too little common ground between the _traditional_ or _establishment_ Republicans and the new _Tea Party_ Republicans to sustain their fragile unity beyond 2012.

(I doubt that either the _establishment_ or the Tea Party Republicans will want to divide before the next election ~ neither group would gain anything from giving control of the House of Representatives back to Nancy Pelozi's Democrats.)

But what about the campaign, proper? As far as I can see the _establishment_ Republicans still control the party apparatus and the purse strings. Will the _establishment_ Republicans accept the Tea party incumbents for re-election, as Republicans, or will they run an _establishment_ candidate and create three way races?

In the near and maybe even mid terms that scenario only serves the Democrats, but I wonder if that is top of the mind for either the _establishment_ or Tea Party Republicans. It appears to me that the culture wars are being waged, right now, between the “hard right” (Tea Party) and the “soft right” (_establishment_ Republicans) ~ the aim being to determine who carries the banner against the Democratic “left.”

There have been many "third party" stillbirths over the last century, perhaps this is just another, but the divisions between the _Establishment_ Reppublicans and the Tea Party seem very deep.


----------



## Brad Sallows (30 Jul 2011)

I have doubted since the midterm elections that the Republican party will remain as it is.  It will either be turned over from the inside or there will be a factional splintering.  The US does not need a party which is just a slightly slower Democratic party.


----------



## cupper (30 Jul 2011)

The bigger problem is the misread of the 2010 midterm elections. Both parties seem to have missed the message that the electorate is angry with the dysfunctional status quo, where neither party is willing to work with the other. Overall, the GOP is stuck on doing everything possible to prevent Obama from winning a second term, regardless of how beneficial the policies may be for the country. The Dems have no backbone to stand-up to the GOP. So they just sit back and do nothing. And Obama, until recently acts as the observer in chief instead of trying to act as the mediator and / or leader that is needed to move the US out of this mess.

And what has gotten lost in this whole charade is that the problem isn't the debt and deficit, but the fact that unemployment is stuck at 9%+, and that cutting spending won't do a damned thing to improve the situation. Historically, the solution to get out of a recession has been to spend and invest in the economy. This is what creates jobs.

I think that both parties are going to see a voter backlash in 2012. The Tea Party may throw up more candidates in the primaries to dislodge the less conservative incumbents, but will find themselves defeated as the independent vote pulls the electorate back to the center.

Thank your luck that Canada has a much simpler election process, that lasts only 30 days or so. Since the Bush era, the process south ofthe border has become a non-stop spectacle, which causes the voters to tune out, and become wholly apathetic.


----------



## Brad Sallows (30 Jul 2011)

Overall, the second most important problem facing the US (after their dysfunctional budgeting) is to replace Obama.  Preventing a second term is an extremely beneficial policy aim for the country.  Obama is basically a guy who is handy at reading prepared speeches to uncritical audiences.  Beyond that, he is an ego in a suit.  You know what a "walt" is?  Obama is a presidential "walt".  He wants the prestige and admiration of the position, but shows little inclination to do the job or, in some ways, even to act the part of "presidential" (eg. a higher level of graciousness and congeniality in the face of opposition and opprobrium).  Unfortunately, you can't just walk out and buy a costume and trappings and craft a background lie that will make people think you are/were president; you have to win the office.  Obama has the skills and desire to win the office but not to execute it.  He is still an "observer"; I see no real shift to "mediator" or "leader".

Cutting spending will improve the situation because the gap is so large.  The bigger the gap, the faster the approach to the point at which borrowing at reasonable rates is impossible.  That rate of speed must be slowed to allow time to develop other contributions to the solution.  Lost in all the hand-wringing over the bad things that will happen when the US rating moves from AAA to AA+ (or whatever) while the US borrows 40% of every dollar it spends is any conception of what will happen when the US can not borrow at all, or can only borrow at Greek rates, when it must borrow 45% or 50% or more of every dollar it spends.

What creates jobs is business expansion and hiring.  Businesses expand and hire when they predict improved prospects (improvement in the revenues/costs balance).  Recent legislative changes in the US are expected to increase the "costs" side of the equation; political rhetoric of a certain party leads people to believe there may be future changes which are also reasonably expected to increase the "costs" side of the equation.  The amount of increase is uncertain.  It is possible to create jobs in the US without doing very much at all to revenues or expenses: eliminate the uncertainty.  Not every drag on businesses has to be removed; entrepreneurs are willing to work on very small margins of profit, but to do so they need to be certain those margins will not disappear.  Not everyone is a progressive-minded lawyer or consultant with 20-30% margins; some, like oil companies, make do with <10% margins; some people operate small businesses with <5% margins.

Ultimately the TP is going to win its main objective.  If they win in primaries and elections in 2012, they will be able to execute a controlled rebalance.  If they don't, then a dead stop will be reached more quickly (Democrats are incapable of solving the problem except by taxing an increasing share of  a shrinking GDP) and a rebalance will still happen.

Lao Tzu: "Do the difficult things while they are easy and do the great things while they are small. A journey of a thousand miles must begin with a single step."

The US is past the point of doing the difficult/great thing while it is easy/small, but it will only get more difficult/larger.


----------



## a_majoor (30 Jul 2011)

You have drastically misread the situation.  Unemployment is stuck at 9% (or higher, the official figure does not include people who have given up looking for work) because stimulus spending does *not* work (a lesson that apparently needs to be relearned every generation or two) and because the policies and pronouncements by the administration have generated a climate of fear and uncertainty in the business community, leading to a "capital strike" where business refuses to invest or hire since they cannot be sure of being able to recover, much less profit from their investments. 

This happened at the height of the New Deal in 1937 for roughly the same reasons, making 1937-38 the worst years of the depression. Indeed, modern economic research and historiography suggests the Great Depression lasted seven years longer than it "had" to because of government intervention in the economy (read this book for details).

Now the GOP is not entirely blameless; they are trying to milk the situation for political advantage and establishment Republicans are still crony capitalists (which is the real target of the TEA party movement). Few politicians have the backbone needed to put the case for deep spending cuts on the table or to actually vote for spending cuts. Even the Ryan budget passed by the House only scratches the surface.

For anyone who believes the issue is not spending, look again at the charts in this article; revenues have risen 3X since 1965 but spending has risen 4X (with a massive spike beginning in 2006 when the Democrats won the House and Senate). A controlled drawdown in spending is the only way to solve the problem in a reasonably organized fashion (and yes there will be a lot of hurt special interests and generalized pain); the alternative is an uncontrolled crash which will be far worse.


----------



## cupper (30 Jul 2011)

What about the lack of revenue?

If it was a question of freeing up dollars for the businesses to expand and invest, the tax cuts that took place over the past 2 years should have created the perfect climate for job creation. But we haven't seen any change in the unemployment rate.

There are two sides to the deficit reduction equation. Along with spending cuts, you need to increase revenue through tax increases, or elimination of unnecessary tax breaks. You can cut spending to the bone, but unless the revenue side is addressed, you will not achieve anything near the deficit reduction that is being called for.

Part of the loss in revenue is that the tax base has shrunk due to the loss of jobs, and reduction of the economy as a whole. Since revenue has shrunk, more borrowing is necessary to meet the obligations. Get people back to work, and more money will start coming in, businesses will need to produce more to meet the increased demand by a more confident consumer base, increasing economic growth.

As for the so called failure of the stimulus package, the majority of economists agree that there wasn't enough investment in actual employment and job creation programs and policies for it to be effective. The majority of the stimulus package was tax cuts which wasn't going to allow businesses to expand, but keep the current workforce employed.

A major investment (read trillions) in infrastructure renewal will go much further than any spending cut or tax reduction would have a hope achieving. The American Society of Civil Engineers has shown that spending on infrastructure at current rates will cost 870,000 jobs, and will decrease the GDP by $3.1 Trillion by 2020.

People are not spending in the economy because they are fearful that their next paycheck could be their last, that they are only a medical crisis away from going broke, or a major household repair away from losing the home. The government needs to get the economy back moving towards more significant growth, and the best way to do this is by investing in projects that will directly create employment.


----------



## ModlrMike (30 Jul 2011)

It is NOT the role of government to create jobs. It is the role of government to produce the conditions for others to create jobs. Long lasting jobs that contribute to the treasury, not government jobs that cost the treasury in perpetuity. Spending "government" money on short term make work projects is doomed to failure.


Remember, the government has no money of its own. It has lots of other people's money, and because it's other people's money, the government needs to be particularly responsible with how it is spent.


----------



## cupper (30 Jul 2011)

And the government creates those conditions by investing in infrastructure. By providing funding for the construction of new roads and bridges, the government creates the conditions where jobs can be created. For every $1 Billion invested in infrastructure renewal, 2500 new jobs are created either directly or indirectly. Many of the indirect jobs are long term jobs that will remain long past the end of the period of construction.

The jobs created, services provided and goods purchased during the period of the infrastructure program all provide larger sums of revenue back to the government. The improved transportation facility will increase productivity, reduce lost time and income due to congestion, vehicle costs, etc.

I agree that spending needs to be reviewed, and that it needs to be responsible. Government waste contributes to the problem. But unless you change the culture of the pols and their reliance on special interest dollars to get reelected, you will never come to a solution.

It is no accident that the manufacture of military hardware is spread across many congressional districts. This way companies like Lockheed Martin and Boeing can ensure that any program for military equipment that gets funded, remains funded. What politician in their right mind would anger voters in their district by voting to cut funding for a system that the Pentagon neither wants nor endorses. So they keep spending money which would be better suited paying for other more essential programs, on a second alternate engine for a fighter jet that has yet to be selected for service.

Since the government cannot directly negotiate with the drug companies over drug prices supplied to government funded medical programs, cost savings are left unrealized.

What I find amazing is the vocal minority that bitch about the fact that they pay too much in taxes, even though the US is one of the lowest taxed populations in the western world. But they still expect the roads to be paved, the police to protect them form criminals, the fire department to respond to emergencies, the schools to teach their kids, and their hospitals to provide adequate care. I want it all, I just don't want to pay more for it.

Just remember, it's not the businesses and the rich that generate spending in the economy. It's the average everyday worker who spends the wages on food, clothing, housing and so on. What is left over goes to savings, or for non essential expenditures like entertainment, upgrading the lifestyle, etc. If the consumer is not certain of the future, they won't spend money on anything unnecessary. And if they aren't spending, business isn't making money, and jobs aren't being created. The only way consumers will loosen up the purse strings is if they confident that they will still  be able to put food in the table, put clothes on their backs and gas in the tank, both tomorrow and this time next year.


----------



## Edward Campbell (30 Jul 2011)

Jobs are created by _demand_, a _pull_ function. People buy (_demand_) what they need and want; the same people produce (_supply_) the goods and services their neighbours _demand_. Government 'stimulus' is, generally, a _push_ system: government money goes to producers (and through them to individuals) for projects that people _might_ want and even need but an extra, often unproductive, step is placed in the process ~ instead of you and I buying (or not) the cars we need or want, *our* money is used to _push_ some cars into our driveways.

There are things that:

1. Governments can do better than individuals - building highways, for example; and

2. Should do, regardless of efficiency - the national defence, for example.

But much, perhaps even most of what governments do, today, is not 'necessary' (because government *should* do it or *can do it better*) and the people should consider "alternate service delivery." There is a difference between public service and the public sector. We might say, for example, that we 'need' a public broadcaster and we might decide to spend more than $1 Billion each year on that but we do not need a government department to run the CBC, do we? Why should the same principle not apply to say, just for argument, 50% of the departments and agencies on this list

I submit that Canada can, right now, erase its deficit in two years by cutting massively without doing any real harm to the economy or society ~ some "creative destruction," yes, harm, no. If I'm right, if Canada is massively over-governed, then so is the USA and the same desirable result, a balanced public budget, can be achieved the same way: by cutting, cutting and cutting more.


----------



## muskrat89 (30 Jul 2011)

> But they still expect the roads to be paved, the police to protect them form criminals, the fire department to respond to emergencies, the schools to teach their kids, and their hospitals to provide adequate care. I want it all, I just don't want to pay more for it.




Most people, even Tea Partiers, don't mind paying taxes for things like defense, schools, roads, etc. What they do mind paying taxes for are things like these (by both parties):

http://www.areddy.net/mscott/porkabs.html

http://www.cagw.org/reports/pig-book/2010/oinkers.html

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/2009/0414/pig-book-congressional-pork-hits-196-billion-in-2009

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12169524/

http://www.akdart.com/pork3.html

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/12/10/water-taxis-fish-food-gop-highlights-worst-pork-barrel-projects/

Here is the list: 

-- $1.9 million for "water taxis to nowhere" in Pleasure Beach, Conn. Congress approved the money after a fire destroyed the bridge to Pleasure Beach, but the area already is accessible by foot and rowboats. 

-- $3.8 million for an urban art trail in Rochester, N.Y. 

-- $3.1 million for upgrades to a boat owned by the New York State Museum. The boat dates back to 1921 and was originally used in canals. 

-- $3 million for bicycle racks in Georgetown -- the Washington, D.C., neighborhood that is one of the wealthiest areas in the country. 

-- $1.5 million to improve the streetscape in the six blocks surrounding a downtown Detroit casino. 

-- $578,000 for fighting homelessness in Union, N.Y. According to a local news report, the town never asked for the stimulus money and did not even have a program through which to administer the money. The town supervisor said he wasn't aware of a homelessness problem in the town. 

-- $550,000 for a skateboard park in Pawtucket, R.I. 

-- $500,000 for fish food in Missouri, to help defray the costs for state fish farmers. 

-- $400,000 for renovations to a vacant building in City of Jal, N.M. 

-- $380,350 to encourage landowners in West Virginia to grow shiitake mushrooms and ginseng. 

-- $90,000 for a communal kitchen in Watsonville, Calif. The shared kitchen is meant to help food service entrepreneurs.


----------



## cupper (30 Jul 2011)

But with this current congress, we no longer have the pork that they previously railed against. And the expenditures for earmarks (read pork tenderloin) never made up more that 1/10 of 1% of the actual budget.

Even more so, the portion of the budget that cuts are focused on can be cut to the point of elimination and it still would not achieve anywhere near the necessary reduction in expenditures to begin to reduce the deficit or debt.

What really needs to be done is an entire overhaul of the way the US Government spends, and how it raises revenues.

Medicare and Medicaid can continue to be provided, at lower costs and more efficiently by changing the working model of how it is provided and how providers are paid.

Defense needs to review priorities, and look at how much is expended on useless, unnecessary equipment, systems and policies, contracting out for service support functions, etc.

The tax code should be simplified to the point that everyone pays taxes at reasonable rates that cover all of the expenditures. What's wrong with saying that if you make from $0 to 25,000 you pay W%, 25 to 75K you pay X%, 75K to 250K you pay Y% and over $250K you pay Z%. Same with corporate taxes. No loopholes, no deductions, no reductions for any reason.

And force people running for office to use only public funds for elections. Eliminate the special interest money, and perhaps place term limits on officeholders and maybe they will start listening to the electorate.

Maybe then they can get on with the business of governing.


----------



## muskrat89 (30 Jul 2011)

Of course there is still pork spending. From this site  http://www.cagw.org/reports/pig-book/2010/: 



> For fiscal year 2011, House Democrats are not requesting earmarks that go to for-profit entities; House Republicans are not requesting any earmarks (although there are both exceptions and definitional questions); not surprisingly, the Senate has rejected any limits on earmarks.  *None of these reforms are sufficient to eliminate all earmarks, so CAGW expects there will still be a 2011 Pig Book*.
> 
> The transparency changes are far from perfect.  The fiscal year 2010 Defense Appropriations Act contained 35 anonymous projects worth $6 billion, or 59 percent of the total pork in the bill.  Out of the 9,129 projects in the 2010 Congressional Pig Book there were 9,048 requested projects worth $10 billion and 81 anonymous projects worth $6.5 billion.





> And force people running for office to use only public funds for elections



They do that here. It's not all its cracked up to be.  http://www.azcleanelections.gov/home.aspx

Further, I work for a state Agency. They will tell you "Oh, we have cut to the bone.." I mock that openly.


----------



## cupper (30 Jul 2011)

muskrat89 said:
			
		

> They do that here. It's not all its cracked up to be.  http://www.azcleanelections.gov/home.aspx



However, it only applies to candidates who seek matching public funds. As long as they do not seek matching public funds, the contribution limits do not apply.

What I am proposing is completely different.

If you run for office, you can only spend public funds on your election campaign. In other words, the only source of money is the government election money pool. No other sources. Period.

Add to that, the media outlets would need to provide free air time for political advertisement to be equally divided among all candidates. The major beneficiary of all of the fundraising money spent in elections is the media. That's one reason there is a never ending election cycle in the US. 



			
				muskrat89 said:
			
		

> Of course there is still pork spending. From this site  http://www.cagw.org/reports/pig-book/2010/:



But again, the percentage of the budget that the pork makes up is less than 1%. It's like using a tea spoon to bail on the Titanic.


----------



## Brad Sallows (30 Jul 2011)

>Medicare and Medicaid can continue to be provided, at lower costs and more efficiently by changing the working model of how it is provided and how providers are paid.

>Defense needs to review priorities, and look at how much is expended on useless, unnecessary equipment, systems and policies, contracting out for service support functions, etc.

When the discussion revolves around generalized assertions, everyone is confident that "something" can be done more efficiently.  But as soon as someone calls for specifics, the answer is "Oh, no, we can't cut THAT!".


----------



## ModlrMike (30 Jul 2011)

cupper said:
			
		

> For every $1 Billion invested in infrastructure renewal, 2500 new jobs are created either directly or indirectly.



Those are some pretty darned expensive jobs!


----------



## a_majoor (30 Jul 2011)

A general rule of thumb is it takes $50,000 of investment to create a full time job. Once you do the cost/job for most government "stimulus" you find that you have:

a. Removed a vast amount of monetary resources from the private sector to create jobs (through taxation)

b. Spent more (or even far more) to create a job somewhere else, and;

c. Created a temp job which ends with the stimulus funding.

As for infrastructure, note that a huge wave of civil engineering swept Europe and eventually America between roughly the 1600's and mid 1800's to build roads, canals, railways and bridges. Most of this was done by *private contractors seeking profits from tolls*, not by governments. The State could and would fund the occasional road or bridge during that period if there was a military purpose for that, but often it was cheaper and more efficient to march down the roads or sieze the trains that were already built for commercial purposes.

The US Interstate system is often touted as an example of how government spending helps the economy, but this is a secondary and (in fact) unintended consequence of building the "The Dwight D. Eisenhower National System of Interstate and Defense Highways". The Interstate was modeled after the autobahns, which were also built for the same purpose (military transport).


----------



## cupper (30 Jul 2011)

Return on Investment in infrastructure goes far beyond the life of the project itself.

Initial planning creates demand for engineering, legal, planning and other professional services.

Moving from planning to implementation, the demand for labour, materials, engineering and other support services. As more people become employed doing the implementation, they will in turn put money into the economy, as well as providing revenue through income taxes, sales taxes, etc. Companies invest in new equipment purchases, repair or upgrade existing equipment.

Once the project has been completed, IF PROPERLY PLANNED, the new transportation route SHOULD provide reduced transportation costs, increase productivity for users, reduced demand for fuel. Also an increase in property values which access the new route may be realized.

By saying that the jobs are only temporary overlooks the fact that by getting jobs back in the first place, you have created the necessary conditions for growth to occur. In order for that growth to be sustainable, the investments need to be meaningful. As the economy rebounds, the shift will be from projects that are stimulus based, back to those that would normally have been put into place had the economy not been in a state of contraction.

Don't mistake an infrastructure stimulus job with a job creation program scheme. The amount of investment is much higher, but the return on investment is also greater, and takes place in a shorter term. Job creation programs where the government goes out and actually hires people to do work, or pays companies to hire people doesn't provide the same return on investment, and does not have the same long term results.


----------



## cupper (30 Jul 2011)

ModlrMike said:
			
		

> Those are some pretty darned expensive jobs!



My mistake, the correct figure is 25,000 jobs. It was a quotation I had read earlier, but could not find it again, and erred on the low side when quoting it here apparently. :

According to FHWA figures, on average every $Billion in highway expenditures supports 30,000 jobs

http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policy/otps/pubs/impacts/index.htm


----------



## a_majoor (31 Jul 2011)

Your assertation about infrastructure is based on a very dubious set of assumptions.

First off, you completely ignore the issue of Crony Capitalism; taxpayers are being fleeced to repay political contributions by the various companies involved. As well, even assuming there is no Crony Capitalism driving the project, you are paying for two sets of "professional, legal and other services"; the companies involved and the Bureaucrats employed by the State, additional overhead you have to pay for.

Secondly, what constitutes proper planning? Private sector investors need to plan for a profit, so roads, bridges and other infrastructure will follow the markets. Bureaucrats are rewarded for spending money, so have perverse incentives to build bridges to nowhere and other projects which consume funds and resources that could have gone to profitable ventures.

Thirdly, you ignore the fact that taxing money from the private sector in favour of a government "job" is a shell game. Even if a government project could create a job for a $50,000 investment, it still means that $50,000 is missing from some private investment; net job creation=0. Since these jobs often cost more than a private sector job, the net effect is to destroy jobs rather than create them. The primary reason that this sort of nonsense continues is another perverse incentive, politicians can claim success with a cluster of short term jobs (especially near election time) while remaining silent about both the jobs lost in small numbers on a continuing basis from the private sector, and the laid off stimulus workers post election period as well.


----------



## Nauticus (31 Jul 2011)

muskrat89 said:
			
		

> I am fairly active in our local Tea Party - the person that usually sits next to my wife and I is an African-American lady that is a Democrat. Many people are fed-up with both sides.
> 
> One of the targets of many Tea Partiers are RINOs. The strategy is to get active within the party of your choice (granted, most are Republicans) to nominate and elect candidates that more closely reflect their values. For us, that means Conservative candidates.
> 
> My local group does not endorse candidates for any race. Their goal is to educate members and let them make their own choices. There are many misconceptions about the Tea Party movement; the biggest in my opinion is that the Tea Party is a party; it has no desire to be a party. *It's a grassroots movement to shrink government, reduce spending, and hold all elected representatives accountable.*


And two of those three things, in my opinion, are the wrong thing to do right now.


----------



## Nemo888 (31 Jul 2011)

Shrinking government is not a great idea for the US right now.Later when they are back on their feet again I agree. They get horrible value for their money. They pay only 2% less in total taxes by GDP compared to Canadians and get significantly fewer services(health care, tuition, social safety net, etc). There is obviously some room for improvement.

 All the government cuts have thrown their economy into negative growth for over three years now. That's depression territory. It's why the job numbers keep getting worse. Government jobs and increasing unemployment benefits saves jobs and provides a safe form of stimulus when economies falter. The money paid to them goes directly back into the economy. The American economy is too weak for harsh medicine right now. Most economists are in agreement on this. This political theatre is really a self fulfilling prophecy that only sees the US economy get worse. Rather self serving to destroy a country to win an election.

http://www.economist.com/blogs/freeexchange/2011/07/americas-economy


> Distress signal
> 
> Jul 29th 2011, 13:58 by R.A. | WASHINGTON
> 
> ...


----------



## Brad Sallows (31 Jul 2011)

Repeating it twice doesn't make it any more true here.  Also, the article simply repeats the talking point: "we didn't spend enough".  At some point it may have to be recognized that too many harmful and unnecessary (time- and money-wasting) things were done, and few to none of the helpful and necessary things have been done.

1. Assume the highest point of revenue recovery (from which normal rates of year-over-year growth will resume) will be the line formed by joining the points at either base end of the 2003-2007 bubble and extending it into the future.
2. Cut spending to match.
3. Repeal and otherwise eliminate all recent legislation which threatens to increase employer costs, particular if the cost increases are still uncertain (poorly or not understood/quantified).
4. Stop trash-talking the economy (undermining confidence).  It helped elect Democrats (and become a self-fulfilling prophecy) in 2008, but they must not continue in that mode.  Stop blaming Bush for entitlement programs they would have made bigger, temporary tax cuts that they have extended all on their own, wars they have started or not drawn down, and a looming crisis point for which they have plenty of hot air but no plans on paper that anyone is allowed to scrutinize.


----------



## cupper (31 Jul 2011)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> First off, you completely ignore the issue of Crony Capitalism; taxpayers are being fleeced to repay political contributions by the various companies involved.



Most, if not all States have enacted laws against "Pay to Play". As well, a legitimate tendering process tends to nullify the effects of cronyism.



			
				Thucydides said:
			
		

> As well, even assuming there is no Crony Capitalism driving the project, you are paying for two sets of "professional, legal and other services"; the companies involved and the Bureaucrats employed by the State, additional overhead you have to pay for.



And this is different from the ordinary process how? Unless you privatize the government function which oversees the construction and maintenance of infrastructure, you will always have both government and private sector functions together. The key is to eliminate duplication of effort, by having the "bureaucrat" act in a position of oversight, and the private sector perform the work function.



			
				Thucydides said:
			
		

> Secondly, what constitutes proper planning? Private sector investors need to plan for a profit, so roads, bridges and other infrastructure will follow the markets. Bureaucrats are rewarded for spending money, so have perverse incentives to build bridges to nowhere and other projects which consume funds and resources that could have gone to profitable ventures.



First off, I never said anything about private sector investment. I am not talking about public / private partnerships. Two problems with that type of arrangement. First, the private sector is driven by a predetermined return on investment to the investors, which will result in decisions that provide only for the best interest of the shareholders, not the public. Second, government does not need to borrow if tax revenues are invested, and if borrowing is necessary for funding, government will always be able to borrow at a lower rate than the private sector.

Bureaucrates are not rewarded for spending money. If fact they have incentives to minimize expenditures, particularly in the cut cut cut world of todays political climate. If you don't spend the money on one project, it will be spent on another that doesn't stimulate the economy, or else it would be spent on government obligations, so that argument doesn't really stand up.



			
				Thucydides said:
			
		

> Thirdly, you ignore the fact that taxing money from the private sector in favour of a government "job" is a shell game.



I am not in the habit of repeating myself, but *I AM NOT CREATING GOVERNMENT JOBS*. The jobs I am talking about are private sector jobs, people employed by private companies bidding on government construction projects. They are paid at prevailing private sector or union wages. These are not government employees.



			
				Thucydides said:
			
		

> Even if a government project could create a job for a $50,000 investment, it still means that $50,000 is missing from some private investment;



Your assertion that the taxes used to pay for the project would pull money from the private sector that would go into some investment overlooks the fact that the taxes would be paid regardless, unless the project is funded by bond issues which would be the private sector investment you are arguing for. As well, private sector investment does not guarantee the creation of jobs, and certainly doesn't guarantee jobs created in the US.



			
				Thucydides said:
			
		

> Even if a government project could create a job for a $50,000 investment, it still means that $50,000 is missing from some private investment; net job creation=0.



A job created is still a job. Your math doesn't work. In order for the net to be zero, the private sector would need to reduce it's workforce by an equal amount. Let's say that this was true, and using the numbers I previously quoted, the government put $1 Billion in tax dollars on the table to upgrade and improve a highway between two cities. Using the FHWA number of 30,000 jobs are supported by this work, and lets assume that say 30% of those jobs are new jobs created as a result of this project. 9,000 new jobs are created by the project. However, because I pulled $1 Billion in taxes out of the private sector, they now have to reduce their workforce by 9,000. Why? Makes no sense.
  


			
				Thucydides said:
			
		

> Your assertation about infrastructure is based on a very dubious set of assumptions.



My assumptions are based on how the system actually works. Not exactly sure where your assumptions come from, but they seem to have a less stable foundation than the one that supports the ones I use.


----------



## cupper (31 Jul 2011)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> Repeating it twice doesn't make it any more true here.  Also, the article simply repeats the talking point: "we didn't spend enough".  At some point it may have to be recognized that too many harmful and unnecessary (time- and money-wasting) things were done, and few to none of the helpful and necessary things have been done.
> 
> 1. Assume the highest point of revenue recovery (from which normal rates of year-over-year growth will resume) will be the line formed by joining the points at either base end of the 2003-2007 bubble and extending it into the future.
> 2. Cut spending to match.
> ...



Two points:

First, I believe that if you go back and look, the authors make the statement that cutting spending, especially the depths that are being considered today are compounding the problem. Federal spending cuts inevitably put pressure on lower levels of government, who in turn need to cut spending due to the reduced revenues and increased demand on state and local programs. It is not a surprise that unemployment has not gone down, since state and local governments are now laying off employees.

Second, the Congressional Budget Office has shown time after time that the Bush Tax Cuts are a significant contributor to the growing deficit. Pre Bush projections showed a steady increase in the budget surplus out well beyond 2020. 10 years and 2 wars later we find ourselves in a recession that could have been avoided. Essentially Bush took what could have been a oppourtunity to develop a buffer or cushion for economic downturns and decided that maybe it would be nice to give it back to the taxpayers, since we don't really need it. I will agree that there is a part to play for the current administration on the continuation of the bleak economic outlook, but it started under Bush. A lot of the issues that have occurred could have been avoided or minimized had the tax cuts not occurred, better regulatory enforcement taken place, and perhaps letting the Banks that were too big to fail do just that.


----------



## Nemo888 (31 Jul 2011)

Sorry for the double post. I was reading two threads at once. 

I could see a small tax cut on employee side payroll taxes as a temporary stimulus. But tax rates for the upper class need to go back up to previous levels. We nationalized the debt of the rich during the banking crisis, now they should pay us back and carry some of the load IMO. Cuts till the budget is balanced is fine if you also bring rates back up. But cuts alone will only make things  worse. Lets look at cuts again after 12 months of positive GDP. With the real unemployment rate in the US at 16.6% and youth unemployment in some areas pushing North of 30% the current course is a recipe for long term stagnation. Cuts alone seem punitive and doctrinaire IMO.


----------



## a_majoor (1 Aug 2011)

Politicians called the TEA Party movement "Hobbits". Obviously they are not attentive readers....

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/how-the-tea-party-hobbits-won-the-debt-fight/2011/07/31/gIQALMrCmI_print.html



> *How the Tea Party ‘hobbits’ won the debt fight*
> By Marc A. Thiessen, Published: July 31
> 
> The Tea Party came under fire from all sides Friday after House conservatives nearly brought down Speaker John Boehner’s debt-limit bill.  John McCain went to the Senate floor to mock Tea Partyers as “hobbits,” and Democratic Rep. Chris Van Hollen said Tea Party Republicans “are unfit for governing.”
> ...



If you want to continue this literary metaphore, the "Hobbits" haven't quite made it to Mount Doom yet, but they are in Mordor....


----------



## Brad Sallows (1 Aug 2011)

Variously:

1.  I do not believe that bureaucrats have sufficient incentives to minimize expenditures, except when they are told to achieve a specific reduction.   I believe the strongest incentive is to spend exactly every penny to justify continuation of funding of their fiefs at current levels.

2. Cutting government spending does not compound economic problems.  There was no problem "cutting" the private sector when whatever it is government does now was shifted from private to public.  The problem is that people inherently understand that nothing "private" is permanent, but expect their dependencies on government to continue forever.  As those dependencies increase, their self-direction and -sustainment wither.  That is a social conditioning problem, not an economic one.  The lie is shown with increasing frequency as the notion how far back the clock could reasonably be turned shortens: first it was "oh, you'd have the Industrial Revolution again", then it was "oh, the Roaring Twenties and Dirty Thirties", then it was "oh, the golden '50s", etc.  Now the progressives become unhinged at the thought of returning spending levels to where they were in 1998.

3. Some types of jobs can be "created" by government.  Public infrastructure (eg. for movement of goods and people) is an excellent example.  Busybody regulations requiring review, oversight, tracking, and enforcement are an excellent counterexample.

4. The "Bush tax cuts" are constantly measured in terms of how much they are thought to have taken out: X% rates times Y GDP, or whatever.  The contribution to GDP growth does not seem to ever be included.  Value of estimate: GIGO.  And projecting surpluses 20 years out is pure fantasy.  Economists have trouble explaining what has happened; their accumulated predictive capability is near zero.  Please do not cite happy-happy-joy-joy prognostications as evidence of anything except the overoptimism of the estimators.

5. I do not believe in such a thing as only "nationalizing the debt of the rich".  Where do you think pension funds and middle class investors with savings - inside or outside tax-protected vehicles - have all of their money?

6.  The initiation of the "bleak economic outlook" can be said to have started during the Bush presidency.  The continuation and stagnation is all happening - so far - during the Obama presidency.  As I wrote above: too much time was spent by Congress and the administration doing things which did not need to be done thereby wasting that non-recoverable resource, time; and too many things were done which have been either non-productive or counter-productive because ideology said they should be so.  Bush's last major single-handed (non-bipartisan) act was to publish his budget forecast in Feb 2008; after that you can find the dead hand of the Democratic party (see also elections, congressional, 2006) attached to everything with or without Republican support.  They wanted more appropriations, so they punted that budget to Obama and got what they wanted.  Both parties wanted the extraordinary measures taken in fall of 2008.  ARRA and PPACA pretty much fall in the Democratic lap.  Stubborn resistance to put entitlement programs on a sustainable footing with the historical percentage of revenue the US actually receives is a Democratic failing.  Goosing up federal revenues and making sufficient cuts in discretionary spending is just wishful thinking.  No severe entitlement reform: the wall is fast approaching.


----------



## a_majoor (1 Aug 2011)

WSJ on the debt limit fight:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424053111903341404576480653492061150.html?mod=rss_opinion_main



> *A Tea Party Triumph*
> The debt deal is a rare bipartisan victory for the forces of smaller government.
> 
> If a good political compromise is one that has something for everyone to hate, then last night's bipartisan debt-ceiling deal is a triumph. The bargain is nonetheless better than what seemed achievable in recent days, especially given the revolt of some GOP conservatives that gave the White House and Democrats more political leverage.
> ...


----------



## Fishbone Jones (1 Aug 2011)

Nauticus said:
			
		

> And two of those three things, in my opinion, are the wrong thing to do right now.



How about telling us which two (of the three) and explaining why you think they are the wrong thing to do.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (1 Aug 2011)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> Secondly, what constitutes proper planning? Private sector investors need to plan for a profit, so roads, bridges and other infrastructure will follow the markets. Bureaucrats are rewarded for spending money, so have perverse incentives to build bridges to nowhere and other projects which consume funds and resources that could have gone to profitable ventures.



Slow down Sunshine,...don't let your time in the gong show that is most military budget planning confuse you with the good folks in most Govt departments that always have to do more with less.

When you read a story in the media like e-health, OLG, etc. there IS a good reason that it happens to be NEWS, because it isn't all that common.


----------



## cupper (1 Aug 2011)

The final bill has passed the House.


----------



## a_majoor (2 Aug 2011)

While the deal is a victory and an important first step, I will ask a question of the various people who have been decrying spending cuts.

If Keyensian spending is so effective, why was US economic performance not enhanced by the 2006 spending blowout orchestrated by the Democrat Senate and House? Why did this vast spike in spending not prevent the 2008 economic meltdown? (We already know that the 2008 Stimulus package had a negligable or even negative effect on the US economy).

Second question: If Keyensian spending is so effective, why is big spending California facing net emmigration of people and jobs, while low spending, low tax Texas is gaining people and creating jobs?

These two data points alone should refute the idea that Keyensian spending is in any way effective.


----------



## Gimpy (2 Aug 2011)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> While the deal is a victory and an important first step, I will ask a question of the various people who have been decrying spending cuts.
> 
> If Keyensian spending is so effective, why was US economic performance not enhanced by the 2006 spending blowout orchestrated by the Democrat Senate and House? Why did this vast spike in spending not prevent the 2008 economic meltdown? (We already know that the 2008 Stimulus package had a negligable or even negative effect on the US economy).
> 
> ...



How do you account for the China's improved economic performance after their stimulus in 2008 though?


----------



## Redeye (2 Aug 2011)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> Second question: If Keyensian spending is so effective, why is big spending California facing net emmigration of people and jobs, while low spending, low tax Texas is gaining people and creating jobs?



You mean California, whose federal tax revenues subsidize numerous red states?  And Texas, which had to take stimulus money to balance its budget?

Texas isn't quite so rosy:

http://www.star-telegram.com/2011/06/14/3152456/story-of-texas-job-growth-not.html - Pay particular attention to the comments about the role of education in setting the stage for now - and what's happening to Texas' education system now.  That doesn't bode well for the future.

http://swampland.time.com/2011/06/27/the-cracks-in-rick-perrys-job-growth-record/

I'd be interested in knowing what sorts of jobs are being created, too - what the pay is like, what fields.  Job growth - especially in the US now - is good in general - but what actually matters is good jobs that provide people with the income to live, to some extent, "the American dream". 



			
				Thucydides said:
			
		

> These two data points alone should refute the idea that Keyensian spending is in any way effective.



And China, as mentioned by Gimpy, turns that argument on its head - meaning that debate will wage on, not likely to ever be solved.

As far as spending cuts go - I'm not sure how laying off government employees and the US government spending less on procurements is likely to help the situation particularly, to the extent at least that those procurements are domestically sourced.  That doesn't mean that government should just keep buying things to prop up the economy per se, but lurches into austerity are not necessarily going to help much.


----------



## a_majoor (2 Aug 2011)

A read of the Chinese superthread should point out enough evidence that Chinese statistics are....questionable. Builting entire cities that stand empty in the middle of nowhere or continuing to funnel money into whatever the ruling elites desire may allow a command economy to "grow", but is this realy "growth" or just manipulation of statistics? The Obama Administration has been trying trying something similar (Summer of Recovery, anyone?), but since there are a myriad of more data points that can be tracked and reported (and more outlets to report them), this sort of manipulation was laid bare and the more correct numbers (unemployment, economic growth, amount of economic decline) have become available. Look upthread if you need a reminder of the true numbers.

As for California "supporting" other states in the Union, that has to be the funniest thing I have read in a long time. In the US Economy thread there are charts showing where people and jobs are going, so unless you metric is the net outflow of people from "Blue" states as being support, your argument is not supported at all...

As as a reprise of what is actually working and what isn't (and what sort of policies provide very fast results), see here


----------



## Redeye (2 Aug 2011)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> As for California "supporting" other states in the Union, that has to be the funniest thing I have read in a long time. In the US Economy thread there are charts showing where people and jobs are going, so unless you metric is the net outflow of people from "Blue" states as being support, your argument is not supported at all...



I'm not sure what's funny.  It's true.  California pays more into the federal pot than they take out - and that money tends to flow into red states - rather like Canada's "equalization" scheme, though not an actual explicit, formulaic program.  That's reality.

http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/2004/09/red_states_feed.html

http://www.opposingviews.com/i/politics/why-do-red-states-want-limited-gov-spending-then-take-more

Great infographic here: http://www.visualeconomics.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/tax.jpg

http://reason.com/archives/2011/07/14/the-redblue-paradox

http://mediamatters.org/blog/201011160026

And so on, and so on.  So, when if you want to discuss reality, I'm all ears.  If you want to discuss your right wing fantasies, I'm pretty much done.


----------



## Haletown (2 Aug 2011)

Interesting discussion  . . sounds so much like Canada and hearing Quebec always clam they pay more in than get out.

In the case of the USA it matters not a whit as long as the Federal Government ( Dig Barry, dig!) and the majority of States are spending far more than they have receipts for.

American has a massive SPENDING problem and even this latest Tea Party inspired deal just slightly slows down the deficit rate from Totally Out of Control (Peace be Upon Barry) to Crazy Out of Control.

The reality hasn't hit home yet  . . .  too many Americans and American politicians believe they are entitled to their publicly funded lip lock on the taxpayer's teat and like the 13th piglet on a twelve teated sow, are fighting each other for their freebies.

They past a debt ceiling increase deal to avoid losing their AAA credit rating and now will lose their AAA credit rating because they are demonstrating their inability to deal with their real problem.

Too Much Spending.


Maybe they should just all learn to speak Greek or  Italian or American with an Irish accent.


----------



## Nemo888 (2 Aug 2011)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> A read of the Chinese superthread should point out enough evidence that Chinese statistics are....questionable. Builting entire cities that stand empty in the middle of nowhere or continuing to funnel money into whatever the ruling elites desire may allow a command economy to "grow", but is this realy "growth" or just manipulation of statistics? The Obama Administration has been trying trying something similar (Summer of Recovery, anyone?), but since there are a myriad of more data points that can be tracked and reported (and more outlets to report them), this sort of manipulation was laid bare and the more correct numbers (unemployment, economic growth, amount of economic decline) have become available. Look upthread if you need a reminder of the true numbers.



If you need to pretend China is doing poorly economically as a refutation Keynesian regulation good luck with that. Laissez faire is dead and buried. That is what creates these crazed boom bust cycles.(I'm assuming manic boom bust cycles are not to your liking of course.) Personally I'd rather something a bit more stable that has some vision for the next generation. Capitalism and free markets only work properly within the moral framework of a civil society. Civil society by its very definition is regulations on human behavior. The tea parties new love affair with Anarchocapitalism/Laissez faire is not for me. Not that it is real anarcho apitalism, more like crony capitalism using the call for laissez faire to deregulate very select areas of the economy while protecting their monopolies in others.  

Look at any failed state to see real Anarchocapitalism in action.


----------



## Haletown (2 Aug 2011)

Nemo888 said:
			
		

> Look at any failed state to see real Anarchocapitalism in action.



Like the Soviet Union
Like Poland
Like East Germany
Like Lithuania, Estonia, Latvia
Like Venezuela
Like Cuba
 . . . .


----------



## Redeye (2 Aug 2011)

Haletown said:
			
		

> Like the Soviet Union
> Like Poland
> Like East Germany
> Like Lithuania, Estonia, Latvia
> ...



Yeah, actually - cronyism at their finest points, in many cases.  Replace "the state" with "select corporate interests" and you have something similar.  Not, by any means, the same - but just as bad.  The rich will keep getting richer, and the rest... well, they'll just keep watching that American dream slip away.


----------



## Brad Sallows (2 Aug 2011)

>You mean California, whose federal tax revenues subsidize numerous red states? 

California is a big state and is not an autarky.  It subsidizes parts of the rest of the country so that its cities don't devolve into howling gangs of savages.  This smacks of the same empty criticism as "urban areas subsidize rural areas".  Next time you drive a road in redneck country, count the trucks which are moving things - food, for example - towards more cosmopolitan areas.  Some of the money spent outside the cities - or a particular state, or province - is for the benefit of that city - or state, or province.

Still, it's beside the point.  California chooses its own taxation and spending within its own sphere of responsibility.


----------



## Brad Sallows (2 Aug 2011)

>Civil society by its very definition is regulations on human behavior.

Civil society by definition is one in which respect is mutually accorded voluntarily.  If regulations and enforcement are required, the society is assuredly not civil and must be kept that way forcibly - hence the regulations and enforcement.


----------



## Brad Sallows (2 Aug 2011)

>I'm not sure how laying off government employees and the US government spending less on procurements is likely to help the situation particularly

The answer lies in "productivity".  Simply put, productivity (aka "wealth") increases when more outputs are produced with less time and other inputs.  To the extent government "overpays" for anything  - wages, materials, things which don't need doing - productivity falls (wealth is removed).  Governments just happen to be destroying a lot of wealth at the moment, and discouraging people from taking risks to create wealth.  The longer this persists, the worse things will get - until some external event forces governments to let go.


----------



## cupper (3 Aug 2011)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> If Keyensian spending is so effective, why was US economic performance not enhanced by the 2006 spending blowout orchestrated by the Democrat Senate and House? Why did this vast spike in spending not prevent the 2008 economic meltdown? (We already know that the 2008 Stimulus package had a negligable or even negative effect on the US economy).



First off, if you are going to challenge the economic theory, you should at least getthe spelling right. Keynesian Economic Theories.

As for the 2008 financial meltdown, the system was doomed to fail, regardless of what ever economic theory you subscribe to.

The biggest cause of the meltdown was a complete lack of regulatory oversight, combined with questionable financial investments, and a wild west mentality within the investment community. The huge losses in the mortgage backed securities markets, along with the credit default swap scams pulled trillions of dollars out of the global economy. As a result, consumers lost confidence in their own futures, as homes were foreclosed, jobs eliminated, industries slowed or shut down.

The problem was so extensive that you could have thrown the equivalent of the national debt at the problem and it would have not resulted in any different outcome.


----------



## cupper (3 Aug 2011)

If continued cuts to Federal spending is the path that the GOP and the extremist Tea Part elements chose to walk, the mine field will reveal itself in due course.

The cuts will result in higher unemployment as federal workers and contract employees are laid off. Cuts to state budgets due to loss of federal funds will result in contraction of the stae workforce. And so on down to the local level.

As federal state and municipal employees start cutting back on their own spending, the private sector will feel a reduction in revenues, and thus may consider contracting their own workforces.

What we have is the proverbial self-licking ice cream.

I believe todays market closings have shown that Wall Street has no confidence in any economic improvement in near or medium term.


----------



## muskrat89 (3 Aug 2011)

> First off, if you are going to challenge the economic theory, you should at least getthe spelling right. Keynesian Economic Theories.



You've been posting decent debate. Don't derail it by nitpicking spelling errors. By the way, what is a "getthe"? See how that works?

Army.ca Staff


----------



## GR66 (3 Aug 2011)

cupper said:
			
		

> If continued cuts to Federal spending is the path that the GOP and the extremist Tea Part elements chose to walk, the mine field will reveal itself in due course.
> 
> The cuts will result in higher unemployment as federal workers and contract employees are laid off. Cuts to state budgets due to loss of federal funds will result in contraction of the stae workforce. And so on down to the local level.
> 
> ...



We (the collective industrial West) have taken quite a while to dig ourselves into the economic hole we're currently in.  The Tea Party is correct that we need LESS government.  Government in very general terms should be restricted to providing the infrastructure and regulatory framework to support a healthy and growing private sector.  Public sectors in the West have grown far beyond that and do need to be reigned in.  The wages of civil servants are paid from the profits of the private sector (through taxes) and when they become too large a portion of the GDP become a major drag on the economy as a whole.  

The problem with the Tea Party is not in this general concept, but rather the idea that just hacking away at public services will solve the problem.  As Cupper pointed out simply slashing public sector jobs (and withdrawing services) will hurt the economy in the short- and even medium term.  A more reasoned and long-term approach needs to be taken to reverse the trend in recent decades toward a big-government nanny state.    We need to ask the fundamental questions of what services our various levels of government SHOULD be providing and what can be devolved (back) to the private sector.  Then we need to develop transition plans to move toward that long-term goal of a smaller, more efficient public sector.

The biggest hurdle is our political system.  It doesn't typically reward those that take the long view on issues but rather rewards those that seize the spotlight available in the moment.  The solutions really aren't rocket science and when you talk about these issues at a fundamental level ("you can't spend more than you make", etc.) it's not hard to make people understand what we are facing.  Unfortunately we're simply lacking in political leaders with the vision and charisma to take the electorate by the hand and start us down the right road.


----------



## Redeye (3 Aug 2011)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> Still, it's beside the point.  California chooses its own taxation and spending within its own sphere of responsibility.



Actually, no.  It doesn't choose federal tax rates, nor federal spending.  California's state fiscal mess is largely a product of its own laws and voter initiatives that have handcuffed its ability to raise revenue substantially.  So when conservatives talk about it being a fiscal basketcase, I laugh, because Prop 13, one of the major roots of its problems (though by no means the only one), was a conservative ballot initiative.  They're reaping, in essence, what they sowed.


----------



## Redeye (3 Aug 2011)

cupper said:
			
		

> First off, if you are going to challenge the economic theory, you should at least getthe spelling right. Keynesian Economic Theories.



Not only that, no one has ever actually practiced what Keynes really advocated - they're cool with the deficit spending concept but they don't really get around to the paying off the debt incurred and saving during good times well.  The stimulus shot was sort of the first half (and, some argue, wasn't enough to have an impact) but there hasn't been much of a plan for the second part.  In the mess that is US fiscal policy there's no easy way to do it either.



			
				cupper said:
			
		

> As for the 2008 financial meltdown, the system was doomed to fail, regardless of what ever economic theory you subscribe to.
> 
> The biggest cause of the meltdown was a complete lack of regulatory oversight, combined with questionable financial investments, and a wild west mentality within the investment community. The huge losses in the mortgage backed securities markets, along with the credit default swap scams pulled trillions of dollars out of the global economy. As a result, consumers lost confidence in their own futures, as homes were foreclosed, jobs eliminated, industries slowed or shut down.



Yep.  And both sides of the aisle were to blame.  Both created policies that set the conditions for the mess to happen.  Blaming one side or another is pointless.  What made it worse was basically "positive feedback loops" that made things worse and worse regardless, particularly in the housing market.  People walked away from homes they could in fact afford the mortgage payments on because non-recourse loans shielded their other assets, and there's economically speaking no rational reason to continue paying a $300,000 mortgage on a house devalued to to $200,000.  That fueled the wreck particularly in the US southwest.



			
				cupper said:
			
		

> The problem was so extensive that you could have thrown the equivalent of the national debt at the problem and it would have not resulted in any different outcome.



Probably not, to be honest - it was that bad.

As to your other post, I generally share the sentiment that the idea of smaller, more efficient government is good - but the problem I see with the Tea Party is that they're largely economic illiterates who do not have any particularly strong understanding of the impacts of their ideas - and not just in economic terms.  The idea of scrapping agencies like the EPA strikes me as rather ridiculous.

Among many of the pundits and so on I'm watching, it's interesting to see how they're interpreting the last few days' events.  It seems like the Tea Party is the "winner", but a lot of them are thinking it'll be a Pyrrhic victory - I suspect they've blown their political capital, and a lot of the folks who didn't bother to vote in the midterm elections will be back out in 2012.  It's interesting watching both the GOP and the Democratic Party tearing themselves apart by factions, the impacts will be quite interesting to watch.


----------



## a_majoor (3 Aug 2011)

cupper said:
			
		

> As for the 2008 financial meltdown, the system was doomed to fail, regardless of what ever economic theory you subscribe to.



Unless you are suggesting the ancient Greek view of how the universe works is in effect, nothing is "doomed" or "ordained". The economic system was stressed by perverse incentives enacted into law and regulatory practice (some of which date as far back as the Carter Administration) and overstressed by the rapid ramping up of spending and "free money" starting in 2006.



> The biggest cause of the meltdown was a complete lack of regulatory oversight, combined with questionable financial investments, and a wild west mentality within the investment community. The huge losses in the mortgage backed securities markets, along with the credit default swap scams pulled trillions of dollars out of the global economy. As a result, consumers lost confidence in their own futures, as homes were foreclosed, jobs eliminated, industries slowed or shut down.



As Rep Barney Frank put it; "I'm prepared to throw the dice" WRT not regulating Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac. Regulatory failure is indeed a huge cause of the problam, but where do these regulations come from in the first place? The croney capitalists and their partners in government set the stage, providing favours and access to taxpayer wealth. This offers perverse incentives to the markets, which respond accordingly. Really this is the same issue (on a much larger scale) that plagued Britain in the 1700's during the South Sea Bubble, with similar results. The economic meltdown in Japan and decades long stagnation since the 1990's is also illustrative. The same conditions are growing in China (See the July 25 2011 edition of Maclean's; the particular article isn't online yet but China currently has outstanding loans worth @125% of its GDP, and over $500 billion in government spending cannot be accounted for....), what China has is a "bubble" economy, and the deflating of that bubble is bound to be messy.



> The problem was so extensive that you could have thrown the equivalent of the national debt at the problem and it would have not resulted in any different outcome.



The Administration's prediction was quite clear: No "Stimulus" spending and American unemployment would rise to 8%.
The result is stark as well; Stimulus spending was applied and most economic indicators fell, economic growth was 1.6%, while *official* unemployment grew to over 9%.

Perhaps you need to look at different economic periods and see what alternative solutions were tried and their results (the real solutions, not what popular history would have you believe). Start with the John F Kennedy tax cuts for an illustration of what is actually possible by a Democrat Administration....


----------



## Haletown (3 Aug 2011)

cupper said:
			
		

> If continued cuts borrowing to support Federal spending is the path that the GOP  Democrats and the extremist Tea Part  AFL/CIO elements chose to walk, the mine field will reveal itself in due course.
> 
> The cuts will result in higher unemployment  lowered government interest payments to China as federal workers and contract employees are laid off.  and a balance budget at the State and Local Level. Cuts to state budgets due to loss of federal funds will result in contraction of the stae workforce. And so on down to the local level.
> 
> ...


----------



## Redeye (3 Aug 2011)

I agree with your editing of this post.

Except, of course, for all of it.


----------



## Haletown (3 Aug 2011)

Redeye said:
			
		

> I agree with your editing of this post.
> 
> Except, of course, for all of it.



As is your right.

But a question . . .  what level of borrowing to fund what level of deficit spending would make you feel worried about the policy being currently followed by the Obama administration?

OK with the current $1.65 trillion or would you go higher, lower?


----------



## Redeye (3 Aug 2011)

Haletown said:
			
		

> As is your right.
> 
> But a question . . .  what level of borrowing to fund what level of deficit spending would make you feel worried about the policy being currently followed by the Obama administration?
> 
> OK with the current $1.65 trillion or would you go higher, lower?



Ideally, I'd like to see the deficit cut - and dramatically so.  There are likely many places where efficiencies can be found.  But it's unrealistic to expect it to happen overnight.  Ending the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan will help, and probably a substantial downsizing of the US military through natural attrition and getting rid of some bases will also help, but that takes a lot of political will.  A national conversation about "entitlement programs" will probably have to happen as well, but there's also little constructive happening there.

As far as the "policy currently being followed by the Obama Administration", I don't really see anything especially different other than major insurance reform which in the long run should help save money.

The other side of the coin is the revenue side.  A large majority of Americans agree with increasing taxes on the wealthiest Americans, so getting rid of Bush's tax cuts as soon as possible is going to need to happen, and other options must be explored - ideally in the form of consumption taxes - a national sales tax being the most unpalatable but probably best way to do things.


----------



## a_majoor (3 Aug 2011)

Are these the same large majorities who swept 87 TEA Party movement candidates into the Congress in the Mid Term elections, and captured many State legislatures and Governor's mansions on the basis of election promises of spending cuts?


----------



## Redeye (3 Aug 2011)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> Are these the same large majorities who swept 87 TEA Party movement candidates into the Congress in the Mid Term elections, and captured many State legislatures and Governor's mansions on the basis of election promises of spending cuts?



Possibly, disenchanted with their performance so far.  I have a feeling the Tea Party's party is about to come to a jarring halt, but I guess we'll see.


----------



## Edward Campbell (3 Aug 2011)

Redeye said:
			
		

> Possibly, disenchanted with their performance so far.  I have a feeling the Tea Party's party is about to come to a jarring halt, but I guess we'll see.




I wouldn't be too sure. My perception is that the Tea Party won this round, and I suspect that many, many Americans agree. This is a tiny, maybe a too small step but, however hesitant, it is a step in the right direction. I think that most Americans understand the Tea Party's simple narrative: _we spend too much, now, we need to spend less._ Many, maybe even most Americans may be unable to agree on what 'less' means - especially re: spend less on what? - but they, mostly, I think, agree on the basics.


----------



## cupper (3 Aug 2011)

muskrat89 said:
			
		

> You've been posting decent debate. Don't derail it by nitpicking spelling errors. By the way, what is a "getthe"? See how that works?



 Pardon me while I switch feet. Gotta love the taste of old sweat socks.


----------



## cupper (3 Aug 2011)

Awww For F#$% SAKE! :facepalm:. Hit the wrong key and lost my whole post. Let's see if I can reconstruct it.



			
				Thucydides said:
			
		

> Unless you are suggesting the ancient Greek view of how the universe works is in effect, nothing is "doomed" or "ordained".



I meant "doomed" in the sense that a lot of people could see it coming a long way off, but those who had the power to do something about it just sat by and watched.

The regulators either turned a blind eye, or didn't have enough knowledge to understand how the markets were being played.

For example, hedge funds were "advising" the investment houses on which mortgage derivatives to include when creating the collateralized debt obligations (CDO's - read toxic assets), then turned around and took out credit default swaps as insurance against failure of the CDO's (which were designed to do just that). When the collapse finally occurred, not only did they collect the full value of the loss, they had the profits from the sale pf the CDO's to other investment houses, as well as the "consulting fees" for putting the CDO together in the first place.

Now, add to this wild west market the holders of the global wealth. They wanted some place to put the global pool of money, so it would grow at a desired rate of return. As the first CDO's provided astonishing returns, since they were made up of the best of the mortgage backed securities, every one wanted in on the action. As demand form more and more CDO's was generated, the investment houses wanted more and more securities to put in CDO's. And the mortgage companies were only willing to oblige. And since they were going to sell off the asset as soon as it was created, they really didn't care if it was sound or not.

It was the free market gone wild.

And it could have been averted if proper oversight of the mortgage industry was done, if the SEC and other Agencies enforced the regulations on investments, and had people who understood how the financial instrument worked. And eliminating the conflicts of interest with respect to the bond rating agencies who were paid by the investment houses to rate the securities.

So, I figured that "doomed" was an adequate description of something that was deliberately designed to fail.


----------



## cupper (3 Aug 2011)

Just for clarification, I don't disagree with some of the view that the Tea Party puts forth.

We need a smaller, more efficient government. We need to reduce wasteful spending.

Where I differ from the majority is that spending reductions need to be done in a rational manner, and need to be done with respect to what will get the most bang for the buck. In the same way that money that does get spent needs to be done so to get the most bang for the buck.

And taxes need to be raised when cuts will not be sufficient.


----------



## Brad Sallows (3 Aug 2011)

Does anyone bother to ask why so much junk got into the mortgage-backed securities in the first place, thereby necessitating new risk mitigation schemes?  The instigators of the bubble were the politicians who pressured more money into the situation in the first place.  They must have been rather disappointed that the lenders weren't simply going to suck up the risk for nothing.  It was not the first time the invisible hand outplayed the dirigistes, and it won't be the last.


----------



## cupper (3 Aug 2011)

This is the best explanation for the housing market meltdown I've heard.

http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/355/the-giant-pool-of-money

And this site has more coverage of economic issues with discussions that people with even a limited understanding of economics can understand.

http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/


----------



## Fishbone Jones (3 Aug 2011)

Redeye said:
			
		

> Ideally, I'd like to see the deficit cut - and dramatically so.  There are likely many places where efficiencies can be found.  But it's unrealistic to expect it to happen overnight.  Ending the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan will help, and probably a substantial downsizing of the US military through natural attrition and getting rid of some bases will also help, but that takes a lot of political will.   A national conversation about "entitlement programs" will probably have to happen as well, but there's also little constructive happening there.
> 
> As far as the "policy currently being followed by the Obama Administration", I don't really see anything especially different other than major insurance reform which in the long run should help save money.
> 
> The other side of the coin is the revenue side.  A large majority of Americans agree with increasing taxes on the wealthiest Americans, so getting rid of Bush's tax cuts as soon as possible is going to need to happen, and other options must be explored - ideally in the form of consumption taxes - a national sales tax being the most unpalatable but probably best way to do things.


 I guess the war on terrorism and the decimination, at any cost, really mean nothing to you. You'd rather sit around and wait until they take the CN Tower down or blow up the CNE before you get your socialist ass off the couch?

And given your previous, of course, it's all Bush's fault. right.


----------



## Gimpy (3 Aug 2011)

recceguy said:
			
		

> I guess the war on terrorism and the decimination, at any cost, really mean nothing to you. You'd rather sit around and wait until they take the CN Tower down or blow up the CNE before you get your socialist ass off the couch?



The war on terrorism isn't being fought by the military on American soil. It is being fought by intelligence agencies, the TSA, and law enforcement of all levels. The military aren't the ones who have been infiltrating and successfully stopping terrorist activity within the US and Canada. At most the military is helping via the National Guard and Coast Guard providing help, but they are not the ones taking the active role in prevention of attacks on the homeland.

How much military involvement was there in the stopping of the Toronto 18? Even recently the US soldier who was planning an attack was not found out by the military, but by the police.

Cuts to the US military would not affect the abilities/means of groups like the CIA, TSA, FBI, and all levels of law enforcement. At least not when it comes to homeland security.

There were terror attempts in the US before the War on Terror began, there were terror attempts after the War on Terror began, and no doubt there will be terror attempts after the War on Terror has ended. The military has no bearing on those attempts.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (4 Aug 2011)

Gimpy said:
			
		

> The war on terrorism isn't being fought by the military on American soil. It is being fought by intelligence agencies, the TSA, and law enforcement of all levels. The military aren't the ones who have been infiltrating and successfully stopping terrorist activity within the US and Canada. At most the military is helping via the National Guard and Coast Guard providing help, but they are not the ones taking the active role in prevention of attacks on the homeland.
> 
> How much military involvement was there in the stopping of the Toronto 18? Even recently the US soldier who was planning an attack was not found out by the military, but by the police.
> 
> ...



You miss the point entirely. If 'you' don't give a fuck, 'who' does. I guess you assume because the CIA, TSA, & FBI are at the helm , everything is cool.

Sorry Dude, I can't swing with your jive. Nabcy Pelpocia


----------



## Gimpy (4 Aug 2011)

recceguy said:
			
		

> You miss the point entirely. If 'you' don't give a fuck, 'who' does. I guess you assume because the CIA, TSA, & FBI are at the helm , everything is cool.
> 
> Sorry Dude, I can't swing with your jive. Nabcy Pelpocia



OK then what is the point if I am missing it. Also where did I say I don't give a fuck and where did I say everything is cool? You're really all over the board here and making zero sense.

Edit: Just to be clear, I'm absolutely not saying that I don't give a fuck and that everything is hunky-dory. But minor cuts to areas of the military unrelated to the war on terror will not spark mass attacks across the country.


----------



## cupper (4 Aug 2011)

recceguy said:
			
		

> You miss the point entirely. If 'you' don't give a fuck, 'who' does. I guess you assume because the CIA, TSA, & FBI are at the helm , everything is cool.
> 
> Sorry Dude, I can't swing with your jive. Nabcy Pelpocia



Perhaps you could have worded it a little clearer so that your point could be more easily understood.

I know my first thought was "Whoa, where the hell did this come from?"


----------



## Fishbone Jones (4 Aug 2011)

My post got scrambled and lost. Wait out,.


----------



## Redeye (4 Aug 2011)

recceguy said:
			
		

> I guess the war on terrorism and the decimination, at any cost, really mean nothing to you. You'd rather sit around and wait until they take the CN Tower down or blow up the CNE before you get your socialist *** off the couch?



 :facepalm:

I don't know why I'm stooping to respond to such a stupid argument, but here goes:

The War in Iraq was POINTLESS.  It was totally unnecessary, totally unjustifiable, and it cost some 4600 American soldiers' lives, plus how many other "coalition" lives, plus a wildly varied toll of Iraqi civilians variously estimated between 100,000 and 700,000, with the higher figure being more generous and including deaths that could be attributed to the complete breakdown of Iraqi society, infrastructure, etc.  While Iraq was ruled by a brutal tyrant, they had NOTHING to do with 9/11, nor did they have any active WMD.  In short, they posed zero threat to "the West".  They were well contained.  For whatever reason, the Bush Adminstration invented and inflated a casus belli, and they bet correctly that the public would be too wrapped up in the post-9/11 horror to question the hubris.  With that, at least a trillion dollars was wasted, and generally, it was borrowed from China.  The fact that they failed to have a workable plan for what to do after Saddam was gone was ample demonstration of how poorly thought out the whole thing was. 

The Dems forced the war expenditure onto the books when they took Congress in 2006, and now President Obama is doing the right thing by getting out of there in as orderly a fashion as possible.

Afghanistan is a slightly different story - intervention there was justifiable.  Sadly, Iraq became a huge distraction and I am left with the impression that the US tried to do Afghanistan "on the cheap" and I suspect made things there much more complicated.  There too, there's a general sense of "war weariness" and unease about the cost that is leading a lot of people in the US to conclude that it's time to start winding up there as well.

This "You'd rather sit around and wait until they take the CN Tower down or blow up the CNE before you get your socialist *** off the couch?" is a bunch of bollocks, frankly.  It's a giant non sequitur.  Deciding as a matter of national policy to p*ss massive amounts of money against the wall (while making enemies in the process) on the basis of such a nonsensical claim is frankly silly.  Are there potential threats to our security that require vigilance?  Yes.  If I didn't believe that, I don't see why I'd wear a uniform.  Does that mean that "the long war" on terrorism is to be accepted unquestioningly?  Er, no, not by a long shot.  And frankly, when you're going to discuss matters of fiscal responsibility, those questions have to be considered.

There's loads of room to cut the US defence budget without impacting national security, but it's funny when I hear "fiscal conservatives" decry them.  Obama was attacked for concluded the New START treaty with Russia to downsize a nuclear arsenal that is massively expensive to maintain.  Hell, the US could cut 90% of its arsenal, I'd wager, and still have more than enough nukes to form an effective deterrent.  They won't, of course, and that's fine - but steps which do reduce the stockpile and the costs associated therewith are positive steps.  Reducing some foreign bases can probably be justified too, particularly in Europe since the Soviets aren't going to be rushing the Fulda Gap any time soon.

And I'm not, never have been, and never will be a socialist.



			
				recceguy said:
			
		

> And given your previous, of course, it's all Bush's fault. right.



All?  No.  You can lump Reagan and Bush 41 in there too - they presided over adminstrations that helped make the mess.  I still fail to understand why anyone with access to so much information can still fall for the Cult of Reagan.


----------



## Rifleman62 (4 Aug 2011)

Redeye: 





> why I'm stooping to respond to such a stupid argument



It seems most things that differ from Redeye's world are stupid, abhorrent, etc so why ever "stoop". I sometimes think he provokes/prods just to get attention. Some sort of disorder.


----------



## Edward Campbell (4 Aug 2011)

Redeye said:
			
		

> :facepalm:
> ...
> ... You can lump Carter, Reagan and Bush 41 and Clinton and Obama in there too - they presided over adminstrations that helped make the mess ...




TFTFY

US Foreign policy has been, mostly, adrift, since Kennedy ~ Nixon was an all too rare breath of reason, but ...


----------



## Haletown (4 Aug 2011)

As long as Barry is driving the US bus we can expect much more ditch than road.  Within 2 hours of the debt relief deal, he was in the Rose Garden talking about new investments.

The man has learned nothing but he is a crafty politician who thinks he took the US Debt issues off the table until after the 2012 election.

I don't think he is correct in his assessment. The Tea Party is not going away. It is the heart & soul of real America that believes in living within your means.  Obama believes that bigger Government is better for America.  The Tea Party believes you can't borrow your way too prosperity.  Obama believes in the fundamental benefit of wealth redistribution.  The Tea Party believes in citizens keeping more of their own money.

The US debt deal is a chimera, a dance of the seven veils.  The USA is on a path right now to add $15trillion in new debt over the next ten years, doubling the current debt levels.  The proposed cuts are like putting a bandaide on an arterial puncture

Euroland is in as equally deep financial doo-doo and pretending everything is just fine.

If this was a military operation, all troops would be on 100% stand-to, ready for anything and primed for some action.  The world as we knew it is over, tough times are coming  - a perfect opportunity for political opportunists to take advantage of economic chaos.

The 1930's  are going  to look very familiar in the 2020's.  Scapegoats will be found again.  They always are.  Kulaks, Jews, Blacks, Muslims, Whites, Browns, Christians, Rich People . . . 

Check the DOW today . . .  markets don't lie like politicians.

Get ready  . . .


----------



## Redeye (4 Aug 2011)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> TFTFY
> 
> US Foreign policy has been, mostly, adrift, since Kennedy ~ Nixon was an all too rare breath of reason, but ...



You could add Carter, yes.  But the debt mess definitely took off when Reagan took office. The Clinton Adminstration did actually take some steps to improve things, but sure, loft them in.


----------



## Redeye (4 Aug 2011)

Haletown said:
			
		

> Check the DOW today . . .  markets don't lie like politicians.



Like the teabaggers who screamed that and tax hikes would kill the economy?  Well, no tax hikes, and yet look at the markets.


----------



## Haletown (4 Aug 2011)

Redeye said:
			
		

> Like the teabaggers who screamed that and tax hikes would kill the economy?  Well, no tax hikes, and yet look at the markets.



Brilliant analysis.  Simply brilliant.

Gonna write it down so I don't forget it.

Thanks for sharing.

Could you explain how tax hikes help an economy?


----------



## Redeye (4 Aug 2011)

Haletown said:
			
		

> Brilliant analysis.  Simply brilliant.
> 
> Gonna write it down so I don't forget it.
> 
> ...



Oddly enough, I didn't say they did, did I?


----------



## Haletown (4 Aug 2011)

Redeye said:
			
		

> Oddly enough, I didn't say they did, did I?



Translation please:

"Well, no tax hikes, and yet look at the markets."


----------



## Redeye (4 Aug 2011)

Haletown said:
			
		

> Translation please:
> 
> "Well, no tax hikes, and yet look at the markets."



For months, the rhetoric from the right is that ending the Bush tax cuts would somehow put the markets into a tailspin, and that any tax hikes (which, incidentally, are inevitable at this point in the US) would somehow cause the markets great distress.  This deal gets done, rotten though it is, without anything on the revenue side despite that inevitability, and the markets still slide.

David Frum, one of the last sane conservative pundits in the States, tweeted this morning "And we were told that Mr Market would be pleased that taxes aren't rising" - I find myself doubting they'd be any worse if the Congress had had the spines necessary to tackle the issue of tax hikes, especially on the wealthy, which a pretty solid majority of Americans want.


----------



## Infanteer (4 Aug 2011)

I find it funny that in the period of, likely, the least degree of existential threat to the United States its defence spending is so out of control that it'll be the nail in its economic coffin.

Linking a radical islamic terrorist movement with Afghanistan and/or Iraq is foolish.  Neither have been about Al Qaeda since about 2005/2006.  Both had to do with large Western armies bumbling around the countryside for various other reasons.


----------



## Haletown (4 Aug 2011)

Redeye said:
			
		

> David Frum, one of the last sane conservative pundits in the States, tweeted this morning "And we were told that Mr Market would be pleased that taxes aren't rising" -



Ahh a good Canadian boy who believes the only thing that drives markets are tax issues.  Smart boy that David, ignoring the ECB debt and deficit mess that set off the great slide today.  He can see through all that Euro stuff to pinpoint the one and only issue that makes markets tick.

And thanks for clearing up that misconception so we are now clear about your belief that not increasing taxes is not good for the economy, which is sort of not  what you said if I understand what you are not trying to say.


----------



## Redeye (4 Aug 2011)

Haletown said:
			
		

> Ahh a good Canadian boy who believes the only thing that drives markets are tax issues.  Smart boy that David, ignoring the ECB debt and deficit mess that set off the great slide today.  He can see through all that Euro stuff to pinpoint the one and only issue that makes markets tick.
> 
> And thanks for clearing up that misconception so we are now clear about your belief that not increasing taxes is not good for the economy, which is sort of not  what you said if I understand what you are not trying to say.



Frum made his comments before the open, actually, and while Europe's also weighing on, the US debt ceiling nonsense has been a drag on markets as well, and it was widely touted that getting rid of the "uncertainty" would help stabilize them.  So much for that.

I'll type slower next time, maybe that'll help your comprehension.  I think I use a lot of big words too - I'll work on that.


----------



## Edward Campbell (4 Aug 2011)

Do you want the ultimate oxymoron? Consider this from today's _Globe and Mail_:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ottawa-aims-for-it-savings-with-new-agency/article2119773/ 

“The Harper Conservatives say streamlining government will require the creation of a new federal agency, this one designed to find savings in information technology systems.”

This is a classic example of the sort of bureaucratic mindset that gets us to this:






The DJIA for 2011-08-04
Source: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-investor/markets/

I guess I wasn't watching; I didn't realize Obama had crossed the border.


----------



## The Bread Guy (4 Aug 2011)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Do you want the ultimate oxymoron? Consider this from today's _Globe and Mail_:
> 
> http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ottawa-aims-for-it-savings-with-new-agency/article2119773/
> 
> “The Harper Conservatives say streamlining government will require the creation of a new federal agency, this one designed to find savings in information technology systems.”


 :rofl:  Saw the story elsewhere, but not quite this oddly put - thank you for sharing.

- edited to add following - 
And the new team, "Shared Services Canada", already has a CEO.

Shared Services Canada - sounds suspiciously like the "Ministry of Administrative Affairs" to me.


----------



## Haletown (4 Aug 2011)

Redeye said:
			
		

> the US debt ceiling nonsense has been a drag on markets as well, and it was widely touted that getting rid of the "uncertainty" would help stabilize them.  So much for that.



Touted by those who think digging the national debt holes faster and deeper by increasing government borrowing and spending. Those folks usually are on the ones who depend on a government teat or still believe socialism and massive government intervention in a nation's economy is a viable economic policy.  

What was also touted by sane people was that unless out of control government spending wasn't controlled the world markets were in for turmoil.  You can't print prosperity and you can't teleprompter your way to a successful economy.

Barry is channeling his inner Greek, Spaniard, Portuguese, Irishman and the markets have noticed.


Or other politicians like Dulton who figure it is good economic policy to pay 80 cents to people for electricity that he can sell for 20 cents.  Wish I knew if he was getting that money from the education or hospital budgets, or just "borrowing" it from his grandchildren.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (4 Aug 2011)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> :rofl:  Saw the story elsewhere, but not quite this oddly put - thank you for sharing.
> 
> - edited to add following -
> And the new team, "Shared Services Canada", already has a CEO.
> ...



Terry Gilliam's _BRAZIL_  ;D


----------



## cupper (4 Aug 2011)

In actual fact, most analysts today are attributing the market melt downs not to a reaction to the debt ceiling resolution, but rather to the continued downward economic spiral that has gone on, while everyone was distracted by the political gamesmanship that has taken place over the past month or so.

European markets continue to decline on more and more dismal news about the European debt crisis, and contractions in the economy, and austerity measures that are being taken. US markets are responding to the reports on slower than expected growth in the GDP, poor jobless numbers, and declines in the manufacturing and commercial sectors. Japanese markets are reacting to both US and European economic news. We'd see this fall in the markets regardless according to most economists.


----------



## Edward Campbell (4 Aug 2011)

cupper said:
			
		

> In actual fact, most analysts today are attributing the market melt downs not to a reaction to the debt ceiling resolution, but rather to the continued downward economic spiral that has gone on, while everyone was distracted by the political gamesmanship that has taken place over the past month or so.
> 
> I agree with most of the analysts.
> 
> ...




But, I would not be opposed to tax reform for Canada: reduce corporate taxes, by a lot; reduce income taxes - maybe even adopt a flat tax - but take at least the 'bottom' 5% of taxpayers off the federal tax rolls; add a green, carbon tax that is, _de facto_, a consumption tax that works like the HST in that it 'flows through' carbon producers and suppliers and middlemen and so on and is paid, 100%, by us, the ordinary consumers every time we fill the tank, turn on the air conditioning, switch on our big-screen TV, buy groceries and, and, and ... I'm thinking 10% will do nicely to offset big income tax deductions and lower the deficit and debt much more quickly and change our behaviour, making us greener, too.


----------



## cupper (4 Aug 2011)

Here are a couple of questions for people to chew on.

First: If not increase taxes, how about reducing tax loopholes that only the higher income earners and corporations can take advantage.

Second: How much has the current Fed policy of near zero interest rates over the past few years, and prior years on relatively low interest rates contributed to the poor economic performance since the collapse in 2008?


----------



## Nemo888 (4 Aug 2011)

Cutting government or finding efficiencies is a great idea. Cutting taxes is fine as well. Though we only pay 2% more by GDP in total taxes than the USA for a pretty impressive array of extra services and social programs. Perhaps we don't have as much pork and corruption as the USA. 

I believe in the capitalist idea that if you cut so far you push the GDP into negative territory you will kill the economy. This becomes a self fulfilling prophecy. No one would invest in a business trying to cut its way to solvency. That is the road to bankruptcy. I will agree to any cuts after you get annualized growth to 1.5% real. If the stats could actually be trusted I could even deal with 1%. Cut whatever you want as long as it does not push the GDP below that. Otherwise you just have to wait. Pushing the economy into cardiac arrest for ideology is too fanatical. Canada is in decent shape if we can find new markets equal to the rate of our export shrinkage to the US. We need more trade with Asia to not get flushed away with our cousins to the South.


----------



## Brad Sallows (4 Aug 2011)

If one wishes to criticize the Iraq war, it should be possible to do so without creating strawmen and citing absolutes where there were none.  It is so hard to find a "justifiable" war (meaning, justly initiated), that the charge is a nearly universal criticism of wars.  The Iraq war wasn't pointless - not worth the cost after the first 3 months, but certainly not pointless.  Knowledge of lack of WMD is known only with hindsight and was believed otherwise in the run-up; that anyone would use it to criticize the "justification" reveals a lack of ability to separate causality and knowledge across time.  What was well-known prior to the outset is that the "containment" was unravelling.  The US worry was that the WMD nearly all countries _believed_ Iraq had _might_ find their way into the hands of a third party, not that Iraq was already responsible.

>The Dems forced the war expenditure onto the books when they took Congress in 2006

So what?  There was no mystery attached to the special appropriations; and, being special, they were more obvious than if they were hidden in the baseline.

>Afghanistan is a slightly different story - intervention there was justifiable.

Go on, then.  Justify it.  I'll give you the easy task, and just ask for the 6 traditional criteria to be met.


----------



## Brad Sallows (4 Aug 2011)

The root of the US debt explosion does not lie in presidential administrations, let alone presidential administrations of a particular party.  The root lies in entitlements and birth rates.


----------



## Brad Sallows (4 Aug 2011)

Businesses cut their way to solvency all the time.  The usual technique is to divest the money-losing parts (ie. the parts that some other business already does more effectively).  If nothing is separable, the business is unlikely to succeed because it has been outcompeted in all aspects.


----------



## Brad Sallows (4 Aug 2011)

Markets are declining because the wheels are coming off in Europe today: Spain and Italy are thought to be on the threshold of no return, and Belgium is about to add a "B" to PIIGS.  Investors are perfectly capable of reading the mood of German taxpayers with respect to the prospect of bailing out the irresponsible Euro-users, and perfectly capable of recognizing that the debt ceiling increase negotiated in the US does little to slow debt growth even as the debt pushes past the 100% of GDP marker (also today).

And those problems, curiously enough, originate with untrustworthy politicians and not with informal grassroots groups.


----------



## Nemo888 (4 Aug 2011)

So how can you keep GDP in positive territory while slashing government expenditures? Why not just slash as much as growth allows? I feel that to the tea party killing GDP and making the recession worse is acceptable losses. Why make main street pay in the most painful way possible? Sounds more Fanatic than Conservative to me.


----------



## a_majoor (4 Aug 2011)

Nemo888 said:
			
		

> I will agree to any cuts after you get annualized growth to 1.5% real. If the stats could actually be trusted I could even deal with 1%.



The economic growth rate of the United States was updated to 1.6% for the last four quarters (seehere for the full report).

Time to get out the shears...


----------



## cupper (4 Aug 2011)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> The economic growth rate of the United States was updated to 1.6% for the last four quarters (seehere for the full report).
> 
> Time to get out the shears...



Actually, first quarter growth was only 0.4%, and second quarter was recently downgrade to 1.3%


----------



## cupper (4 Aug 2011)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> >The Dems forced the war expenditure onto the books when they took Congress in 2006
> 
> So what?  There was no mystery attached to the special appropriations; and, being special, they were more obvious than if they were hidden in the baseline.



Actually, by going the route of special appropriations, it allowed the Bush Administration to keep the expenditures out of the budget, and were not counted against the budget deficit until Obama put them on the books (although it still increased the actual debt). Which is one reason why the deficit numbers ballooned in Obama's first budget.


----------



## Nemo888 (4 Aug 2011)

And this does not count the cost of Vets on the system. Our math put Veterans benefits at more than actually prosecuting the war. Hence Canada's Screw Veterans Charter. 2007 to 2010 GDP is now negative 0.3% per year in the updated stats. Mostly from State and local cuts and some defense cuts which are just getting started. Those ate the small amounts of growth even with the stimulus. The BEA was lying so as not to undercut consumer confidence. Watching unemployment stats, which are also fiddled with, is more accurate. If unemployment stays high there is no growth.

Since the stimulus has ended and BEA are lying again I'll watch unemployment. Which incidentally is rising again.


----------



## cupper (4 Aug 2011)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> The root of the US debt explosion does not lie in presidential administrations, let alone presidential administrations of a particular party.  The root lies in entitlements and birth rates.



Not so. The Boomers are only starting to draw on Social Security and Medicare. The effects of the lower birth rate will begin to show up in the short term, around 2017. Between 2017 and 2025 the shortfall will be made by drawing from the Social Security Trust Fund, with the Trust Fund still growing until 2025. After 2025, at current levels, the fund will begin to draw down as funds are taken faster than interest and excess FICA payments are returned. By 2042 the fund may be depleted (depending on who's numbers are used), but Social Security benefit payments can still be sustained, albeit at lower than promised levels, as it is a pay as you go system. Projected levels during the 2040's are 75% of promised, 2080's at 70%.

Part of the problem is that the government is borrowing from the trust fund as part of the budget funding process, in return for treasury bonds, which the Social Security program can recall when necessary to make up deficits in available funds dedicated to Social Security benefits.


----------



## cupper (4 Aug 2011)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> Businesses cut their way to solvency all the time.  The usual technique is to divest the money-losing parts (ie. the parts that some other business already does more effectively).  If nothing is separable, the business is unlikely to succeed because it has been outcompeted in all aspects.



Not sure where you are going with this analogy.

If businesses cut to regain solvency, they do so at the expense of the taxpayer. Reductions in tax revenues from business taxes and payroll taxes  result in increased government deficit as that money is no longer available, and the unemployed workers begin to rely on government programs for support while looking for new employment.

This actually is a better explanation of the overall economic problem than your previous post about entitlements and low birth rates.


----------



## cupper (4 Aug 2011)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> And those problems, curiously enough, originate with untrustworthy politicians



I'll definitely agree with you on this point.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (4 Aug 2011)

Redeye said:
			
		

> Like the teabaggers who screamed that and tax hikes would kill the economy?  Well, no tax hikes, and yet look at the markets.



Watch the slurs lad, if you have an argument then use it.
Bruce


----------



## cupper (4 Aug 2011)

Nemo888 said:
			
		

> And this does not count the cost of Vets on the system. Our math put Veterans benefits at more than actually prosecuting the war. Hence Canada's Screw Veterans Charter.



I think the way both Canada and the US governments are treating Veterans is borderline criminal.

I've heard stories about what both returning US Troops and Vets have to go through that make my my stomach heave. 

And I've seen the situation my father has gone and is still going through dealing with Veteran's Affairs for disabilities directly attributable to his 22 years of service in the Navy, which included serving on the Kootenay in 1969 when her gearbox blew up.


----------



## cupper (4 Aug 2011)

Interesting side point: Latest poll numbers give the US Congress a satisfaction rating of just 14%.

Pundits are now considering the possibility that the 2012 elections could turn everything upside down due to voter dissatisfaction with both sides. 

Both GOP and Dem incumbents could be turfed, resulting the the GOP winning the Senate, but losing the House.  :brickwall:


*F@#$ IT! I give up. I'm gonna go crawl into my bunker and seal the door behind me. Wake me when the Zombie Apocalypse starts.*


----------



## Redeye (5 Aug 2011)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> If one wishes to criticize the Iraq war, it should be possible to do so without creating strawmen and citing absolutes where there were none.  It is so hard to find a "justifiable" war (meaning, justly initiated), that the charge is a nearly universal criticism of wars.  The Iraq war wasn't pointless - not worth the cost after the first 3 months, but certainly not pointless.  Knowledge of lack of WMD is known only with hindsight and was believed otherwise in the run-up; that anyone would use it to criticize the "justification" reveals a lack of ability to separate causality and knowledge across time.  What was well-known prior to the outset is that the "containment" was unravelling.  The US worry was that the WMD nearly all countries _believed_ Iraq had _might_ find their way into the hands of a third party, not that Iraq was already responsible.



Nearly all countries believed they might have them because evidence of them was fabricated.  I cannot have been the only person completely unsurprised when no WMDs were discovered - given that the UN had inspectors running all over the country who couldn't find any trace fo them and had said so for months, if not years.  I also could not have been the only person who correctly guessed that the removal of a strongman in the region would touch off a wave of sectarian violence.  I don't think it was completely hindsight.

I agree that there's really few justifiable wars - in the case of Afghanistan, I see some justification for it for the fact that the country actually harboured an organization that planned and executed the mass murder of almost 4000 people - and removing that safe haven has some merit.




			
				Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> >The Dems forced the war expenditure onto the books when they took Congress in 2006
> 
> So what?  There was no mystery attached to the special appropriations; and, being special, they were more obvious than if they were hidden in the baseline.



But they don't reflect in those spending as a proportion of GDP as a result, that's the reason I highlighted that - it masks the impact on the US national debt and deficit.


----------



## Redeye (5 Aug 2011)

cupper said:
			
		

> Second: How much has the current Fed policy of near zero interest rates over the past few years, and prior years on relatively low interest rates contributed to the poor economic performance since the collapse in 2008?



Not at all - lowering interest rates is a monetary policy stimulant - the problem is that the Fed's "run out of bullets", they can't drop things lower.  Lower interest rates, theoretically, spur more consumption and investment as capital is cheaper.  Raising rates does the opposite - it encourages saving vice consuming or investing, which is why when inflation becomes a concern, central banks will usually raise rates.


----------



## Redeye (5 Aug 2011)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> Businesses cut their way to solvency all the time.  The usual technique is to divest the money-losing parts (ie. the parts that some other business already does more effectively).  If nothing is separable, the business is unlikely to succeed because it has been outcompeted in all aspects.



A government, however, isn't a business.  It doesn't, and cannot be run like a business.


----------



## cupper (5 Aug 2011)

Redeye said:
			
		

> Not at all - lowering interest rates is a monetary policy stimulant - the problem is that the Fed's "run out of bullets", they can't drop things lower.  Lower interest rates, theoretically, spur more consumption and investment as capital is cheaper.  Raising rates does the opposite - it encourages saving vice consuming or investing, which is why when inflation becomes a concern, central banks will usually raise rates.



Yes, I agree, but isn't the fact that they can't drop rates any lower and therefore out of bullets actually contributing by the fact that they have lost one tool which would have otherwise been available? Also, it was a key factor in creation of the the housing bubble which was the cause of the crisis that sparked the recession of 2008, which had a direct effect on the reduction in tax revenues available regardless of the additional effect of the Bush tax cuts.

I would have to say that it had a very significant contribution, in several different ways.


----------



## a_majoor (5 Aug 2011)

Redeye said:
			
		

> I'm not sure what's funny.  It's true.  California pays more into the federal pot than they take out - and that money tends to flow into red states - rather like Canada's "equalization" scheme, though not an actual explicit, formulaic program.  That's reality.



The LA Times (of all people) explode the California myth:

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-cap-money-20110804,0,7585023,print.column



> *Capitol Journal: U.S. budget ax hangs over California*
> Much of California's funds come from Washington, D.C. Now, that's shaky ground.
> George Skelton
> 
> ...


----------



## Redeye (5 Aug 2011)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> The LA Times (of all people) explode the California myth:
> 
> http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-cap-money-20110804,0,7585023,print.column



Maybe I missed something, but nothing in there actually counters the information I posted.

No, on reading it again.  I didn't miss anything.  Indeed, nothing in here counters the fact that California provides more in federal revenue than they receive.  Moving right along, then...


----------



## cupper (5 Aug 2011)

Redeye said:
			
		

> Maybe I missed something, but nothing in there actually counters the information I posted.
> 
> No, on reading it again.  I didn't miss anything.  Indeed, nothing in here counters the fact that California provides more in federal revenue than they receive.  Moving right along, then...



I believe this is what you are looking for.

http://www.taxfoundation.org/press/show/22659.html

California ranks 43rd out of the 50 states (2007 figures) at an outlay to tax ratio of 0.78. So for every $1.00 in tax taken by the Feds, California gets back $0.78.

Worst offender is New Mexico at $2.03.


----------



## cupper (5 Aug 2011)

Standard & Poor's down grades the US credit rating from AAA to AA+.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/story/2011/08/05/standard-poors-us-credit-rating.html

In its statement, S&P said that it had changed its view "of the difficulties of bridging the gulf between the political parties" over a credible deficit reduction plan.

S&P said it was now "pessimistic about the capacity of Congress and the administration to be able to leverage their agreement this week into a broader fiscal consolidation plan that stabilizes the government's debt dynamics anytime soon."


----------



## Fishbone Jones (5 Aug 2011)

Redeye said:
			
		

> Nearly all countries believed they might have them because evidence of them was fabricated.  I cannot have been the only person completely unsurprised when no WMDs were discovered - given that the UN had inspectors running all over the country who couldn't find any trace fo them and had said so for months, if not years.  I also could not have been the only person who correctly guessed that the removal of a strongman in the region would touch off a wave of sectarian violence.  I don't think it was completely hindsight.


Of course. Once again your left wing, head in the sand, opinion is the only logical and dependable solution that is right and righteous. Everyone else is some sort of gomer not privy to your superior intellectual capacity.

It doesn't matter that the same madman said he had those weapons, proved that he had them, used them before and threatened to use them again, didn't matter, did it? What mattered to the conspiracy theorists and left wing ideologs is that, after he moved them, we couldn't find them. So, simplistically, they didn't exist and Bush was a dolt.

Of course, there are all kinds of idiots in the world, that would rather call the bluff of terrorists like this. People that think like you. People that would not bat an eye when hundreds, if not thousands, of Kurds were killed by the same WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION that Saddam used and has been proven, but deny it because they are not connected. People like you that still profess he didn't have them. : Guess all those Kurds, etc are right wing conspirators and liars too.


----------



## Infanteer (6 Aug 2011)

On WMDs in Iraq, I'll forgive myself for believing, like many, in Colin Powell's word.  I probably felt the same way he did when Matt Damon couldn't locate the things.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (6 Aug 2011)

Everyone can believe what they want. There is no substatial truth either way.

I think he had them, and we were too stupid to find them or figure out what he did with them.

He said he had them. He used them on the Kurds, amongst others. Why would we think he was such a kidder? 

I guess we should have said. "C'mon, quit fuckin' with us Saddam, you joker."

Hey, take me out and shoot me.

You can't prove, beyond a doubt, he had them or not.

And you won't convince me otherwise


----------



## cupper (6 Aug 2011)

Am watching Bill Maher tonight, and Neil DeGrasse Tyson is one of the panelists. The main discussion point is the US economy. Tyson makes a very good point, that a significant majority of the Members of Congress list their primary occupation as lawyer.

A lawyer's main purpose is to argue. And it does not necessarily mean arguing for something you believe to be right.

Then he goes on to ask, wouldn't it be better if we elected people with a real understanding of how things work, such as doctors, engineers, economists, teachers etc.


----------



## Brad Sallows (6 Aug 2011)

>Actually, by going the route of special appropriations, it allowed the Bush Administration to keep the expenditures out of the budget, and were not counted against the budget deficit until Obama put them on the books (although it still increased the actual debt). Which is one reason why the deficit numbers ballooned in Obama's first budget.

Either you haven't been reading the explanations I have posted on two or three threads, or I haven't explained clearly.  The "budget" to which you refer is the document the president is required to provide to Congress (aka a "spending request") by the first Monday in February, for the forthcoming fiscal year which will begin in October and end in September of the following year.  It is a proposal, not an immutable document.  The year-end figures include the special appropriations and everything else which changes over the course of a year; the off-budget amounts were not magically absent from every number published and forbidden from mention under pain of death.  I don't give a rat's ass what Bush or Obama published/publish as wish-lists: I look at the final figures based on real revenues and expenditures.

Here are the figures I found for recent US federal deficits (actual, not forecasts or estimates) in billions of dollars:

2002	158.01
2003	377.81
2004	412.90
2005	318.59
2006	248.57
2007	160.96
2008	458.55
2009	1412.69
2010	1293.49

For example, the deficit for FY 2008 (Oct 2007-Sep 2008) was $458.55B.  It was not $458.55B "plus some amount for cost of wars".  

As you can see, the actual deficits have ballooned, period, and the remarkable deficit in FY 2009 (originally projected at $400B in the funding request) was primarily due to shortfall of revenue ($600B) and extra spending (~$400B, including $145B for the wars).  If $150B is subtracted for the "wars" from FY 2010, it still leaves a $1,140B hole which is not merely due to a shortfall of revenue.


----------



## Brad Sallows (6 Aug 2011)

Just because the entitlement load is finally starting to weigh now does not mean it is not the root of the problem.  That's the point: the problem is hard for most people to understand and recognize because the effects - predicted to take decades to manifest - have taken decades to manifest (although fewer than originally hoped).

The US trust fund holdings are essentially numbers on paper or in computers.  When you write "Social Security benefit payments can still be sustained", from where do you think the money will come when the agency presents one of its special bonds and asks for cash?  If the US can't tax or borrow (ie. issue ordinary publicly held debt) the money at that time (and is unwilling to simply "print" it), the trust fund bonds can not be paid out.


----------



## Brad Sallows (6 Aug 2011)

>I see some justification for it [Afghanistan war] for the fact that the country actually harboured an organization that planned and executed the mass murder of almost 4000 people - and removing that safe haven has some merit.

I didn't ask whether it had merit, I asked whether it was justifiable.  Proportionality?  Last resort?  I think not.  Libya?  Ditto.  All the wars currently ongoing are unjustifiable.  There is no "Iraq Bad, Afghanistan Good".  If the question is simply one of merit, removing Hussein and verifying the absence of WMD had a great deal of merit.  The mistake was to remain more than 3 to 6 months.


----------



## Brad Sallows (6 Aug 2011)

>But they don't reflect in those spending as a proportion of GDP as a result, that's the reason I highlighted that - it masks the impact on the US national debt and deficit.

That remark, with respect to on-budget/off-budget spending, is unintelligible unless you would care to explain.  Or perhaps it is the case that I am the only person in the room who looks at actual year-end figures; everyone else bases opinions and conclusions on the wish-lists created 8 months prior, rather like publishing the annual unit historical report citing solely the operations and administration plan (or whatever it is called now) exactly as it was first published prior to commencement of the year.

As long as one sticks to year-end historical figures - and I can't see how it is possible to do meaningful historical comparisons or to understand the true amounts of deficits and debt without the year-end actuals - nothing is masked anywhere.  It is all in the totals.


----------



## Brad Sallows (6 Aug 2011)

>A government, however, isn't a business.  It doesn't, and cannot be run like a business.

Your statement is merely an assertion.  Government can be run like a business in most respects, notwithstanding the fact it has a "guaranteed" revenue stream.  Most parts of government have business plans and budgeting processes.  Where the shortfalls appear are in the inability / unwillingness to constrain expenditures to revenues, to limit bureaucratic bloat, and to match compensation to market (it's easy, there are consultants who do the analysis: pick a target compensation percentile, find the market range, and use it).


----------



## Redeye (6 Aug 2011)

recceguy said:
			
		

> Of course. Once again your left wing, head in the sand, opinion is the only logical and dependable solution that is right and righteous. Everyone else is some sort of gomer not privy to your superior intellectual capacity.



Wow, didn't you make some "holier than thou" post about ad hominems not long ago?  I'm loving the rich irony here.



			
				recceguy said:
			
		

> It doesn't matter that the same madman said he had those weapons, proved that he had them, used them before and threatened to use them again, didn't matter, did it? What mattered to the conspiracy theorists and left wing ideologs is that, after he moved them, we couldn't find them. So, simplistically, they didn't exist and Bush was a dolt.



Had - past tense.  Used - past tense.  Oh, hey, who supplied him with them (or precursors at least) and tacitly approved their use?  Wait, that doesn't fit your narrative so we'll ignore that.  He also repeatedly stated that the programs had long since been dismantled, and when he realized that the US was dead set on invasions he made it clear.  Years of UN inspections found absolutely no evidence to suggest that there were any active programs, and thus the US engaged in elaborate fabrications (like the Niger yellowcake memo) to support their case, because they had no tangible evidence to do so.



			
				recceguy said:
			
		

> Of course, there are all kinds of idiots in the world, that would rather call the bluff of terrorists like this. People that think like you. People that would not bat an eye when hundreds, if not thousands, of Kurds were killed by the same WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION that Saddam used and has been proven, but deny it because they are not connected. People like you that still profess he didn't have them. : Guess all those Kurds, etc are right wing conspirators and liars too.



If that wasn't complete BS, then why was nothing done after the Halabja attack?  And what's with moral relativism?  What of the thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of Iraqis who have died and continue to die in the sectarian violence there, caused by the devastation of the war.  No one in their right mind denies that he had and used WMD in the 1980s and that at that time the West did absolutely nothing about it.  It appears a fact of history, however, that he did not have them in 2003, as no evidence of any have been found.  Not a shred.  Just like the UN inspectors said.  Just like Hussein claimed to the end.  Had - but no longer had.

Forgive me for thinking that killing so many people over lies is wrong, immoral, unnecessary, unjustifiable. 

We're done here.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (6 Aug 2011)

Redeye said:
			
		

> We're I'm done here.


TFTFY


----------



## Brad Sallows (6 Aug 2011)

>killing so many people over lies

A lie is something known to be untrue.  Please do not conflate guesses and estimates and assessments and so forth with lies.


----------



## cupper (6 Aug 2011)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> Here are the figures I found for recent US federal deficits (actual, not forecasts or estimates) in billions of dollars:
> 
> 2002	158.01
> 2003	377.81
> ...



In actual fact, the numbers you quote have not included the special appropriations for Iraq and Afghanistan. The Bush Administration were constantly being criticized by the CBO, and most financial analysts and economists for using accounting gimmicks to lower the deficit numbers. The reasoning was always made that since it wasn't part of the government budget that is should not be included as part of the overall annual deficit calculation. HOWEVER, the special appropriations were counted against the actual debt.

The numbers for 2003 to 2009 cover the Bush years, and interestingly the huge jump in 2009 shows the effect of the TARP program. But none of those numbers account for the special appropriations.


----------



## cupper (6 Aug 2011)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> The US trust fund holdings are essentially numbers on paper or in computers.  When you write "Social Security benefit payments can still be sustained", from where do you think the money will come when the agency presents one of its special bonds and asks for cash?  If the US can't tax or borrow (ie. issue ordinary publicly held debt) the money at that time (and is unwilling to simply "print" it), the trust fund bonds can not be paid out.



In actual fact, the Social Security Program was designed to be a "Pay as You Go" system, where money paid in by workers would go to cover the benefit payments of those who currently draw on the program. In order to address fluctuations in demographics, the system has a built in "Trust Fund" where overpayments, rather than be paid back would go into the "Fund" and was intended to act as a cushion when there was a shortfall between the payments coming in and the payments going out. However, the Government was allowed to borrow money from the fund in times of fund prosperity by exchanging treasury bonds for cash.

When I said benefit payments can still be sustained, it basically means that they can still be paid from the incoming payments, albeit as time goes on the level of benefits paid out will need to be adjusted downwards to ensure all persons drawing on the system receive payouts.


----------



## a_majoor (6 Aug 2011)

The vindication of the TEA Party movement. The partial and incomplete victory negotiated did not cut spending enough:

http://campaign2012.washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/beltway-confidential/downgrade-shows-demint-was-right



> *Downgrade shows DeMint was right byDavid Freddoso*
> Follow on Twitterfreddoso
> 
> He was right. (AP photo)
> ...



I am already seeing predictions that bond hawks could force the yeild of US treasuries up to 9% (although the timeframe was not given), so the shape of the next few years is already being laid out. OF course economic historians are probably not surprised, we are in a "deleveraging" cycle as overextended governments and economies have to pay off debts. The last huge deleveraging was the Great Depression as the WWI debts had to be dealt with; in our case we do have the cost of winning the Cold War, but the costs of scial programs and government payrolls since the 1960's has far eclipsed any sort of war spending (and the unfunded liabilities go far beyond even that).


----------



## cupper (6 Aug 2011)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> The vindication of the TEA Party movement. The partial and incomplete victory negotiated did not cut spending enough:
> *
> Downgrade shows DeMint was right byDavid Freddoso*



I think it's a little premature to claim victory, and say DeMint was right.

S&P was the only rating house to make a move, and they quite clearly did it in response to the political climate, rather than as a response to the economic future. It would seem to reason that cutting government spending would be a good thing (even if you think it wasn't far enough) and step in the right direction.

I would side with the other ratings houses and take a wait and see attitude, to determine if the pols finally realized that the partisan gamesmanship that we witnessed over the last month or so, particularly with the mass fail of the FAA debacle, was only going to kill the economy.


----------



## Edward Campbell (6 Aug 2011)

cupper said:
			
		

> I think it's a little premature to claim victory, and say DeMint was right.
> 
> S&P was the only rating house to make a move, and they quite clearly did it in response to the political climate, rather than as a response to the economic future. It would seem to reason that cutting government spending would be a good thing (even if you think it wasn't far enough) and step in the right direction.
> 
> I would side with the other ratings houses and take a wait and see attitude, to determine if the pols finally realized that the partisan gamesmanship that we witnessed over the last month or so, particularly with the mass fail of the FAA debacle, was only going to kill the economy.




It may be that S&P's downgrade will be the catalyst to spur the Washington 'leadership' into some productive action; if it does then Moody's and Fitch will be right. If, on the other hand, the President and the Congress continue down their current paths then S&P will be justified, next year, in a further downgrade and they will appear prescient and the others will be seen as being American toadies who put nationality ahead of their duty to their clients.


----------



## a_majoor (7 Aug 2011)

Eric Cantor explains how the process worked, and what to expect in the future. The S&P downgrade should provide an additional spur to action, and galvinize the "severely normal" American public with little interest in politics to get serious about what is happening in both the Capital and the State houses. The fact that there was a downgrade will resonate with the TEA Party movement narrative about spending, in the experience of most people you cannot spend more than you earn so deep cuts will be seen as the common sense solution.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424053111903454504576486752134553990.html?mod=rss_opinion_main



> *Obama and the Narcissism of Big Differences*
> 'He becomes visibly agitated. . . . He does not like to be challenged on policy grounds,' says the House majority leader of the president.
> 
> By JOSEPH RAGO
> ...


----------



## cupper (7 Aug 2011)

Take what Cantor says with a grain of salt.

He became the lightening rod for the anger of Americans that resulted, and will more than likely be scapegoated by the GOP's leadership. 

It was interesting to see how he became sidelined during the final days leading up to the final agreement.


----------



## tomahawk6 (7 Aug 2011)

The desire by the democrats to help everyone who wanted a home,regardless of their ability to pay for it was the cause.The two vehicles for this were 2 quasi government corporations Freddie and Fannie,both of whom are in very rocky shape themselves.Had this interference by Congress in the housing market not happened the crash of 2008 probably wouldnt have happened.


----------



## Redeye (7 Aug 2011)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> >killing so many people over lies
> 
> A lie is something known to be untrue.  Please do not conflate guesses and estimates and assessments and so forth with lies.



Yeah, I know the difference.  I used the word deliberately.  The Niger yellowcake memo which was a key part of the casus belli was a lie.  The whole f**king thing was built on lies & hubris.


----------



## Redeye (7 Aug 2011)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> I am already seeing predictions that bond hawks could force the yeild of US treasuries up to 9% (although the timeframe was not given), so the shape of the next few years is already being laid out. OF course economic historians are probably not surprised, we are in a "deleveraging" cycle as overextended governments and economies have to pay off debts. The last huge deleveraging was the Great Depression as the WWI debts had to be dealt with; in our case we do have the cost of winning the Cold War, but the costs of scial programs and government payrolls since the 1960's has far eclipsed any sort of war spending (and the unfunded liabilities go far beyond even that).



If T-Bill yields soar to 9% in any reasonably foreseeable near term timeline, the effect on the US economy will be catastrophic.  In fact, catastrophic isn't even a strong enough word.  Since that drives all other interest rates in an already heavily leveraged economy, I don't even want to begin to imagine the impact of that - especially since years of government policy encouraged such leveraging - to borrow one's way to the American dream as it were


----------



## DBA (8 Aug 2011)

Redeye said:
			
		

> Yeah, I know the difference.  I used the word deliberately.  The Niger yellowcake memo which was a key part of the casus belli was a lie.  The whole f**king thing was built on lies & hubris.



I remember watching Colin Powell's presentation to the UN and thought the WMD evidence offered was weak. More indications that such programs might exist not that they actually did exist. Like a picture of a vehicle that could possibly be used in some form of WMD production/use/training but nothing indicating it was used in such a role. 

So why was the evidence considered an indication that Iraq still had a WMD program? Mainly because Saddam fooled inspectors before  and it was looked at as evidence he was fooling them again. Combined with Saddam's confrontational tactics with inspectors and the international community a lot thought he did have WMD. He may have thought that absent actual evidence of WMD programs an invasion wouldn't take place. He was wrong.

Article in Slate going over the Yellowcake memo and coming to the opposite conclusion as yours: Case Closed: The truth about the Iraqi-Niger "yellowcake" nexus.


----------



## Brad Sallows (10 Aug 2011)

cupper said:
			
		

> In actual fact, the numbers you quote have not included the special appropriations for Iraq and Afghanistan. The Bush Administration were constantly being criticized by the CBO, and most financial analysts and economists for using accounting gimmicks to lower the deficit numbers. The reasoning was always made that since it wasn't part of the government budget that is should not be included as part of the overall annual deficit calculation. HOWEVER, the special appropriations were counted against the actual debt.
> 
> The numbers for 2003 to 2009 cover the Bush years, and interestingly the huge jump in 2009 shows the effect of the TARP program. But none of those numbers account for the special appropriations.



The numbers I quoted are year-end actual deficits.  No spending is "not included".  Do you understand what that means?


----------



## Brad Sallows (10 Aug 2011)

cupper said:
			
		

> When I said benefit payments can still be sustained, it basically means that they can still be paid from the incoming payments, albeit as time goes on the level of benefits paid out will need to be adjusted downwards to ensure all persons drawing on the system receive payouts.



My question was mainly to see whether you understood that since FICA receipts ("payments") no longer cover expenditures and the "trust fund" assets are essentially a ledger entry, it is now necessary to use other revenues (ie. borrow from elsewhere) to provide the cash demanded by the agency (either as interest, and/or principal amounts of redeemed certificates).  Not only does the government have to borrow to cover whatever was paid for by the FICA surplus in past years, it must now borrow to cover the FICA deficit.


----------



## a_majoor (12 Aug 2011)

The word "Apocalypse" is based on the ancient Greek word ἀποκάλυψις "to reveal". As government spending has outrun revenues by a factor of four to three, an apocalypse is taking place in government finances and programs:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/usps-proposes-cutting-120000-jobs-pulling-out-of-health-care-plan/2011/08/11/gIQAZxIM9I_print.html



> *Postal Service proposes cutting 120,000 jobs, pulling out of health-care plan*
> By Joe Davidson, Published: August 11
> 
> SEATTLE — The financially strapped U.S. Postal Service is proposing to cut its workforce by 20 percent and to withdraw from the federal health and retirement plans because it believes it could provide benefits at a lower cost.
> ...



and a closing thought on how austerity programs and tax cuts play out in the real world courtesy of "Day by Day"


----------



## cupper (12 Aug 2011)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> The word "Apocalypse" is based on the ancient Greek word ἀποκάλυψις "to reveal". As government spending has outrun revenues by a factor of four to three, an apocalypse is taking place in government finances and programs:
> 
> http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/usps-proposes-cutting-120000-jobs-pulling-out-of-health-care-plan/2011/08/11/gIQAZxIM9I_print.html
> 
> and a closing thought on how austerity programs and tax cuts play out in the real world courtesy of "Day by Day"



The only problem with this, it omits a few key details, specifically:

1) By act of Congress, USPS is required to prepay pension contributions annually to the pension fund. 2011 contributions were pegged at $5.4 Billion.

2) A 2010 Inspector General's report showed that USPS has over paid into the fund by more than $75 Billion.

3) USPS has requested that they be allowed to pass on payments to the fund for the next several years until the accumulated debt has been reduced /eliminated. The Union has agreed to fore go those payments. Congress has so far denied this request. 

4) USPS has requested that the $75 Billion over payment be returned, again with the Union's blessing. Again, Congress has denied this request.

5) Both USPS and The Unions have asked that the pension funding be changed to a Pay-as-You-Go funding scheme. (not necessarily a smart move on either part, depending on your view of the concept).

This is another thing one must take with a grain of salt and consider the sources. The Republicans have a stated agenda to eliminate the USPS and privatize it's services.


----------



## a_majoor (13 Aug 2011)

Since the source is the USPS itself, I wonder how much sodium is needed to digest the article.

The problem is very simple; they are spending far more than they make. This is unsustainable, so they need to spend less until their spending matches their income at a minimum. If their spending falls below their income, then they are in a profit situation. 

Saying they should simply raise their rates to increase revenue is as ill founded as the constant calls to increase taxes; people have options and not using the USPS for mail service is one. Regardless of how much stamps and services cost the consumer to buy, revenue will decrease as consumers switch to Gmail or private couriers. 

California, New York and other "Blue" states with big tax burdens are discovering people and capital are mobile (Canadians are too, why do you think there has been such a shift in capital and population to Western Canada?), and of course large enough corporate entities are abandoning the United States entirely. (Canada has a low enough corporate tax rate that we could become the destination of choice for these expats). Just like States which introduce "millionaire taxes" discover the millionaires have dissapeared next tax season.

Expect more of this as budgets become more strained and the Progressive model of big government and bureaucratic power collapses.


----------



## cupper (13 Aug 2011)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> The problem is very simple; they are spending far more than they make. This is unsustainable, so they need to spend less until their spending matches their income at a minimum. If their spending falls below their income, then they are in a profit situation.



You missed the point I was making. I agree that they are spending more than they are making. But part of that is due to a congressionally mandated requirement to pre pay contributions to the pension plans, rather than pay in as the employees contribute. As a result, they are saddled with annual payments that cannot be adjusted as the workforce varies from period to period. And because of this they overpaid into the system by $70 billion. And when proposals to correct both the excess payments and repair the financial stability of the USPS as a whole, Congress in it's infinite wisdom decided that doing the right thing was not the right thing to do.

>POINT OF CLARIFICATION: The Congressional mandate requires USPS to pay 75 years worth of contributions over a 10 year period from 2006 to 2016 which averages to $5.5 billion per year

And again, beware of politicians with agendas, and the power to achieve them.

I for one feel that the USPS's time is short regardless of what measures are taken to keep it solvent. Like the book store and the movie theater, the changing world of electronic communications is going to make the postal service obsolete. And is it really necessary that we have delivery on Saturdays? Canada makes due with weekday only delivery.


----------



## a_majoor (13 Aug 2011)

cupper said:
			
		

> You missed the point I was making. I agree that they are spending more than they are making. But part of that is due to a congressionally mandated requirement to pre pay contributions to the pension plans, rather than pay in as the employees contribute. As a result, they are saddled with annual payments that cannot be adjusted as the workforce varies from period to period. And because of this they overpaid into the system by $70 billion. And when proposals to correct both the excess payments and repair the financial stability of the USPS as a whole, Congress in it's infinite wisdom decided that doing the right thing was not the right thing to do.
> 
> >POINT OF CLARIFICATION: The Congressional mandate requires USPS to pay 75 years worth of contributions over a 10 year period from 2006 to 2016 which averages to $5.5 billion per year



Short answer is "So what?". We all have mandated expenses such as mortgage and taxes, and discretionary expenses. The combined total is our budget, and if the expenditure's exceed the income, then you are up S**t creek regardless of where these expenses come from. The bank or utility compay isn't going to be very sympathetic when you cannot pay your bills...The same economic principles apply to corporatins and governments, in all places and in all times.

Unless or until there is a "friction free" economic sysem or the Local Knowledge problem is overcome (both which would involve changing the structure of the Universe, probably another great Stimulus project  ), there is just no getting around this issue.


----------



## Edward Campbell (13 Aug 2011)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> Short answer is "So what?". We all have mandated expenses such as mortgage and taxes, and discretionary expenses. The combined total is our budget, and if the expenditure's exceed the income, then you are up S**t creek regardless of where these expenses come from. *The bank or utility compay isn't going to be very sympathetic when you cannot pay your bills...The same economic principles apply to corporatins and governments, in all places and in all times.*
> 
> Unless or until there is a "friction free" economic sysem or the Local Knowledge problem is overcome (both which would involve changing the structure of the Universe, probably another great Stimulus project  ), there is just no getting around this issue.




Fair enough, but one problem facing USPS is that they have overpaid and in business when that happens one stops paying until the overpayment is used up - USPS, and, through it, the American taxpayer, is being screwed (again, still, as usual) by the US Congress.


----------



## cupper (13 Aug 2011)

Again, it comes down to inaction by Congress to do the right thing. There is currently a bill to correct the issue of the overpayment and to eliminate Saturday delivery, but due to the current political climate of "our way or no way" the bill is stalled. Much the same way that  the FAA funding debacle occurred.

Pundits are looking at this more as an attempt by the USPS to unclog the system, by claiming they need to lay off 120,000 workers, which no one wants to take responsibility for.

And as for the "So what?". Seriously, the regulations were flawed from the beginning, in that USPS was required to cover future expenditures 65 years in advance. From a "time value of money" sense this may make sense, but when the expenditures are based on factors that will vary from year to year, and may not be predictable, it makes no sense to plan that far out, and tie up revenues that long.

It would be like your bank coming to you and saying that we need you to pay for your credit card purchases over your life span in the next 10 years. And since you're good at managing your expenses, you end up overpaying the projected outlay by way more than you need. But it's left you strapped to pay your mortgage. And the bank won't let you pay the mortgage on your credit card. So now you need to sell the car, kick the wife and kids out the door to earn their keep, get rid of the pets, and take in new boarders just to make ends meet.

Oh, and sneak MRE's home to feed everyone. Yummmy


----------



## cupper (16 Aug 2011)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> Second question: If Keyensian spending is so effective, why is big spending California facing net emmigration of people and jobs, *while low spending, low tax Texas is gaining people and creating jobs?*



You might find these two articles informative.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/rick-perrys-budget-sleight-of-hand/2011/08/15/gIQAuiGCHJ_blog.html?hpid=z2

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/breaking-down-rick-perrys-texas-miracle/2011/08/15/gIQAzRHFHJ_blog.html


----------



## a_majoor (30 Aug 2011)

The TEA Party movement is reaching for new goals:

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/freedomworks-to-hold-first-tea-party-debt-commission-field-hearing-in-salt-lake-city-2011-08-30



> *FreedomWorks to Hold First Tea Party Debt Commission Field Hearing in Salt Lake City*
> 
> Aug 30, 2011 (BUSINESS WIRE) -- FreedomWorks:
> 
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (30 Sep 2011)

A rather hilarious story; if the postal union can do this, why can't they actually, you know, deliver ordinary people's mail?

http://dailycaller.com/2011/09/30/going-postal-mail-worker-unions-overload-tea-party-group-with-more-than-100-pounds-of-mail/#ixzz1ZU95IrYt



> *Going postal: Mail worker unions overload tea party group with more than 100 pounds of mail*
> 
> In what appears to be an attempt to overwhelm their critics, postal union members have sent more than 100 pounds of mail to a tea party group advocating for United States Postal Service reform.
> 
> ...


----------



## Nemo888 (30 Sep 2011)

You did know that the US Postal Service is one of the main employers of Veterans in the USA right?  With pensions being so terrible now screwing over vets yet again leaves a bad taste in my mouth.




> "To receive preference, a veteran must have been discharged or released from active duty in the Armed Forces under honorable conditions (i.e., with an honorable or general discharge). As defined in 5 U.S.C. 2101(2), "Armed Forces" means the Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps and Coast Guard. The veteran must also be eligible under one of the preference categories below (also shown on the Standard Form (SF) 50, Notification of Personnel Action).
> 
> Military retirees at the rank of major, lieutenant commander, or higher are not eligible for preference in appointment unless they are disabled veterans. (This does not apply to Reservists who will not begin drawing military retired pay until age 60.)
> 
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (30 Sep 2011)

At issue here isn't who the USPS employs, but rather _what_ the unionized employees are doing and _why_. Setting up strawmen isn't the same as arguing a position.

In any event, I would be far more supportive towards people who are doing their jobs rather than pulling childish pranks like sending hundeds of pounds of mail to disrupt political activity and speech. They can do their own political activities and speech on their _own time_ and with _their own money_, thank you.


----------



## Nemo888 (1 Oct 2011)

Been reading Umberto Eco's Eternal Fascism. Interesting. I found a synopsis on the internetz.

In a 1995 essay "Eternal Fascism",[21] the Italian writer and academic Umberto Eco attempts to list general properties of fascist ideology. He claims that it is not possible to organise these into a coherent system, but that "it is enough that one of them be present to allow fascism to coagulate around it". He uses the term "Ur-fascism" as a generic description of different historical forms of fascism.

The features of fascism he lists are as follows:

"The Cult of Tradition", combining cultural syncretism with a rejection of modernism (often disguised as a rejection of capitalism). 

"The Cult of Action for Action's Sake", which dictates that action is of value in itself, and should be taken without intellectual reflection. This, says Eco, is connected with anti-intellectualism and irrationalism, and often manifests in attacks on modern culture and science. 

"Disagreement Is Treason" - fascism devalues intellectual discourse and critical reasoning as barriers to action. 

"Fear of Difference", which fascism seeks to exploit and exacerbate, often in the form of racism or an appeal against foreigners and immigrants. 

"Appeal to a Frustrated Middle Class", fearing economic pressure from the demands and aspirations of lower social groups. 

"Obsession with a Plot" and the hyping-up of an enemy threat. This often involves an appeal to xenophobia or the identification of an internal security threat. He cites Pat Robertson's book The New World Order as a prominent example of a plot obsession. 

"Pacifism Is Trafficking with the Enemy" because "Life is Permanent Warfare" - there must always be an enemy to fight. 

"Contempt for the Weak" - although a fascist society is elitist, everybody in the society is educated to become a hero. 

"Selective Populism" - the People have a common will, which is not delegated but interpreted by a leader. This may involve doubt being cast upon a democratic institution, because "it no longer represents the Voice of the People". 

"Newspeak" - fascism employs and promotes an impoverished vocabulary in order to limit critical reasoning.


----------



## Brad Sallows (1 Oct 2011)

It is enough for any one of those to be present for almost any sort of ideology to coagulate around it; each of several "-isms" has many of the characteristics on that list.  It is not necessary to situate the estimate on "fascism"; those are all merely devices for mustering political support that any faction might use.


----------



## Edward Campbell (1 Oct 2011)

I would be cautious about painting the "Tea Party" as anything, including organized. It's been several months since I was last in the USA for a protracted period but my impression then was, and remains, that it's rather like the old joke about three economists equalling four opinions. There are some Tea Party folks who want e.g. strict adherence to the Constitution, others who are _fiscal fundamentalists_, not a single penny for anything, including the Pentagon, without a  :2c: offset and there are others in the Sarah Palin camp, whatever that implies.

I'm guessing that the Tea Party people surprised themselves last November and that those who self-identify as Tea Party have organized themselves around a simple, single policy: no new spending and no new taxes.


----------



## cupper (1 Oct 2011)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> They can do their own political activities and speech on their _own time_ and with _their own money_, thank you.



Point of fact, they are using their own money to pay for the stamp to put on the letter.

Secondly, The Tea Party spokesperson needs to go back and fact check herself. No Taxpayer funding goes to the USPS.

Thirdly, it was because of a royal Congressional F-up that the USPS is in the position it is. The Congressionally mandated prepay of medical benefits for USPS employees was originally supposed to be spread over 40 years when they were preparing the bill in 2005. But when the CBO could not by law do a scoring of the actual effects of the legislation past 10 years, some congressional brainwave came up with a simple fix, we'll do it over 10 years. Like getting approval for a 30 year mortgage, then the bank comes back and says you have to pay it off in 10 years (No surprise that we had a financial system meltdown when guys like this are running the show)

Fourthly, the USPS has overpaid into the federal employees fund by an amount which is they were allowed to take back, would cover the remainder of the prepay mandate, and save 5.5 billion a year in outlays.


----------



## DBA (1 Oct 2011)

cupper said:
			
		

> Point of fact, they are using their own money to pay for the stamp to put on the letter.
> 
> Secondly, The Tea Party spokesperson needs to go back and fact check herself. No Taxpayer funding goes to the USPS.
> 
> ...



Semantics. USPS has a monopoly and is exempt from paying Federal taxes. It's inefficiency and poor service is a direct tax or increased cost compared to what a more efficient and competent system would provide. It's not because the workers are lazy or incompetent. It is that an inefficient and poorly run service provides lots of jobs while improvements or service cut backs means fewer jobs. 

Fundamentally for everybody to improve what they have in quantity and/or quality overall production has to become more efficient and competent. Raises on base wages over inflation are not sustainable across large swaths of workers unless production gains match. Everybody wants the raises but the corresponding changes that would make them sustainable like 1/2 the workforce being let go due to a more efficient production method are fought tooth and nail.


----------



## cupper (2 Oct 2011)

DBA said:
			
		

> Semantics. USPS has a monopoly and is exempt from paying Federal taxes. It's inefficiency and poor service is a direct tax or increased cost compared to what a more efficient and competent system would provide. It's not because the workers are lazy or incompetent. It is that an inefficient and poorly run service provides lots of jobs while improvements or service cut backs means fewer jobs.



How is it semantics when there is no factual basis for anything the Tea Party rep said?

And how is the USPS a monopoly, when you have so many options to move items from A to B? Fed-Ex, UPS, e-mail, carrier pigeon. One is not required to send "mail" through the Post Office.

The problem is that their main business of moving "mail" (and I don't include the junk that ends up in the trash) is declining yearly as more people switch to electronic means to deliver bills and pay in return. They have seen increases in their parcel delivery for the same reason. But ithe revenues gains from one do not offset the other.

And raising rates does not help, as it will drive customers to alternate means faster than they are leaving now. And the efficiency question is debatable.

And do not forget that there is a Constitutional requirement for the government to provide a postal service.


----------



## Retired AF Guy (2 Oct 2011)

cupper said:
			
		

> And how is the USPS a monopoly, when you have so many options to move items from A to B? Fed-Ex, UPS, e-mail, carrier pigeon. One is not required to send "mail" through the Post Office.



If you don't think USPS is a monopoly, try setting up your own postal service and see how long you stay free. The same thing applies here in Canada in regards to Canada Post. 

Fed-Ex, UPS, DHL do not delievery mail _per se,_ they delivery packages.


----------



## cupper (2 Oct 2011)

Retired AF Guy said:
			
		

> If you don't think USPS is a monopoly, try setting up your own postal service and see how long you stay free. The same thing applies here in Canada in regards to Canada Post.
> 
> Fed-Ex, UPS, DHL do not delievery mail _per se,_ they delivery packages.



Actually, one can set up a "postal service", as long as you charge more than the current rates of the government postal service, and it doesnot follow a "regular schedule". This is how the courier services can get around the laws.


----------



## Nemo888 (2 Oct 2011)

This monopoly was set up very purposefully as when it was private many people got no service at all. Mail was made a public service so that all areas could be served equally, not just the profiltable ones. 

After centuries of trial and error it turns out many natural monopolies are better off in public hands. Firemen, police, water delivery, etc.


----------



## Retired AF Guy (2 Oct 2011)

cupper said:
			
		

> Actually, one can set up a "postal service", as long as you charge more than the current rates of the government postal service, and it doesnot follow a "regular schedule". This is how the courier services can get around the laws.



But, only if you deliver packages and/or time-sensitive documents; you cannot deliver regular mail.


----------



## cupper (2 Oct 2011)

Retired AF Guy said:
			
		

> But, only if you deliver packages and/or time-sensitive documents; you cannot deliver regular mail.



Define "mail"


----------



## Fishbone Jones (2 Oct 2011)

This thread is not about the friggin' mail. Stop the pissing contest and let the thread get back on track. 

Milnet.ca Staff


----------



## a_majoor (2 Oct 2011)

Nemo888 said:
			
		

> After centuries of trial and error it turns out many natural monopolies are better off in public hands. Firemen, police, water delivery, etc.



No, after centuries of trial and error, the modern nation state suceeded over competing organizations because they held a monopoly of *force*. This was pretty definitavely settled by the Treaty of Westphalllia.

The only legitimate monopolies that a State has is the use of force to protect citizens from external enemies, internal threats and to enfoce impartial adjudication of disputes. In modern terms, the Military, Police and Courts of Law.

Every other service you mentioned has been successfully provided by the private sector either in the past or even currently. The citizens of Walkerton, ON were rescued from their government monopoly water service which was poisioning them with e-coli by a short term importation of bottled water donated by concerned fellow citizens (who happend to own private water bottling plants...). [Incidentally, anyone who wants to try and claim this was caused by Mike Harris better check their facts, the cronology of the disaster goes back to the 1970's]

Regardless; the USPS union employees who are abusing their positions should be exposed and censured as a minimum. In Ontario we have a similar problem with Public Service Unions taking their members dues (which are extracted from our tax dollars, as is their pay and benefits) to wage a poitical campaign against the PC party in this and the last election. Once again, Union bosses are quite free to take their own money and carry out political activism on their own time (and by their _own_ money I mean after tax dollars, not union dues). They are free to persuade people to jpin them, and in Canada, at leastl I suspect they would be able to do so even without millions of tax dollars behind them.


----------



## mariomike (2 Oct 2011)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> In Ontario we have a similar problem with Public Service Unions taking their members dues (which are extracted from our tax dollars, as is their pay and benefits) to wage a poitical campaign against the PC party in this and the last election. Once again, Union bosses are quite free to take their own money and carry out political activism on their own time (and by their _own_ money I mean after tax dollars, not union dues). They are free to persuade people to jpin them, and in Canada, at leastl



I _believe_ most of their funding comes from FIREPAC ( Political Action Committee ), rather than union dues: http://www.iaff.org/canada/firepac/index.htm
"IAFF members are encouraged to make voluntary contributions to FIREPAC Canada every year, to ensure the voice of professional fire fighters is heard loud and clear at all levels of government."


----------



## Nemo888 (4 Oct 2011)

An open letter and warning from a former tea party movement adherent to the Occupy Wall Street movement.



> I don't expect you to believe me. I want you to read this, take it with a grain of salt, and do the research yourself. You may not believe me, but I want your movement to succeed. From a former tea partier to you, young new rebels, there's some advice to prevent what happened to our now broken movement from happening to you. I don't agree with everything your movement does, but I sympathize with your cause and agree on our common enemy. You guys are very intelligent and I trust that you will take this in the spirit it is intended.
> 
> I wish I could believe this Occupy Wall Street was still about (r)Evolution, but so far, all I am seeing is a painful rehash of how the corporate-funded government turned the pre-Presidential election tea party movement into the joke it is now. We were anarchists and ultra-libertarians, but above all we were peaceful. So, the media tried painting us as racists. But when that didn't work they tried to goad us into violence. When that failed, they killed our movement with money and false kindness from the theocratic arm of the Republican party. That killed our popular support.
> 
> ...


http://www.reddit.com/r/occupywallstreet/comments/kyjo2/an_open_letter_and_warning_from_a_former_tea/


----------



## a_majoor (7 Oct 2011)

Whiel the TEA Party movement has often been accused of being in the pay of soemone or other, no actual proof has ever been demonstrated. Here, on the other hand:

http://dailycaller.com/2011/10/06/organizer-admits-to-paying-occupy-dc-protesters-video/



> *Organizer admits to paying ‘Occupy DC’ protesters [VIDEO]*
> Published: 6:37 PM 10/06/2011 | Updated: 8:37 AM 10/07/2011
> 
> By Michelle Fields - The Daily Caller
> ...



and

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203476804576615073164484688.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_MIDDLETopOpinion



> *The Hippie Stimulus*
> Occupy Wall Street, funded by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act.
> 
> By JAMES TARANTO
> ...



You can also watch the embedded video. This is the sort of proof that can be used in a court of law...


----------



## ModlrMike (7 Oct 2011)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> Whiel the TEA Party movement has often been accused of being in the pay of soemone or other, no actual proof has ever been demonstrated. Here, on the other hand:
> 
> http://dailycaller.com/2011/10/06/organizer-admits-to-paying-occupy-dc-protesters-video/
> 
> ...




So the warnings sounded in the article at reply 169 seem to have fallen on deaf ears.


----------



## a_majoor (7 Oct 2011)

Not warnings, hearsay.

More circumstantial evidence, but watching how similar actions (protests) are treated when two groups with differing orientations protest in the same place:

http://www.bostonherald.com/news/regional/view.bg?articleid=1371593



> *Occupy’s pass steams Tea Party*
> City, state OK with lack of permits
> Dave Wedge By Dave Wedge
> Friday, October 7, 2011 - Updated 7 hours ago
> ...



Instapundit sums it up well: 





> That’s because the officials are Democratic hacks, and the “protesters” are Democratic tools. Duh


----------



## cupper (7 Oct 2011)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> Whiel While the TEA Party movement has often been accused of being in the pay of soemone someone or other, no actual proof has ever been demonstrated.



I'll see your speculation and raise you one New Yorker investigative report:

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2011/10/10/111010fa_fact_mayer

And one NPR interview:

http://www.npr.org/2011/10/06/141078608/the-multimillionaire-helping-republicans-win-n-c


----------



## a_majoor (11 Oct 2011)

The opposite of the TEA Party movement.

I once had an interesting conversation with a Bob Metz (a Freedom Party official) who suggested the meaning of "New" in New Democrat was to institute a form of direct democracy similar to what is described here. The ancient Greeks had a similar experience with direct democracy and the problem of demagogues whipping up the masses for the pasion of the moment (one of the reasons the Romans instituted a _Res Publica_ rather than an _ekklesia_) The results are... interesting (embedded videos in link)....

http://reason.com/blog/2011/10/10/silencing-john-lewis-is-what-d



> *Silencing John Lewis Is What Democracy Looks Like*
> Tim Cavanaugh | October 10, 2011
> 
> Video of an Occupy Atlanta “general assembly” not allowing Rep. John Lewis (D-Georgia) to speak has been going virological on the interwebs.
> ...


----------



## ModlrMike (11 Oct 2011)

For those not well versed in Python references:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YawagQ6lLrA


----------



## RangerRay (11 Oct 2011)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> The opposite of the TEA Party movement.
> 
> I once had an interesting conversation with a Bob Metz (a Freedom Party official) who suggested the meaning of "New" in New Democrat was to institute a form of direct democracy similar to what is described here. The ancient Greeks had a similar experience with direct democracy and the problem of demagogues whipping up the masses for the pasion of the moment (one of the reasons the Romans instituted a _Res Publica_ rather than an _ekklesia_) The results are... interesting (embedded videos in link)....
> 
> http://reason.com/blog/2011/10/10/silencing-john-lewis-is-what-d



I watched the video of that.  I don't know whether to laugh, or be afraid...


----------



## Fishbone Jones (12 Oct 2011)

Wow.....just............wow :facepalm:


----------



## Pencil Tech (12 Oct 2011)

I think the cheerleading here for the Tea Party and American rightwing anti-government agitating in general while rhapsodizing about the glories of unfettered capitalism is rich coming from a bunch of people who have spent their entire careers in the employ of the state, paid from the public purse. The Canadian state actually. You know what the big problem with the US economy is? Eleven carrier battle groups for God's sake, and everything that goes with an economy beholden to that.

There I've said it. Flame away at me with your belt-fed teabag guns.


----------



## Redeye (12 Oct 2011)

Pencil Tech said:
			
		

> I think the cheerleading here for the Tea Party and American rightwing anti-government agitating in general while rhapsodizing about the glories of unfettered capitalism is rich coming from a bunch of people who have spent their entire careers in the employ of the state, paid from the public purse. The Canadian state actually. You know what the big problem with the US economy is? Eleven carrier battle groups for God's sake, and everything that goes with an economy beholden to that.
> 
> There I've said it. Flame away at me with your belt-fed teabag guns.



Brilliantly put.

One of the worst teabaggers I've ever had the "pleasure" of interacting with spend most of his working life in the USMC, and now lives on a disability pension. He's also a deadbeat dad, and a bankrupt. So much for "personal responsibility".

And I agree with the key point you make - any discussion of "fiscal responsibility" which isn't accompanied by plans to discuss significant downsizing of the US military is completely pointless. Bear in mind that the morons of the rabid right will decry anything of the sort. When President Obama worked on New START to significantly reduce the US nuclear arsenal (while retaining more than enough weapons to wipe out the world's population a few dozen times over), they attacked him as though he was giving away all security. The cost of maintaining that arsenal must be astronomical. They're in similar hysterics when it comes to Iran.

I also found it rich that they were falling all over themselves to attack federal funding of Planned Parenthood and National Public Radio (into the low hundreds of millions) while ignoring the $3.5 billion given annually to Israel as "foreign aid", much of which goes directly into the pockets of the defense industry.


----------



## Edward Campbell (12 Oct 2011)

I have been very critic of the (self identified) Tea Party caucus in the US House of Representatives but I have no brief for or against the Tea Party movement, itself. As I have said before, I doubt it is monolithic - not nearly as monolithic as some claim. I think some (many?) Tea Party advocates just want to rid the political system of the entrenched special interests - especially those like big banks, _teachers' unions_, the defence industry, _public sector unions_, the insurance industry and the _welfare industry_ that consume billions and tens of billions and sometimes hundreds of billions without adding anything much to the nation's security or productivity. I wish them, those Tea Party advocates, luck.

But I have an equal disinterest in the "Occupy _____" _movement_ and, to a large degree, in my own political party, the Conservative Party of Canada - of which I am a member and to which I give money on a steady basis. I dislike all _collectives_, including governments, churches, unions, special interest groups and political parties just about equally - although I dislike those who presume to intrude upon my privacy more than I dislike those that leave me alone.

I believe in "those who govern less govern best." I served, happily and loyally, in the CF for most of my adult life; the CF is a very _conservative_ and _collectivist_ organization - one might think it is anathema to a classic, 19th century _liberal_ like me; not so; I can be a _liberal_, in almost every way, and still abide by, share and even _love_ the _conservative_ and _professional_ values of the military - see Huntington _et al_ - and worry, even complain about too big government. There is no contradiction in taking the Queen's shilling and advocating that the Queen spend fewer of them on fewer, better selected, things.


----------



## tomahawk6 (12 Oct 2011)

Comparing foreign aid to Israel with Planned Parenthood and NPR is absurd.Supporting Israel is a lomg time national security commitment the other two are not.Nor is Planned Parenthood and NPR necessary.NPR could continue to operate supported from their subscribers and Planned Parenthood could do the same.They dont need to be funded with taxpayer dollars.Whenever budgets get tight the first place the politicians look is the defense budget. Funding for the national defense is required under the constitution,unlike the two examples you gave.


----------



## Redeye (12 Oct 2011)

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> Comparing foreign aid to Israel with Planned Parenthood and NPR is absurd.Supporting Israel is a lomg time national security commitment the other two are not.Nor is Planned Parenthood and NPR necessary.NPR could continue to operate supported from their subscribers and Planned Parenthood could do the same.They dont need to be funded with taxpayer dollars.Whenever budgets get tight the first place the politicians look is the defense budget. Funding for the national defense is required under the constitution,unlike the two examples you gave.



 :boke:

Supporting Israel (which, economically, seems to be able to take care of itself) is a "national security commitment"? In what way, exactly? How does an ongoing program of corporate welfare which arms arguably the most worthless ally the USA has ever had in any way impact the United States' national security?

Funding for national defense is required, but massive, massive spending cuts (ie "being fiscally responsible") could easily be made to defense, without any impact on national security, but even bringing up the idea is political kryptonite, and part of why no progress in fixing America's problems is likely any time soon.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (12 Oct 2011)

Redeye said:
			
		

> Brilliantly put.
> 
> One of the worst teabaggers I've ever had the "pleasure" of interacting with spend most of his working life in the USMC, and now lives on a disability pension. He's also a deadbeat dad, and a bankrupt. So much for "personal responsibility".
> 
> ...



This is the one and final warning.

*There are actual members of the Tea Party on this board. Members of this board that have been here almost since the beginning. Every time the derogatory name 'tea bagger' is used, we get complaints. There is nothing subtle about the sexual connotation of the phrase and real members of the Tea Party find it offensive. It will not be used here. We don't  allow other sexual based slurs for other political parties, we won't start with this one.* 

*This is not open for discussion.*

Milnet.ca Staff


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (12 Oct 2011)

Redeye said:
			
		

> One of the worst teabaggers I've ever had the "pleasure" of interacting with spend most of his working life in the USMC, and now lives on a disability pension. He's also a deadbeat dad, and a bankrupt. So much for "personal responsibility".



...and I've had the acquaintance of several ex-soldiers who are child molesters and many financial planners who scammed folks out of their savings. Using your logic I guess this makes you just short of Satan.

You know you lose any good points you have to make with your insipid vitriol. You can get help with that......................

Bruce


----------



## cupper (12 Oct 2011)

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> Comparing foreign aid to Israel with Planned Parenthood and NPR is absurd.Supporting Israel is a lomg time national security commitment the other two are not.Nor is Planned Parenthood and NPR necessary.NPR could continue to operate supported from their subscribers and Planned Parenthood could do the same.They dont need to be funded with taxpayer dollars.Whenever budgets get tight the first place the politicians look is the defense budget. Funding for the national defense is required under the constitution,unlike the two examples you gave.



I believe the point of the comment was that the focus that the Tea Partiers have placed on funding cuts against Planned Parenthood and NPR is like trying to bail the Titanic with an eye dropper.


----------



## Brad Sallows (12 Oct 2011)

>I think the cheerleading here for the Tea Party and American rightwing anti-government agitating in general while rhapsodizing about the glories of unfettered capitalism is rich coming from a bunch of people who have spent their entire careers in the employ of the state

Do you imagine that to be either a witty or sensible observation?  If so, I regret your self-delusion.  There are always going to be some people in the employ of the state, assuming there is a state.  Viewed by utility/necessity, public spending and employment is a spectrum.  Hard over on one side, you have the absolute necessities for a society to survive: security, administration of justice.  Somewhere not far after that, basic infrastructure.  As you move further to the other side, the more questionable endeavours and outright transfers of wealth and general unnecessary meddling in the lives of people occupy their respective positions.  The TP, AFAIK, is not asking for the total elimination of everything.


----------



## Brad Sallows (12 Oct 2011)

Wishing for the US to reduce its military spending, whether in the form of CVBGs or anything else, is a legitimate policy position.  But don't pretend it won't have real unforeseen consequences to the security, stability, and - ultimately - prosperity of many nations which do not happen to be the US.  Those factors must be included in the estimate.

I notice Europe hasn't been encouraging the US to reduce its risk of financial instability by eliminating the burden of US forces in Europe.


----------



## Redeye (13 Oct 2011)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> Wishing for the US to reduce its military spending, whether in the form of CVBGs or anything else, is a legitimate policy position.  But don't pretend it won't have real unforeseen consequences to the security, stability, and - ultimately - prosperity of many nations which do not happen to be the US.  Those factors must be included in the estimate.
> 
> I notice Europe hasn't been encouraging the US to reduce its risk of financial instability by eliminating the burden of US forces in Europe.



Certainly there has to be a discussion/debate on impacts - as with any policy decision. The point, however, is that there's a whole lot of room to make cuts without significant impact, I'd happily infer. The alternative, of course, is for taxes to rise with the clear message being "You want this stuff, time to start paying for it."


----------



## Redeye (13 Oct 2011)

About slurs, then.

How about we just outlaw them altogether - as I note that numerous such slurs against other parties, policy groups, etc are frequently tolerated, regardless of etymology. Seems reasonable to me, and fair all around.


----------



## Redeye (13 Oct 2011)

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> ...and I've had the acquaintance of several ex-soldiers who are child molesters and many financial planners who scammed folks out of their savings. Using your logic I guess this makes you just short of Satan.
> 
> You know you lose any good points you have to make with your insipid vitriol. You can get help with that......................
> 
> Bruce



Fair. However, I note when I look at a lot of info on Tea Party events, I engage with them, or talk to others that do, that a large percentage of them can be reasonably accused of having a mentality that reads something like "F*** you, I got mine." I'm not sure if any demographic study has been done on them, but I'd infer a large percentage of them are probably benefiting from the Social Security and Medicare programs they now want to gut for those coming after them.

The problem with the Tea Party (besides its being a bizarre social construct where a bunch of working class/middle class folks are essentially stooges for wealthy corporate interests that have been screwing them for years) is that not only have their folks in the US Congress paralyzed any effort to make any progress on dealing with real, serious issues that face the United States, they've completely failed to offer any sort of workable plan of their own that is likely to get anywhere.

The next year and a half will be interesting, because the GOP seems to have a slate of unelectable candidates (who just seem to look worse with each debate), but voter apathy and general efforts to disenfranchise people are a long standing US problem. It'll be interesting to see whether the "Occupy" movement gets anywhere - but unless it translates directly into "Occupy Voting Booths" then it won't accomplish anything.


----------



## Edward Campbell (13 Oct 2011)

Redeye said:
			
		

> Fair. However, I note when I look at a lot of info on Tea Party events, I engage with them, or talk to others that do, that a large percentage of them can be reasonably accused of having a mentality that reads something like "F*** you, I got mine." I'm not sure if any demographic study has been done on them, but I'd infer a large percentage of them are probably benefiting from the Social Security and Medicare programs they now want to gut for those coming after them.
> 
> The problem with the Tea Party (besides its being a bizarre social construct where a bunch of working class/middle class folks are essentially stooges for wealthy corporate interests that have been screwing them for years) is that not only have their folks in the US Congress paralyzed any effort to make any progress on dealing with real, serious issues that face the United States, they've completely failed to offer any sort of workable plan of their own that is likely to get anywhere.
> 
> The next year and a half will be interesting, because the GOP seems to have a slate of unelectable candidates (who just seem to look worse with each debate), but voter apathy and general efforts to disenfranchise people are a long standing US problem. It'll be interesting to see whether the "Occupy" movement gets anywhere - but unless it translates directly into "Occupy Voting Booths" then it won't accomplish anything.




I think you are still misunderstanding the Tea Party _movement_ - and it is *not* a coherent, cohesive political party, no matter how much some, including Sarah Palin I suspect, might wish.

There are, in my understanding, too many too diverse views:

1. Some, the original Tea Party 'members,' wan(ed) strict adherence to the Constitution - no spending, no programmes that cannot be tried, directly, to the Constitution;

2. Some want strict fiscal responsibility - no new spending, cuts to existing spending but no new taxes, either - that group struck a chord with many American voters in 2010;

3. Others are _Jeffersonians_ who want a small, insular, even isolationist American government;

4. Some are libertarians;
.
.
.
.
.
. and
_n_. Some are, to be sure, angry white men - just like many Democrats are angry black women.

I think you are reading too much one sided, Democrat propaganda and not looking closely enough at who Tea Party supporters are what they believe. Perhaps they are the first wave of _organized_ independents. I am pretty sure they scare the hell out of Democrats and _establishment_ Republicans alike - anyone who does that can't be all bad.


----------



## GAP (13 Oct 2011)

Both parties have made a hash of the economy for the last 20-30 years, by pandering to the lowest common denominator.....it has now coming full circle to bite them in the a$$....and it will keep on gnawing until something realistically changes instead of cosmetic pandering just enough to calm everybody down....

It will hurt, but it might also bring back some of the work ethic in the overall community......


----------



## Redeye (13 Oct 2011)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> I think you are still misunderstanding the Tea Party _movement_ - and it is *not* a coherent, cohesive political party, no matter how much some, including Sarah Palin I suspect, might wish.



I get that - but there's a fairly distinct "Tea Party caucus" all the same.



			
				E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> There are, in my understanding, too many too diverse views:
> 
> 1. Some, the original Tea Party 'members,' wan(ed) strict adherence to the Constitution - no spending, no programmes that cannot be tried, directly, to the Constitution;



A proposition which has been reasonably ridiculed as being preposterous and unworkable.



			
				E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> 2. Some want strict fiscal responsibility - no new spending, cuts to existing spending but no new taxes, either - that group struck a chord with many American voters in 2010;



This is a more reasonable point of view - but the problem them becomes where to make those spending cuts and how, and they haven't come up with any sort of plan/proposal, not least in part because of the complete unwillingness to discuss making significant defense spending cuts as part of any such proposal.



			
				E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> 3. Others are _Jeffersonians_ who want a small, insular, even isolationist American government;
> 
> 4. Some are libertarians;
> .
> ...



Most seem to fit that description - but again, a "movement" that's totally disjointed is hard to assess. It's not hard to look at a subset, the size of which I'll make no comment about, being simply angry that a well-spoken, well-educated black man won the 2008 election.



			
				E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> I think you are reading too much one sided, Democrat propaganda and not looking closely enough at who Tea Party supporters are what they believe. Perhaps they are the first wave of _organized_ independents. I am pretty sure they scare the hell out of Democrats and _establishment_ Republicans alike - anyone who does that can't be all bad.



They're not organized, nor are they really "independent" - again, there's various "branches", but many of them seem to just be fronts for a variety of interests and PACs. I think a lot of Democrats would LOVE to see them become organized and a third party, allowing the sort of vote splitting that they fear with the more left wing of their party.

As far as understanding them goes, I've tried to engage them in various forums, trying to understand what, beyond talking points, they actually have to offer. And it's really, really hard, for the simple reason that there isn't much depth in most cases, and where there is, it's usually based on completely, demonstrably false pretences to begin with. That's the real problem there - that there is no decent dialogue about how to solve problems - just a lot of arguing over who is at fault, which doesn't matter, and in an earnest assessment, it's everyone's fault anyhow.


----------



## Edward Campbell (13 Oct 2011)

Cutting spending and not raising taxes - and I agree that all spending must be "on the table" - is a clear, simple,, intellectually defensible proposition to almost everyone except Obama, Reid and Pelosi and other _doctrinaire_ big spending, big taxing Democrats. The problem isn't the Tea Party it is greedy people who know that the Democrats will continue, to the bitter end, to redistribute the common wealth from the productive to the unproductive. It might make you feel good to see productive resources going to the idle poor, but it is killing America.

Am I heartless? i don't think so. Do I want more and more homeless Americans? Yes, IF that is the temporary _transitional_ phase we (Canadian too) must endure. I hope and expect that private charity can do more than public _support_. I know that _means testing_ and visible charity harm the self esteem of the poor but I accept them as necessary evils.


----------



## Edward Campbell (13 Oct 2011)

This is what turned so many Americans and Canadians against the Tea Party. Nothing illegal happened, it wasn't even _threatening_ in a place where carrying an unconcealed firearm is perfectly legal and respectable, but it was horrid PR and it gave the Democrats all they needed to paint good, honest, hard working Americans as dangerous extremists - and that's what they, the Democrats, did. It (the Democrats' smear) was a lie, but, hey, it's politics, right? Who gives a damn about the future of the country if we can re-elect Harry Reid?


----------



## Redeye (13 Oct 2011)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Cutting spending and not raising taxes - and I agree that all spending must be "on the table" - is a clear, simple,, intellectually defensible proposition to almost everyone except Obama, Reid and Pelosi and other _doctrinaire_ big spending, big taxing Democrats. The problem isn't the Tea Party it is greedy people who know that the Democrats will continue, to the bitter end, to redistribute the common wealth from the productive to the unproductive. It might make you feel good to see productive resources going to the idle poor, but it is killing America.



Some resources will always go to the "idle poor", because they'll always exist. Do I want that sort of thing encouraged? No. Neither do I want a society where people die in the streets of poverty when there's so much to go around. It seems you have a failure to understand what most people who'd call themselves Democrats down there want as well, because what you describe ain't it. What it appears they want to see is a decent society where all people have the chance to work hard and succeed - where that idea of the American Dream middle class lifestyle still exists, and so on. There's some of them who lie more to the left, and it's interesting that because of their two-party construct they're all in the same party because they have to belong to something.

That might include both cutting pointless spending, and raising taxes, because it is an equally intellectually defensible proposition, based on looking at history, that modest tax hikes on those most able to pay (the 1% as it were) will both improve the fiscal position of the country and not cause harm to its economy.



			
				E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Am I heartless? i don't think so. Do I want more and more homeless Americans? Yes, IF that is the temporary _transitional_ phase we (Canadian too) must endure. I hope and expect that private charity can do more than public _support_. I know that _means testing_ and visible charity harm the self esteem of the poor but I accept them as necessary evils.



If there was any merit to believing that would actually happen - to believing in the Big Lie of "trickle down", then I'd probably agree. In fact, at one time, I did. But then I realized that while that's an ideal, it doesn't really work out that way, so some other balance must be found.


----------



## Edward Campbell (13 Oct 2011)

Redeye said:
			
		

> Some resources will always go to the "idle poor", because they'll always exist. Do I want that sort of thing encouraged? No. Neither do I want a society where people die in the streets of poverty when there's so much to go around. It seems you have a failure to understand what most people who'd call themselves Democrats down there want as well, because what you describe ain't it. What it appears they want to see is a decent society where all people have the chance to work hard and succeed - where that idea of the American Dream middle class lifestyle still exists, and so on. There's some of them who lie more to the left, and it's interesting that because of their two-party construct they're all in the same party because they have to belong to something.
> 
> That might include both cutting pointless spending, and raising taxes, because it is an equally intellectually defensible proposition, based on looking at history, that modest tax hikes on those most able to pay (the 1% as it were) will both improve the fiscal position of the country and not cause harm to its economy.
> 
> If there was any merit to believing that would actually happen - to believing in the Big Lie of "trickle down", then I'd probably agree. In fact, at one time, I did. But then I realized that while that's an ideal, it doesn't really work out that way, so some other balance must be found.



But that is not, in any way, unique to Democrats, that's what Republicans, in at least equal numbers, want and, in my (admittedly limited) experience, that's what Tea Party supporters want, too.

The Democrats do not have a lock on morality - in fact they are at least as immoral as any other party or movement. They just have a better PR machine.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (13 Oct 2011)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> This is what turned so many Americans and Canadians against the Tea Party. Nothing illegal happened, it wasn't even _threatening_ in a place where carrying an unconcealed firearm is perfectly legal and respectable, but it was horrid PR and it gave the Democrats all they needed to paint good, honest, hard working Americans as dangerous extremists - and that's what they, the Democrats, did. It (the Democrats' smear) was a lie, but, hey, it's politics, right? Who gives a damn about the future of the country if we can re-elect Harry Reid?



The photo was selectively cropped, by the MSM to try and connotate armed 'white' people. The person armed person in the photo was actually black.


----------



## Edward Campbell (13 Oct 2011)

Redeye said:
			
		

> Some resources will always go to the "idle poor", because they'll always exist ...




The fact, and I agree the poor are always with us, that something exists does not mean we must _public_ throw money at it. It rains, that does not mean we need government money for umbrellas.


----------



## paffomaybe (13 Oct 2011)

Lengthy but well-written and insightful feature article.  Contention is that this has happened before, and that the Tea Party is starting to, and will eventually, mainstream.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/16/magazine/does-anyone-have-a-grip-on-the-gop.html?scp=1&sq=does%20anyone%20have%20a%20grip%20on%20the%20GOP&st=cse


----------



## tomahawk6 (13 Oct 2011)

Or the Tea Party is composed of main stream voters at the outset. One thing is certain about Tea Party voters,they are fed up with Obama.


----------



## Redeye (13 Oct 2011)

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> Or the Tea Party is composed of main stream voters at the outset. One thing is certain about Tea Party voters,they are fed up with Obama.



Yes, and quite often for reasons that have no logical or reasonable basis in reality.

Great, they're fed up. In 2012 we'll see if it matters. I'm betting "no".


----------



## Haletown (13 Oct 2011)

Redeye said:
			
		

> Yes, and quite often for reasons that have no logical or reasonable basis in reality.



Ya, irrational things like massive, through the roof deficits, out of control crony capitalism and flushing hundreds of billions down the greenie toilet.

Those darn tea partiers . . .  haven't a clue about how smart Obama is, how he has reinvented economics, how he is saving the US economy. They just aren't smart enough to bow down and show proper respect to The Great O.  They just don't get the Hopey Changey Thingy.

Yup . . . they just don't have any touch with reality, just illogical or unreasonable stuff.


----------



## Nemo888 (13 Oct 2011)

I think those leaning left or right admit their parties are useless and the economy is in free fall. All the parties do is kiss the asses of the powerful and to hell with everyone else.


----------



## cupper (13 Oct 2011)

Actually, it wasn't so much the guys exercising their rights to open carry with a side arm, but rather the gys who exercised their right to open carry with long guns that turned people off.


----------



## Scott (13 Oct 2011)

Redeye said:
			
		

> About slurs, then.
> 
> How about we just outlaw them altogether - as I note that numerous such slurs against other parties, policy groups, etc are frequently tolerated, regardless of etymology. Seems reasonable to me, and fair all around.



You know, it drives me nuts when someone is called for their behaviour in a certain area and they twist and turn things back.

I have never seen a sexual slur attached to a political party here until yours.

It was said that no discussion would be entertained, did you miss that?

Enough, already. Make your points without the slurs.


----------



## a_majoor (13 Oct 2011)

sprl said:
			
		

> Lengthy but well-written and insightful feature article.  Contention is that this has happened before, and that the Tea Party is starting to, and will eventually, mainstream.
> 
> http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/16/magazine/does-anyone-have-a-grip-on-the-gop.html?scp=1&sq=does%20anyone%20have%20a%20grip%20on%20the%20GOP&st=cse



Indeed, and it is quite interesting to follow the rapid evolution of the TEA Party movement. The initial street protests against massive government spending was initially ignored, then slurred. TEA Party protesters attempting to engage their elected officials in "town hall" meetings rapidly discovered their elected officials were not interested in listening, and watching various tactics like filling the "town halls" by invitation only, bussing SEIU members to fill the halls, cancelling townhalls or moveing them to inconveinient locations (along with the endless slurring by the Legacy Media) convinced many that they needed to take over the process themselves. The 2010 midterms were totally amazing in the speed at which TEA Party movments took over various Republican "riding associations" (sorry, forgot the American term) and ejected sitting incumbents in some cases, and rolled establishment candidates for nomination in other cases, culminating in a remarkable victory not only in the House, but also a great many downline races at the State level.

The movement has now had three years to organize and grow, and from what I have read and heard, the movement is busy attempting to repeat its success, only they are now trying to win the entire electoral process from POTUS to the city dogcatcher. Simple time/space/distance considerations suggest this is not possible all the way up and downline, but the determined effort being put in place is changing the electoral landscape, and it is very possible the TEA Party movement will have elected enough people in enough jurisdictions to make a real and substancial change (the Newly Red states swept in the 2010 elections are seeing economic recovery due to the new Governor and State legislators enacting a TEA Party like economic platform of lower spending and freezing or reducing taxes and regulation, success should breed a certain momentum as well).

The American analogy which I liken this to is the raid eclipse of the Whig Party in the mid 1800's and its replacement by the Republican Party. The Whig establishment had no answers to the economic and political issues of the time, and were seemingly not too interested in what their supporters had to say about the issue. The end result was a rush of former supporters to the new party. The GOP in its current form is in a similar state, and the GOP "establishment" may find itself swept away for the same reasons.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (14 Oct 2011)

cupper said:
			
		

> Actually, it wasn't so much the guys exercising their rights to open carry with a side arm, but rather the gys who exercised their right to open carry with long guns that turned people off.



Why? What were they doing wrong? What law did they break? Besides, you need a citation for your statement. Where's the study\ poll\ public petition? Your opinions are yours and you have a right to them. Doesn't mean they're absolute though. Just in your mind. This hasn't been the first time either. Please stop stating your opinion as fact, without some sort of unbiased, independent corroboration.


----------



## Redeye (14 Oct 2011)

Haletown said:
			
		

> Ya, irrational things like massive, through the roof deficits, out of control crony capitalism and flushing hundreds of billions down the greenie toilet.



Deficits which largely were a product of Republican administrations and policies - and which everyone I know who watches US politics agrees are a significant problem. A combination of spending cuts, aggressive ones in some fields, and modest tax increases, particularly on the wealthiest Americans who are paying historically low rates, is the solution they're looking for, and it seems fairly reasonable. But none of that get even get off the ground when the other party has no interest in playing ball.

The Tea Party Movement is just a whitewashing of crony capitalism! That's exactly what backs it, what gives it a voice in the media, what makes it something that's being talked about it. That's why I hold it in such disdain. It's astounding that a bunch of working/middle class folks are willing to stand up for millionaires and billionaires who've exploited them all along.



			
				Haletown said:
			
		

> Those darn tea partiers . . .  haven't a clue about how smart Obama is, how he has reinvented economics, how he is saving the US economy. They just aren't smart enough to bow down and show proper respect to The Great O.  They just don't get the Hopey Changey Thingy.



I don't know too many people - that I'd seriously listen to anyhow - who make such claims. President Obama is, however, a pretty smart guy, and he'd likely be willing to work towards some manner of compromise to find solutions - the "Tea Party Caucus" that has a lock on the House of Representatives now has no interest in focusing on things that matter, and several GOP figures seem to have clearly signaled that trying to fix the economy and get the country on track is less important than trying to defeat President Obama in 2012, something I don't think they'll have an easy time with given their slate of candidates.



			
				Haletown said:
			
		

> Yup . . . they just don't have any touch with reality, just illogical or unreasonable stuff.



QED


----------



## tomahawk6 (14 Oct 2011)

Obama rang up $3 trillion in a couple of years on his various slush funds,I mean stimulus.There is close to a trillion dollars in unspent stimulus,why doent the administration turn that money back to the treasury ?


----------



## Redeye (14 Oct 2011)

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> Obama rang up $3 trillion in a couple of years on his various slush funds,I mean stimulus.There is close to a trillion dollars in unspent stimulus,why doent the administration turn that money back to the treasury ?



You know that "$3 trillion" stimulus cost claim has been thoroughly debunked, right - and not only that - that was a falsified projected cost, not money already spent, either.

You know what did involve that number? The plan he proposed to tackle the problem. The one that the GOP is stonewalling over because of thier ridiculous inflexibility and inability to accept the reality that taxes will have to rise. The tax increases are pretty modest, though, and to be borne by top income earners primarily, not the middle class.

http://articles.cnn.com/2011-09-19/politics/politics_obama-debt_1_obama-outlines-taxes-on-job-creators-spending-cuts?_s=PMOLITICS

I'm happy to discuss different points of view - but only ones based in reality, not the riduclous amount of pure BS being spouted.


----------



## cupper (14 Oct 2011)

recceguy said:
			
		

> Why? What were they doing wrong? What law did they break? Besides, you need a citation for your statement. Where's the study\ poll\ public petition? Your opinions are yours and you have a right to them. Doesn't mean they're absolute though. Just in your mind. This hasn't been the first time either. Please stop stating your opinion as fact, without some sort of unbiased, independent corroboration.



Did I say that they were doing anything wrong? NO.

All of the News images and interviews from the Tea Party Rallies showed people carrying fire arms. But the media seemed to put more focus on those carrying long guns. I don't know, maybe because they were more visible.

I wasn't expressing my OPINION, I was making an OBSERVATION about what was being portrayed at that time in the media.

As for my opinion, I don't give two sweet #$%^ whether someone exercises their constitutional rights, as long as they do it responsibly, and within the boundaries of the law.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (14 Oct 2011)

cupper said:
			
		

> Did I say that they were doing anything wrong? NO.
> 
> All of the News images and interviews from the Tea Party Rallies showed people carrying fire arms. But the media seemed to put more focus on those carrying long guns. I don't know, maybe because they were more visible.
> 
> ...



Perhaps then "Actually, it wasn't so much the guys exercising their rights to open carry with a side arm, but rather the gys who exercised their right to open carry with long guns that turned people off. the MSM tried to fabricate a story from."

To me that makes more sense.

Just my  :2c: YMMV


----------



## Brad Sallows (15 Oct 2011)

>Deficits which largely were a product of Republican administrations and policies

US deficits are primarily a result of major entitlement programs which are in the transition phase from "net contributions" to "net withdrawals".  Extraordinary spending (ie. war operations, regardless whether they are on or off budget) and associated policies have continued despite 3 years of a change of administration, so those particular policies no longer have any single factional attachment.   Do you think the current deficit is really going to fall much when the temporary tax cuts expire?

>The Tea Party Movement is just a whitewashing of crony capitalism! That's exactly what backs it, what gives it a voice in the media, what makes it something that's being talked about it.

Bilge.  Go ahead: find the statements of TP principles which avow to promote and protect crony capitalism and post them here.

>President Obama is, however, a pretty smart guy

He may be one of the stupidest people alive to rise to office at his level.  How frigging dumb do you have to be to ignore the crisis facing your nation - which has been in evidence for months, and is evident to all and discussed widely - and swan off to cherry pick your favourite to-do items off your ideological wish list?  Selection and maintenance of the aim: critical failure.  Identification of vital ground: critical failure.  Main effort: critical failure.  General strategic acumen: critical failure.  Obama is a man who wants to be seen as the president but doesn't want to do the actual job.  He's the equivalent of the guy who shows up at Remembrance Day with a uniform and medals he bought second-hand and a collection of war stories cultivated in his own mind.

Failure to unseat Obama in 2012 will portend badly for the US; it makes perfect sense to hamstring him as much as possible now and work toward his defeat.


----------



## a_majoor (15 Oct 2011)

Check out these 1%ers, and then guess which political party they support!

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?print=yes&id=46849

Sorry this was supposed to go to the US economy thread


----------



## cupper (15 Oct 2011)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> Do you think the current deficit is really going to fall much when the temporary tax cuts expire?



Moot point considering that the 9% (or greater depending on how you look at the numbers) unemployment rate will dampen the revenue generated by an increase in tax rates.



			
				Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> Bilge.  Go ahead: find the statements of TP principles which avow to promote and protect crony capitalism and post them here.


http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Elections/2010/0915/What-is-the-tea-party-and-how-is-it-shaking-up-American-politics/(page)/2
Tea Party Patriots says it has more than 1,000 community-based tea party groups around the country. The group’s mission is to “attract, educate, organize, and mobilize our fellow citizens to secure public policy consistent with our three core values of Fiscal Responsibility, Constitutionally Limited Government and Free Markets,” according to its website.

And http://www.thecontract.org/support/

Particularly the following items:

Reject emissions trading: Stop the "cap and trade" administrative approach used to control pollution by providing economic incentives for achieving reductions in the emissions of pollutants. (Point of Note: I do not agree with the concept of cap and trade either, but not for the same reasons as put forth by most) 

Pass an 'All-of-the-Above' Energy Policy: Authorize the exploration of additional energy reserves to reduce American dependence on foreign energy sources and reduce regulatory barriers to all other forms of energy creation. (A convenient argument to give more access to the oil companies)

Reduce Taxes: Permanently repeal all recent tax increases, and extend permanently the George W. Bush temporary reductions in income tax, capital gains tax and estate taxes, currently scheduled to end in 2011. (Ask Warren Buffet why he wants to pay more, then ask TP memebrs why they want to keep cutting revenue and tax rates when they are both at historic lows, this benefits corporations and "job creators" more than anyone else)

Repeal the health care legislation passed on March 23, 2010: Defund, repeal and replace the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.(Benefits the health insurance industry by allowing them to go back to double digit annual increases in premiums and limiting payouts for bogus reasoning)

Audit federal government agencies for constitutionality: Create a Blue Ribbon taskforce that engages in an audit of federal agencies and programs, assessing their Constitutionality, and identifying duplication, waste, ineffectiveness, and agencies and programs better left for the states or local authorities. (A veiled threat to move on more deregulation in favor of corpations, although I agree there are areas of duplication and unnecessary oversight that need to be addressed. This replaced the "LIMITED GOVERNMENT" policy, but this is how they will go about getting it)



			
				Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> He may be one of the stupidest people alive to rise to office at his level.  How frigging dumb do you have to be to ignore the crisis facing your nation - which has been in evidence for months, and is evident to all and discussed widely - and swan off to cherry pick your favourite to-do items off your ideological wish list?  Selection and maintenance of the aim: critical failure.  Identification of vital ground: critical failure.  Main effort: critical failure.  General strategic acumen: critical failure.  Obama is a man who wants to be seen as the president but doesn't want to do the actual job.  He's the equivalent of the guy who shows up at Remembrance Day with a uniform and medals he bought second-hand and a collection of war stories cultivated in his own mind.



 :



			
				Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> Failure to unseat Obama in 2012 will portend badly for the US; it makes perfect sense to hamstring him as much as possible now and work toward his defeat.



Well, the GOP will need to find a better candidate than what is on the plate now.


----------



## a_majoor (15 Oct 2011)

Cupper, the American Constitution was designed to reduce the ability of people to centralize or monopolize power, the very opposite of Crony Capitalism. Your first link is an Epic Fail, and if anything brilliantly supports Brad's point.

Most of the rest of your links and examples are specific examples of policies and programs designed to reduce or eliminate the power of the State to choose economic "winners and loosers"; once again the very opposite of Crony Capitalism.

Perhaps you need to brush up on your economics and political science, or alternatively use the </sarcasm> if you are really stepping up to the Limited Government side of the plate with your posts.


----------



## cupper (15 Oct 2011)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> Perhaps you need to brush up on your economics and political science, or alternatively use the </sarcasm> if you are really stepping up to the Limited Government side of the plate with your posts.



No. I understand the original intent of the Constitution, but things are a lot different than they were prior to the turn of the 19th Century. It's not that I don't believe in limited government, and yes I agree in one way I've backed up Brad's arguments.

But the problem with the concept is that there are unintended consequences with bringing in limited government control of the economy, society and industry. And if the corporations want to be unfettered by government regulations, wouldn't it be in their interests to support these policies?

My point is that the policies I noted here rather than eliminate crony capitalism, I feel, will only exacerbate the problem. The real solution is to eliminate private / individual contributions for political parties and causes, and have only government funds for elections. Eliminate Lobbying. Get the money out of politics, so that it creates politician that focus on doing the job they were elected to do, and not devoting up to 70% of their time fundraising for the nexy election.


----------



## tomahawk6 (15 Oct 2011)

For those who can read a graph.


----------



## Brad Sallows (15 Oct 2011)

Crony capitalism <> capitalism; crony capitalism <> free market.

Crony capitalism is when the game is rigged or played by politicians to favour selected companies.  Virtually everything "free market" - open competition, access to resources granted without favouritism - support just plain capitalism, not crony capitalism.

If anyone wants to make the argument that the TP supports capitalism, I am sure he has the right of it.  Put the word "crony" in there and he is wrong.

Are capitalists greedy and selfish?  I suppose so; we rely on that greed and selfishness to motivate them to provide goods and services which we need and for which we will make them filthily wealthy.

People who think "greedy capitalist" is a pejorative are simpletons and worthy only of mockery.


----------



## Edward Campbell (15 Oct 2011)

:goodpost:

I just gave Brad 300 MilPoints for that.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (16 Oct 2011)

Well the title of this thread is  "Tea Party" Wins....... ;D

http://www.torontosun.com/2011/10/15/teapartycom-could-make-canadian-rockers-rich


When Canadian rockers the Tea Party picked their band name, they were thinking of hashish-smoking poets, not a U.S. political movement.
But the words have taken on new meaning - and much greater value - ever since a ragtag group of frustrated Americans adopted the moniker that is so steeped in U.S. history.

Which is why the band announced Saturday they will sell their website domain, Teaparty.com.
"We were floored by the worldwide press and interest in our domain name, Teaparty.com, that soon followed the initial story in Businessweek (magazine)," said bassist Stuart Chatwood in a statement, adding the members were "overwhelmed by the multiple offers that were arriving daily."

The rock trio - made up of Chatwood, Jeff Martin and Jeff Burrows - has hired Boston-based domain-name company Sedo (Search Engine for Domain Offers) to broker a deal for their website, which is currently used to list the band's concert dates and sell their merchandise. In case anyone lands there by mistake, the home page reads: No politics...Just Rock and Roll.
The domain "has already generated substantial interest from a wide range of political groups," said Sedo in the statement.

Company spokesperson Kathy Nielsen said, "It's very rare when a domain name of this value and significance becomes available - especially one that is so timely and relevant."
The band, which was formed in 1990 and named for the "infamous hash sessions of Beat generation poets Allen Ginsberg, Jack Kerouac and William Burroughs," according to their bio, sold 1.6 million records worldwide.

They disbanded in October 2005 in a messy public break-up, and the members have moved on to other projects: Martin released a solo album; Burrows is a radio DJ in the band's hometown of Windsor, Ont.; Chatwood composes video game soundtracks.
How much the domain might fetch is unknown, but its cachet grows as the 2012 U.S. election nears. The Businessweek article said there is no hotter name in politics right now than the Tea Party and speculated that it might go for $1 million or more.

The band could not be reached Saturday for comment.


----------



## a_majoor (18 Oct 2011)

cupper said:
			
		

> No. I understand the original intent of the Constitution, but things are a lot different than they were prior to the turn of the 19th Century. It's not that I don't believe in limited government, and yes I agree in one way I've backed up Brad's arguments.



The constitution is a wonderful distillation of 18th century enlightenment thinking (I had to control the snark, since an infamous American pundit Ezra Klein claimed the Constitution was too hard to understand because it was written 100 years ago), and deserves a great deal of thought and attention. The Federalist Papers is a good place to start, as well as the reading the texts of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution (including the amendments).

The Founding Fathers were students of history, and could draw from examples like the _Res Publica Roma_ and the _Serenìsima Repùblica Vèneta_, as well as English history (including the English Civil War and the Restoration, and the theories of Liberal government being proclaimed by such luminaries as Burke and Mills). They were also acute students of human behaviour, and vitally concerned that power not be concentrated in too few hands. 

The Constitution divides power brilliantly, and includes such gems as enumerated powers (the revival of that idea and the re empowering of the US 10th amendment are some of the ideas animating the TEA Party movement); separation of the Legislature, the Executive and the Courts; and even providing separate modes of election for each branch of government (The House, as the body to deal with day to day affairs, is elected by the people. The Senate, represented the States [Since the United States was conceived as a series of sovereign states that cooperated on a limited series of areas to engage the wider world] was originally composed of Senators elected by the State Legislatures. The Executive was elected by the Electoral College in order to prevent the small States from being overwhelmed in elections by larger, more populous States).

If there is a problem with the constitution, it is that it is being ignored or overridden through such means as abusing the "commerce clause", Judicial activism and the use of claimed executive powers, as well as the growth of a permanent bureaucracy which can create "laws" through the imposition of regulations which are not directly vetted by the Legislature. Throw in totally extra constitutional offices such as the so called "Czars" and the real problem becomes quite clear.

The Founding Fathers knew and understood that things like Crony Capitalism and corruption would take place, and while they would be horrified at today's conditions; they would also be pleased to see their system opf checks and balances still works after a fashion, and they would probably be hoping that a new generation of voters and politicians could work to restore the system.


----------



## cupper (21 Oct 2011)

The Tea Party Nation asks members to pledge not to create jobs until Obama is thrown out of office.

http://www.teapartynation.com/profiles/blogs/call-for-a-strike-of-american-small-businesses-against-the

I, an American small business owner, part of the class that produces the vast majority of real, wealth producing jobs in this country, hereby resolve that I will not hire a single person until this war against business and my country is stopped.

I hereby declare that my job creation potential is now ceased.


----------



## a_majoor (21 Oct 2011)

Open declaration of rebellion by small business owners!

This is a recreation of the Capital strike of 1937-38 at the height of the New Deal, and a real life enactment of Ayn Rand's "Atlas Srugged"

Starving governments of tax revenues on one hand, while working to eject the political enablers of Crony Capitalism via the political process now gives the TEA Party movement two pincers to flank and crush the current political system.


----------



## a_majoor (21 Oct 2011)

When people say the TEA Party movement is for following the Constitution, it is because they are against _this_:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterferrara/2011/10/20/above-democracy-and-the-rule-of-law



> Above Democracy, And The Rule Of Law
> Peter Ferrara
> Contributor
> 
> ...


----------



## cupper (22 Oct 2011)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> Open declaration of rebellion by small business owners!
> 
> This is a recreation of the Capital strike of 1937-38 at the height of the New Deal, and a real life enactment of Ayn Rand's "Atlas Srugged"
> 
> Starving governments of tax revenues on one hand, while working to eject the political enablers of Crony Capitalism via the political process now gives the TEA Party movement two pincers to flank and crush the current political system.



About as likely to happen as Kadafffy winning the Nobel Peace Prize.


----------



## Redeye (23 Oct 2011)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> Open declaration of rebellion by small business owners!
> 
> This is a recreation of the Capital strike of 1937-38 at the height of the New Deal, and a real life enactment of Ayn Rand's "Atlas Srugged"
> 
> Starving governments of tax revenues on one hand, while working to eject the political enablers of Crony Capitalism via the political process now gives the TEA Party movement two pincers to flank and crush the current political system.



It's a nice dream. But it's nothing more than complete, utter nonsense.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (23 Oct 2011)

Redeye said:
			
		

> It's a nice dream. But it's nothing more than complete, utter nonsense.


That particular instance maybe. However, even here at home, I'm coming across more and more underground economy, in my work, where people are using barter, cash payments and trading of services in order to make ends meet and deny the government income that they believe is theirs.


----------



## Brad Sallows (23 Oct 2011)

It's not nonsense.  I decided to start passing up opportunities to work OT as soon as the Conservatives caved to the coalition demand to indulge in a massive deficit spending blowout, because my leisure time is still one thing that isn't taxed and I didn't see the point adding more money to saving which will be eroded by inflationary policies and colossal governmental fiscal frig-ups abroad.  Here in the real world, companies don't always run out and hire more people when resources < requirements.  So opportunities have been missed; things that would have generated revenue didn't happen; revenue hasn't been realized by the company; taxes on non-existent transactions haven't been received by government.

[Oh, and part of what I do with my increased free time is things I used to pay other people to do.  The harder they squeeze, the more I'm just going to opt out.]


----------



## a_majoor (23 Oct 2011)

Redeye said:
			
		

> It's a nice dream. But it's nothing more than complete, utter nonsense.



Once again, the evidence must have struck you so hard that it created a stunning blow.

The 1937-38 "Capital strike" against the New Deal was no myth
The states that have instituted "millionaire taxes" have discovered that there are no millionaires next tax season (as the millionaires rearrange their affairs to eliminate their tax burden, or just leave)
The states which institute an "Amazon tax" see Amazon close the associates program once the tax law is passed, resulting in net revenue loss as the associates cease to do business as well.
Ontario's economy is in the tank as producers pack up and leave the high tax, high regulatory environment. (I myself am giving consideration to going to Saskatchewan or Alberta for these very reasons)

The beauty of this is it isn't even due to any central organization or plan, rather the cumulative actions of millions of individuals taking actions in their own best interests (in the case of Amazon, the company is acting on behalf of the shareholders, who would desert the company if it failed its fiduciary duty to them).

The more the progressives try to squeeze the taxpayers, the faster the strike will grow.


----------



## Edward Campbell (24 Oct 2011)

A bit more on this, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/economy/economy-lab/stephen-gordon/be-careful-when-taxing-the-rich-someone-else-may-pay/article2211151/


> Be careful when taxing the rich: someone else may pay
> 
> STEPHEN GORDON
> Globe and Mail Blog
> ...




It appears that there is some evidence to support Thucydides POV. The case of the UK high earning bankers suggests that the law of unintended consequences is alive and well.


----------



## cupper (24 Oct 2011)

But you also realize that they collected twice as much tax as originally projected, right?


----------



## a_majoor (25 Oct 2011)

Interesting view of how the TEA Party movement deals with social issues. The default position would seem to be eliminate State interference in social issues and many of the issues will return to the private realm where they belong:

http://pjmedia.com/blog/tea-party-taboo-tackling-social-issues/?print=1



> *Tea Party Taboo: Tackling Social Issues*
> The Tea Party doesn't do social policy. But what if it did? What might it look like?
> 
> by
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (29 Oct 2011)

Go team!

http://thewaytheballbounces.blogspot.com/2011/10/did-abc-news-really-say-this.html



> Did ABC News Really Say This?
> 
> At a million-dollar San Francisco fundraiser today, President Obama warned his recession-battered supporters that if he loses the 2012 election it could herald a new, painful era of self-reliance in America.
> Did ABC News really say this? Apparently so.
> ...



http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2011/10/obama-if-we-lose-in-2012-government-will-tell-people-youre-on-your-own/



> *Obama: If We Lose in 2012, Government Will Tell People ‘You’re on Your Own’*
> 
> At a million-dollar San Francisco fundraiser today, President Obama warned his recession-battered supporters that if he loses the 2012 election it could herald a new, painful era of self-reliance in America.
> 
> ...



This is total class warfare nonsesne, pitched to the sort of people who created OWS. People like Steve Jobs never needed government except to ensure they had a safe, secure area that enforced contract law and property rights, and anyone who reads "Democracy in America" knows that the nation was founded on the priciple of self reliance and voluntary community associations like church charities, not big government.


----------



## a_majoor (3 Nov 2011)

The TEA Party movement takes out another high tax/high regulation target. Look for lots more of these sorts of battles now that the movement is firm on the ground and striking political targets at all levels of government:



> HERE’S MORE ON THAT DEFEATED TAX-INCREASE EFFORT IN COLORADO, which I think can be scored as a Tea Party victory. Even in Boulder, it barely won a majority, and in heavily Democratic Denver it lost. “The wide margin of defeat for Proposition 103 could only happen with a substantial majority – something on the order of two-thirds – of unaffiliated (independent) voters opposing the measure, something which portends well for Republican hopes in 2012 elections.”
> 
> Posted at 9:52 pm by Glenn Reynolds



http://rossputin.com/blog/index.php/colorado-voters-make-a-stand



> *Colorado voters make a stand (mostly)*
> In the only state-wide tax increase on any state’s ballot this year, Colorado voters yesterday offered a resounding “No!".
> 
> Proposition 103 would have raised the state income tax rate from 4.63 percent to 5 percent, and the state sales tax from 2.9 percent to 3 percent, expecting to extract about $3 billion from Coloradoans over five years with the money earmarked for public education. *The measure’s supporters – primarily teachers’ unions – outraised (and presumably outspent) its opponents by about 20-to-1.*
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (5 Nov 2011)

The TEA Party movement is philosophically related to Objectivism, but Objectivism is a moral as well as a political ideal. This makes for interesting politics but little cooperation between Objectivists (like the Freedom Party) and like minded people like political Libertarians:

http://pjmedia.com/blog/tea-party-taboo-the-atheism-of-ayn-rand/?print=1



> *Tea Party Taboo: The Atheism of Ayn Rand*
> Posted By Walter Hudson On October 31, 2011 @ 1:57 pm In Politics,Religion | 213 Comments
> 
> [1]
> ...


----------



## Edward Campbell (5 Nov 2011)

Organized religion and liberty are mutually exclusive. They may overlap a bit, like parts of a Venn diagram, but real, honest _liberty_ must be, is - by definition, free of the compulsion that is characteristic of most major, organized religions, including Christianity.

Religion is a private matter, between you and your god; no _liberal_ can be such if (s)he thinks (s)he can tell me what to believe.

This article suggests, to me, that the Tea Party is a _conservative_ movement, and we remember how John Stuart Mill described conservatives.


----------



## a_majoor (6 Nov 2011)

This rings very true; the characterizations of the TEA Party movment by opponents and the Legacy Media in no way reflect their real character; and now we see why. Projection of their own memes on others has resulted in a phantom TEA Party which behaves like OWS and threatens violent retribution against real or imagined enemies. 

Like the intelligence agencies noted in the article, people who use this mirror image TEA Party as their template are bound to be frustrated by "unexpected" events they were unable to forecast.

http://pjmedia.com/richardfernandez/2011/11/04/negative/?print=1



> *Negative*
> Posted By Richard Fernandez On November 4, 2011 @ 5:02 pm In Uncategorized | 93 Comments
> 
> The Atlantic Wire [1] reports that Bill Clinton has identified the cause of the national malaise. “The main raison d’être behind Clinton’s latest book, which will be released Tuesday, seems to be diagnose and treat the country’s current economic woes. … his choice words for Obama are what’s going to get everybody’s attention. … But really what’s more interesting is who Clinton takes potshots against.” According to the Associated Press’s Beth Fouhy Clinton “largely blames …
> ...


----------



## cupper (6 Nov 2011)

Perhaps you need to start reading and posting something other than opinion pieces. 

I haven't seen anything posted from you that has any objective analysis, or contains anything close to factual that has information that hasn't been debunked by sound sources.

You've simply become an echo chamber.

Just my  :2c:


----------



## a_majoor (6 Nov 2011)

Thank you for so exactly making the point of the above article.


----------



## ModlrMike (6 Nov 2011)

Forgive my ignorance, but is the Tea Party not composed of *both* Democrats *and* Republicans?


----------



## a_majoor (7 Nov 2011)

ModlrMike said:
			
		

> Forgive my ignorance, but is the Tea Party not composed of *both* Democrats *and* Republicans?



Yes it is. 

A TEA Party movement member on this board has passed this observation on. Lots of people are dissafected with the current political establishment and working to change it by taking over party machinery at the local level, booting incumbents and putting in their own candidates and voter education.


----------



## a_majoor (18 Nov 2011)

TPM philosophy applied to the topic of energy:

http://pjmedia.com/blog/a-new-hope-for-beating-back-the-regressive-green-movement/?print=1



> *A New Hope for Beating Back the Regressive Green Movement*
> 
> Posted By Walter Hudson On November 18, 2011 @ 1:24 am In PJ Culture,PJ Tea Party | No Comments
> YouTube Preview Image [1]
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (19 Dec 2011)

Funny how that works:

http://reason.com/archives/2011/12/16/democratic-fairfax-embraces-its-inner-te/1



> *Democratic Fairfax Embraces Its Inner Tea Party*
> Even people who benefit from big government love it less when they have to live under it.
> 
> A. Barton Hinkle | December 16, 2011
> ...


----------



## cupper (19 Dec 2011)

It's reality vs perception.

Living in next door Prince William County and working in Fairfax County, I can definitively say that this article is a prime example of taking facts and skewing them for your own purposes.


----------



## DBA (20 Dec 2011)

cupper said:
			
		

> It's reality vs perception.
> 
> Living in next door Prince William County and working in Fairfax County, I can definitively say that this article is a prime example of taking facts and skewing them for your own purposes.



A single post ago you were decrying opinion pieces devoid of facts. While this is your opinion which is good it is devoid of any facts or anything else to back it up or even let the rest of us know what you think is skewed. Any article links or examples of how the article in question gives a narrow view of things?


----------



## cupper (20 Dec 2011)

First off, the author makes it sound as if this is a new phenom. However, this has been an on going complaint by the NOVA municipal governments long before I moved down here 10 years ago. And this is not limited just to Fairfax County, but all of the Northern Virginia municipalities which make up the VA portion of Greater Washington. Liberal Fairfax County, Conservative Loudon County, the Cities of Arlington & Alexandria and Tea Party strong hold Prince Willam County.

I'm not disputing the facts in the article, what I dispute is the reasoning the author claims is behind it, and the spin that this is just a recent thing since the Obama Administration came on line or the Tea Party made it's presence known.


----------



## a_majoor (20 Dec 2011)

The author's points are twofold:

1. These complaints are exactly the same ones which motivate the middle class TEA Party movement nationally, and;

2. The astounding hypocrisy of the very people who both benefit from massive government spending (in this case via their taxpayer supplied wages) and otherwise advocate for expanded State presence (via expanding government programs, departments and regulations that they work for and manage). When they reap what they sow, they should not be complaining about the results....


----------



## DBA (20 Dec 2011)

cupper said:
			
		

> First off, the author makes it sound as if this is a new phenom. However, this has been an on going complaint by the NOVA municipal governments long before I moved down here 10 years ago. And this is not limited just to Fairfax County, but all of the Northern Virginia municipalities which make up the VA portion of Greater Washington. Liberal Fairfax County, Conservative Loudon County, the Cities of Arlington & Alexandria and Tea Party strong hold Prince Willam County.
> 
> I'm not disputing the facts in the article, what I dispute is the reasoning the author claims is behind it, and the spin that this is just a recent thing since the Obama Administration came on line or the Tea Party made it's presence known.



Thanks for the reply. Easier to understand where your viewpoint is coming from. 

A case could be made that the Tea Party added support for bringing the issues to both more visibility and some action. They don't own the issues but are responsible for some recent action on them.


----------



## cupper (20 Dec 2011)

DBA said:
			
		

> Thanks for the reply. Easier to understand where your viewpoint is coming from.
> 
> A case could be made that the Tea Party added support for bringing the issues to both more visibility and some action. They don't own the issues but are responsible for some recent action on them.



That would be true ifit wasn't for the fact that the state and local pols that are backed by the TP are the ones who are bringing in the policies that are being railed against. 

One point to note about the VA Tea Party, they tend to be the more right wing socially conservative faction, although they are also very vocal about the fiscal conservative policies as well. However, the pols they elected this last round are also the type of GOP candidate that seems to have the miraculous conversion on the road to Damascus.

Hence my comment about reality over perception.


----------



## a_majoor (27 Dec 2011)

The other aspect of the TEA Party movement is adherence to the Constitution. Targeting members of Congress who vote for laws and regulation which are in violation of the Constitution may become a popular new tactic to express displeasure and apply pressure:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/12/25/1048711/-Montanans-Launch-Recall-of-Senators-Who-Approved-NDAA-Military-Detention-Merry-Christmas,-US-Senate



> *Montanans Launch Recall of Senators Who Approved NDAA Military Detention. Merry Christmas, US Senate*
> by Ralph LopezFollow
> 
> UPDATE 12/26/2011:
> ...


----------



## Nemo888 (5 Jan 2012)




----------



## a_majoor (12 Jan 2012)

A public challenge. It would be interesting to see a real debate, but I won't be holding my breath:

http://electiondayteaparty.squarespace.com/news/2012/1/12/tea-party-leaders-to-dnc-stop-lying-about-us.html



> CONTACT:
> Michael Patrick Leahy
> michaelpatrickleahy@gmail.com
> 615-243-6869
> ...


----------



## Infanteer (12 Jan 2012)

Those guys are still around?


----------



## muskrat89 (12 Jan 2012)

> Those guys are still around?



I can say with absolute certainty that they are fairly active at local and state levels. National TP stuff I don't follow very closely; local TP groups interests are too diverse (yet with some commonalities) to coalesce into any kind of cohesive force in my opinion. A Tea Party group in Town A may have a nucleus/agenda focused on constituional issues and education. 20 miles away in Town B, the Tea Party group may be focused on fiscal matters. Town C's group may provide a forum for people to learn about candidates running for local office by giving them opportunities to present to the group.

Much to redeye's delight I'm sure - I would offer that most Tea Partiers are "amateurs" when it comes to politics. Their primary bent may be conservatism, religion, the constitution, or fiscal responsibility. They are average people who have simply become "fed up" and are galvanized to try and do _something_ to change politics as usual.


----------



## a_majoor (12 Jan 2012)

I tend to think of these groups as the small furry mammals that will be able to adapt and survive the big changes coming in the social, political and economic ecosystem. Just because you don't see them does not mean they are not out there, quietly eating the dinosaur eggs...


----------



## Fishbone Jones (13 Jan 2012)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> Those guys are still around?



I think that's what the Brits said in about 1774. Boston 1773 

Wonder how they made out on that one?


----------



## a_majoor (13 Jan 2012)

Maybe not so quietly snacking on dinosaur eggs:

http://wolffiles.blogspot.com/2012/01/announcing-election-day-tea-party.html



> *Tea Party Leaders Launch ElectionDayTeaParty.com for 2012 *
> Celebrations Planned Nationwide
> Marking the Third Year of the Citizens' Movement in February
> 
> ...



http://electiondayteaparty.squarespace.com/


----------



## a_majoor (7 Mar 2012)

The TEA Party movement and Super Tuesday. As expected, the narrative the legacy media is pushing simply does not fit the facts on the ground. I predict a lot of exploding heads come November 2012...

http://www.broadsidebooks.net/2012/03/07/super-tuesday-explodes-two-myths-about-the-tea-party/



> *Super Tuesday Explodes Two Myths About the Tea Party*
> 
> By: Michael_Patrick_Leahy
> March 07, 2012
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (9 Apr 2012)

A look at what the TEA Party movement has achieved already. This is a pretty potent message to send for the downline elections in November, and to use in State and Municipal elections in the years to come. Unwinding $3-500 billion in spending in two years demonstrates that real spending cuts, elimination of the deficit and dealing with the national debt and unfunded liabilities is indeed possible, not something that you just throw your hands up over and declare impossible:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/paulroderickgregory/2012/04/08/the-tea-party-already-saved-taxpayers-300-billion-maybe-a-half-trillion/



> *The Tea Party Already Saved Taxpayers $300 Billion (Maybe a Half Trillion)*
> 
> A “counterfactual” is an analysis of “what would have happened if.” President Obama’s claim that “the stimulus added as many as 3.3 million jobs” is the most famous example of this genre.
> 
> ...


----------



## cupper (9 Apr 2012)

OMG, Zombie Alert. I thought this topic died a slow painful death.  :facepalm:  :facepalm:


----------



## a_majoor (9 Apr 2012)

If you think that you will be in for a real surprise this November.... >


----------



## cupper (9 Apr 2012)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> If you think that you will be in for a real surprise this November.... >



I don't have enough faces to palm to respond to that.

 :rofl:


----------



## Fishbone Jones (9 Apr 2012)

cupper said:
			
		

> I don't have enough faces to palm to respond to that.
> 
> :rofl:



It _appears_ you're one of those Democrats that say the Tea Party is dead, or follow their dictum anyway.

Rather than argue, he said, she said, why not just be satisfied to wait and see if they make an impact.

That way you don't have to appear so self centred and condescending.


----------



## a_majoor (11 Apr 2012)

Other Democrats appear to be taking direct action against the TEA Party movement, which should indicate that someone is taking them very seriously indeed:

http://dailycaller.com/2012/04/11/send-us-everything/?print=1



> *‘Send us everything’*
> By Eric Wilson & Toby Marie Walker   11:09 AM 04/11/2012
> 
> During a 2009 commencement address at Arizona State University, President Obama joked that he’d send the IRS after those who didn’t see eye-to-eye with him. For over 100 tea party groups, his comments are not amusing; they are a reality.
> ...


----------



## cupper (11 Apr 2012)

recceguy said:
			
		

> It _appears_ you're one of those Democrats that say the Tea Party is dead, or follow their dictum anyway.
> 
> Rather than argue, he said, she said, why not just be satisfied to wait and see if they make an impact.
> 
> That way you don't have to appear so self centred and condescending.



I didn't say that the Tea Party was dead. I thought that this topic thread was dead, as it seemed to have not appeared in quite a while. Everyone seemed preoccupied with the Election thread instead.

The Tea Party is very alive, well, and kicking. And all of my previous comment still stand.

You appear to misunderstand me good sir. I am neither Democrat or Republican (aside from the fact that I am prohibited by law to exercise an opinion at the voting booth) for I see flaws in both parties. Just a person who feels that there is a lot of misinformation being vomited up in the media on both sides.

Unfortunately this primary season is one sided. There will be plenty of opportunities during the general election to chastise the Dems for their blunders as well.


----------



## a_majoor (16 Apr 2012)

Photo essay by "Zombie" of a TEA Party movement rally for Mitt Romney, in San Fransisco of all places: http://pjmedia.com/zombie/2012/04/16/tea-party-rallies-for-romney-in-san-francisco/

Now the TEA Partiers are probably only lukewarm for Governor Romney, but they are positively cold for the current Administration, so expect the movement to start pulling forward towards their goals (and certainly expect them to be making demands come Jan 2013).


----------



## muskrat89 (16 Apr 2012)

An article on what the Tea Party is up to:  http://news.yahoo.com/3-years-later-whats-become-tea-party-205645508.html

Hoping Yahoo is a neutral enough source to quell the scoffers


----------



## a_majoor (18 Apr 2012)

No wonder the TEA Party movement is so effective; look who is running it:

http://legalinsurrection.com/2012/04/the-tea-party-the-greatest-feminist-movement/



> *The Tea Party: The greatest feminist movement?*
> Posted by Anne Sorock    Tuesday, April 17, 2012 at 10:02am
> 
> Two standout appearances at Chicago’s Tea Party this Monday were familiar faces from Saturday’s Wisconsin event: BigJournalism’s Dana Loesch and Wisconsin Lieutenant Governor Rebecca Kleefisch.
> ...



And a forecast of how much the TEA Party movement could bring to the election. The high end numbers are the "best possible" scenario, I would look for something closer to the lower boundary based on the available time and resource base of the TEA Party groups:

http://dailycaller.com/2012/04/18/the-coming-conservative-landslide/?print=1



> *The coming conservative landslide*
> By Michael Patrick Leahy   7:38 PM 04/18/2012
> 
> Wishful liberals and Chicken Little conservatives who watch the weekly fluctuations in the presidential polls have concluded that President Obama is a shoo-in for re-election. They point out that Mitt Romney, the likely Republican nominee, can’t connect with women, has a large likability gap and is slightly behind Obama in most national polls as well as in the key swing states of Virginia, North Carolina, Florida and Ohio.
> ...


----------



## tomahawk6 (21 Apr 2012)

Orrin Hatch will have to face a primary after failing to win the nomination at the convention.

http://hotair.com/archives/2012/04/21/orrin-hatch-fails-to-clinch-gop-nomination-in-utah-by-0-9/


----------



## a_majoor (1 Aug 2012)

TEA Party movement nominates another Senatorial candidate (and by a large margin). The "establishment" GOP candidate had lots of high level backing, lots of cash and still cratered. People who continue to spout the TEA Party movement is dead meme should be reevaluating their positions about now:

http://washingtonexaminer.com/tea-party-pulls-upset-in-texas-primary-race/article/2503694



> *Tea Party pulls upset in Texas primary race*
> July 31, 2012
> 
> Joel Gehrke
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (3 Aug 2012)

Glenn Reynolds calls it 



> Like the Tea Party movement, the Chicken Sandwich Insurrection is a bourgeois revolt, which is why some people find it so threatening.



People are tired of being told what to believe, what to do, what they should say, think etc. by the political class, particularly when they look out the window and see results so at variance to what is being claimed. The "Chicken Sandwich Insurrection" is a reaction to the mayors of three large American cities threatening to use their political power to deny a business licence to a company who's owner publically holds views at variance to their own. Now individuals may decide if they wish to patronize such business or not, but to use or threaten the use of force (especially the power of the State against a disarmed individual) is far beyond the pale, and many people have recognized that if there is no pushback, then potentially anyone could be next; especially if they don't parrot the "progressive" line (and make no mistake, all the Mayors who offered threats against the chain were Progressives and were threatening to close the chain because the owner was speaking against the Progressive "party line").

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/standingonmyhead/2012/08/cfa-appreciation-day-the-triumph-of-the-ordinary.html



> *CFA Appreciation Day – The Triumph of the Ordinary*
> August 2, 2012 By Fr. Dwight Longenecker 31 Comments
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## cupper (3 Aug 2012)

Let's wait and see what happens with the LGBT "Kiss In" planned for today before we judge.


----------



## a_majoor (4 Aug 2012)

Although preliminary reports of the "Kiss in" suggest it is nowhere near the magnitude of the "Buycott" the other day, that isn't really the point.

The buycott protest wasn't for or against the owner's particular position (and note that the chain itself makes no distinctions about who they hire or serve), but rather a pushback against the mayors of Chicago, Boston and Washington DC attempting to use their political power to muzzle the First Amendment rights of the chain's owner.

You, personally, can express your approval or disapproval of the owner's position through various non coercive means, ranging from a letter to the company, a letter to the editor, refusing your custom or organizing a boycott with people of similar views. You cannot use force (real or implied) to prevent the business from operating or customers from choosing to patronize the establishment; there are very clear limits in any civilized society. Since the Mayors had threatened to cross that line, they were rightly being mocked by thousands of people across the United States who chose to eat there in support of the owner's First Amendment rights.

To my mind, the "kiss in" is an attempt to change the "narrative" from defense of the First Amendment. Personally, I find the idea that ordinary, apolitical citizens would stand in line to support the First Amendment to be a far more compelling narrative, and if this is an indication of how Americans really think, then the TEA Party movement is more like an iceberg than most commenters are willing to credit; 90% of the movement is silently moving out of sight of the political establishment.


----------



## cupper (4 Aug 2012)

Actually, it's more interesting that this appears to be a media generated tempest rather than something developing from the fringe (read both group and edge).

The comments in question were made on a Christian Conservative radio broadcast, and quoted in essentially limited readership Christian Conservative media.

It didn't spread wings and fly until it gained mention in mainstream media outlets, and was then pushed to the forefront.

It's all a moot point anyway, as the tide is turning for same sex marriage through out the US. And to quote Jon Stewart "You're going to get the right to marry, and your opponents are going to get type 2 diabetes".

I will genuinely celebrate and give congrats to the Gay and Lesbian community each time they gain in their fight for equal marriage rights, all the while eating my chicken, egg and cheese bagel meal with a large coffee.


----------



## a_majoor (4 Aug 2012)

You are missing the point in so many ways, my UN friend:

1. This isn't a "media driven" protest; the Media has almost uniformly portrayed this in a negative light and under the ruberic of "gay marriage"

2. If the chain owner's remarks had been confined to Christian media outlets I'm sure you or I would have never heard of them, or the particular fast food chain in general.

3. Three powerful political figures rode in on the "Gay Marriage" meme, and threatened to use the power of the State against the business, thus threatening the owners First Amendment rights to free speech.

4. Apolitical people, most of whom don't have a dog in the gay marriage fight, have pushed back against the threatening and bullying by the mayors of Chicago, DC and Boston, who made (illleagal by the way) threats to withold business licenses, zoning permits etc. to prevent the chain from opening franchises. This is the real story, and one which the Legacy media would rather ignore in favour of the "gay marriage" theme or "Kiss ins" at the outlets. It should also be noted that the primary driver behind the buycotts that filled the stores was the Internet, particularly the blogosphere and social media spreading the news of the threats against the chain, which may be why the legacy media was put out by the size and scope of chicken sandwich day.

Regardless of what you think of gay marriage, this story isn't about that topic, it is about the steady mobilization of apolitical people who have had enough and are now finding creative and non traditional means of pushing back against the political class in general and "progressive" memes in particular. (And if you have any misconceptions about why I am posting on this topic, I favour letting people get married without interference from the State; I will respect gay marriage partners like my next door neighbours. I want people to respect churches and other people who don't hold the same views and not threaten them and their institutions with State power to make them conform).

edit to add: this guy said it better:

http://coldfury.com/2012/08/02/of-chicken-sandwiches-unintended-consequencesand-revolutions/



> *Of chicken sandwiches, unintended consequences…and revolutions*
> Counterrevolution by Mike
> 
> The Heritage Foundation’s Rob Bluey asks a silly question:
> ...


----------



## cupper (4 Aug 2012)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> You are missing the point in so many ways, my UN friend:



No, I haven't missed the point. This stopped being about gay marriage as soon as Chick Fil A came out with a statement that the Corporation did not discriminate against anyone in either their tratment of customers, or their employees. It simply became one man's opinion (albeit a weak one) about his view on marriage and family values as expounded in whatever version of the Bible he chooses to follow.

And it was a media drive protest. It took more that a week for the story to become mainstream from the time of the interview. Once it hit the national spotlight, it developed a life of it's own.

David Frum makes a very good point in a column for the National Post that the is now a cult of victim hood that pervades through out society now, where everyone can claim some form of persecution.

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2012/08/04/david-frum-fried-chicken-for-jesus/

And for the record, I've been a customer of our local Chick Fil A for several years now. And their Christian pro-family stance has never been an issue with my non beliefs and as long as their business policies continue to be non discriminatory, I will continue to be a customer.


----------



## Edward Campbell (4 Aug 2012)

I agree with cupper; this is, totally, a media driven event - on both sides. There are NO principles involved, on either side, and it is, _per force_, a non-issue, except that Mike Huckabee, who is part of media now, thought he could improve his ratings by exploiting it.


----------



## Brad Sallows (4 Aug 2012)

It was a political issue before it became a media issue.  The whole point was to raise an issue which would reflect adversely on Republicans/conservatives and favourably on Democrats/progressives and distract some attention from the ongoing economic situation which does not favour Democratic candidates for the 2008 elections.  It backfired when the freedom of conscience theme overtook the SSM theme.


----------



## Edward Campbell (4 Aug 2012)

C'mon, Brad, the _politics_ of rights for gays (and all the assorted variants thereto and hangers on) is settled. Courts and legislatures are all marching in the same direction, albeit at different speeds. What's left is the US culture wars and they are, in the main, a media event. I know a tiny handful of Americans who are committed _Tea Party_ types and an equally tiny handful who are pretty far left - they might even be _Dippers_ if they were Canadians. But most of the Americans I have met over the past several years are _independents_ or _uncommitted_ and that includes several who are registered Democrats or Republicans who have, at least once, crossed party lines. If Mike Huckabee and his ilk, on both sides of the issue, could make a living without fanning the flames of the nonsensical but, ultimately, destructive, culture wars then Americans could focus on what matters: the economy.


----------



## cupper (4 Aug 2012)

The only thing left to be settled WRT equal marriage rights for same sex couples is spousal rights and benefits. And it's working it's way through the courts now. A recent state appeals court case declared the "Defense of Marriage Act" unconstitutional. Combined with the current Administration's stated practice of not defending DOMA, it will be a short period of time before same sex marriage is recognized at the Federal level. And at that point, we are no longer at the thin edge of the wedge issue.

All that will remain is striking down restricting benefits to heterosexual couples only. I predict that once the Supreme Court rules on DOMA and Prop 8, Congress will see the light and move ahead with legislation ensuring Federal benefit rights, but the states may need to ge dragged kicking and screaming, especially in the more conservative south and west.

Gay rights stopped being an issue in this election when Congress repealed Don't Ask Don't Tell. Both campaigns avoided the "Hate Chicken" controversy like nutritionists and trans fats. And the media did try several times to link the Romney Campaign to it. But no one took a bite.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0812/79363.html?hp=f1

(Sorry for the puns, I couldn't help myself  > )


----------



## Brad Sallows (5 Aug 2012)

I do not mean that it is a political "rights" issue.  I mean it is a political "election shiny thing" issue meant to distract people from the chief issue (economy) and the floundering Obama campaign.  Any of the red herrings and sidebars "blue team" politicians and supporters throw up between now and Nov, either hoping to motivate "blue team" or initiate a self-destructive feeding frenzy by "red team", also has the potential to become a media issue since media tend to side with "blue team".

The stunt backfired: people chose to emphasize the freedom-of-conscience issue that was at stake. The counter-protest also backfired - it failed to provoke bad behaviour on the part of "red team"* and in fact provoked some bad behaviour on the part of media and a handful of supporters of "blue team".

*I assume the media would have seized desperately on the slightest rumour of bad behaviour from "red team", and I haven't seen any such rumours yet.


----------



## Bird_Gunner45 (5 Aug 2012)

I like the Red/Blue analysis.  This whole argument reminds me of this video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9BAM9fgV-ts


----------



## a_majoor (5 Aug 2012)

Once again, I will suggest everyone is distracted by the real point of all this; despite attempts to hijack it to fit various agendas, provoke reactions from the Red and/or Blue teams etc., the real story is that a huge number of normally apolitical Americans came out to protest the behaviour of the political class who attempted to use their position and the implied threat of State power to intimidate and bully an American businessman who chose to express himself.

I predict that you will see similar events in the future to remind politicians (and I will stipulate that political figures from every party are quite capable of putting their foot in their mouths) who they really work for. Buycotts and other expressions of solidarity fall within the TEA Party movement philosophy even if the participants do not explicitly belong to the TEA Party. This is why Glenn Reynolds said these movements provoke fear in the political class; they are spontaneous and grass roots, and indicate a large divergence between the desires of the voters and the actions of the political class. Politicians ignore these movements at their peril.


----------



## cupper (5 Aug 2012)

Pure and simple, it was a media manufactured tempest in the Tea Party.

Until Mike Huckabee stepped up with his call for Chick-Fil-A appreciation day, this news item would have died a quick and painless death within one short news cycle.

A statement by the Mayor of San Francisco on this subject is almost obligatory. A statement by the Mayor of Boston, center of one of the first states to allow same sex marriage is no big stretch. Rahm Emanuel just likes sticking his nose in. Mayor Gray from DC calling it hate chicken was just comic relief, since no one can take him seriously in his current political situation.

But the media pushed harder than they needed to, and the media whores that make up the Fox News punditry picked up the ball and ran with it.

What have we heard since the protests? Nada. New news cycle.

Pure and simple, it was a media manufactured tempest in the Tea Party.


----------



## Brad Sallows (5 Aug 2012)

Yes, yes; "blue team" is always the voice of reason with compelling reasons for whatever they do; "red team" is always just a bunch of sh!t-disturbers.  The mayors were, after all, just kidding around.


----------



## a_majoor (5 Aug 2012)

Cupper, you really need to ask yourself why all these apolitical Americans (most of whom had no dog in this fight) would go out and stand in kine for a chicken sandwich by a relatively obscure chain?

Are people really that mesmerized by Mike Huckabee? (And if they were, why isn't he standing behind the podium where Governor Romney is now?). You seem to believe that the news media has some sort of magical powers, forgetting that the news media is actually dying a slow and painful death (instapundit noted that almost half a million Americans cancelled their cable subscriptions last year alone, and he has published numerous articles where the motivation behind cancellations was viewers being tired of paying for shows they found offensive, or BS newscasts). Print is suffering from the same erosion of readership, and part of this is due to a diminished amount of credibility. Even broadcast news (the other part of the Legacy media) is being thrashed by dropped ratings, and since people are dropping other forms of media at the same time, it is not a case of switching from ABC to CNN; indeed CNN is taking the hardest hit in terms of lost viewers.

The other issue is the story of "Things that are seen and not seen". While Frederic Bastiat was writing about economics, the fact that things are "not seen" on the news can indicate that the Media isn't looking for it, or avoiding the issue. In the case of the TEA Party movement and their various affiliates (such as the one we just saw), the idea of apolitical Americans taking a stand is alien to the way the political class, academia and the legacy media think, so they will try to ignore the issue. The idea that movements need large public displays (like the "Occupy" movement) is also a big part of the thinking of the politicians, academics and media, so when they don't see public displays they imagine the movement has disappeared. They then scramble to explain how long serving politicians are knocked off during primaries by relative unknowns, or how the House and may State Houses and Governorships were swept in 2010.

So the story still is that apolitical Americans came together to take a stand against the political class. I expect to see more of this behaviour in the future, since the underlying cause isn't the media, but the mismatch between people's expectations and the behaviours of the political class and their enablers


----------



## cupper (5 Aug 2012)

I'm sorry, but the mere act of making some sort of stand is in itself a political act, therefore they lost the label of apolitical.

And I believe that the masses wouldn't have spontaneously shown up all on the same day if someone hadn't made the suggestion in the first place.


----------



## DBA (6 Aug 2012)

cupper said:
			
		

> I'm sorry, but the mere act of making some sort of stand is in itself a political act, therefore they lost the label of apolitical.
> 
> And I believe that the masses wouldn't have spontaneously shown up all on the same day if someone hadn't made the suggestion in the first place.



Apolitical in this context means apathy or disinterest towards political affiliations. It doesn't mean they don't have an opinion on political issues or that they don't express them. 

Not sure what your second point is as all it does is state the obvious about all such events. The success or lack thereof is generally measured by the size of the response which for this event was rather large.


----------



## cupper (6 Aug 2012)

DBA said:
			
		

> Apolitical in this context means apathy or disinterest towards political affiliations. It doesn't mean they don't have an opinion on political issues or that they don't express them.



If they are apathetic or have no interest in a political issue they are apolitical. If they have no interest in a particular partyor affiliation, they are non-partisan.



			
				DBA said:
			
		

> Not sure what your second point is as all it does is state the obvious about all such events.



It was in response to this:



			
				Thucydides said:
			
		

> Are people really that mesmerized by Mike Huckabee? (And if they were, why isn't he standing behind the podium where Governor Romney is now?). You seem to believe that the news media has some sort of magical powers,



As for success or failure of the event in question, I made no specific comment on that.


----------



## a_majoor (10 Aug 2012)

The first half of the article is the take away. The current political and economic system is in an unstable equilibrium as the foundations of the Progressive project crumble under mountains of debt, failure to achieve the stated objectives and moral failure. Glenn Reynolds has predicted a "preference cascade" as people begin to realise they are not the only ones who think this way, and there have been several interesting articles (look up Walter Russel Mead in the "American Interest" for some of the most consise) speculating on what the post Progressive future would look like.

The TEA Party movement is probably the most visible manifestation of the preference cascade, but no one has (yet) really defined the outlines of what a post progressive society would look like or operate. If this author is correct, the election results will be totally "unexpected" by the conventional punditry. What the ultimate fallout will be will be ours to discover in the years to come:

http://www.ricochet.com/main-feed/Landslide-on-the-Horizon



> *Landslide on the Horizon*
> Paul A. Rahe · Aug 9 at 4:52am
> 
> When I read Nate Silver, Sean Trende, Charlie Cook, Jay Cost, and the others who make a profession of political prognostication, I pay close attention to their attempts to dissect the polling data and predict what is to come. But I also take everything that they say with a considerable grain of salt. You see, I lived through the 1980 election, the fall of the Berlin Wall, and the collapse of the Soviet Union, and I was struck at the time by the fact that next to no one among the political scientists who made a living out of studying presidential elections, communism in eastern Europe, and Sovietology saw any of these upheavals coming. Virtually all of them were caught flat-footed.
> ...


----------



## Jed (11 Aug 2012)

So, Is the selection of Ryan as Romney's running mate considered a 'Tea Party Win' ?


----------



## Edward Campbell (11 Aug 2012)

Jed said:
			
		

> So, Is the selection of Ryan as Romney's running mate considered a 'Tea Party Win' ?




In a way, yes.

According to what I have read/heard, the _independent_ and, more importantly _undecided_ share of the US electorate continues to shrink. That means that the loyalist, committed "base" is more important for each party. That's not a real problem for Obama: he is fairly _left_ and so is his base. But Romney is still the subject of some mistrust, I think by the Tea Party folks and their fellow travelers. Paul Ryan is a Tea Party darling so he should help secure and, again more importantly, energize the GOP's base.

So, to the degree that Romney is pandering to the Tea Party types then, yes, it's a win for them.


----------



## a_majoor (12 Aug 2012)

The Republican Party establishment still has to come to grips with the meaning and nature of the TEA Party movement, and it seems they are still not on board. This article suggests the TEA Party movement activists will be expending most of their energy in the downline elections, working to get more TEA Party endorsed Senators, Congressmen, State representatives and Governors elected. While a very useful exercise in of itself (the turnaround of the newly Red states after 2010 is instructive), it also has the potential to set up discord between the presumptive Romney Administration and the Congress. Should President Obama win another term, a solid Republican Congress and a phalanx of Republican state houses will work to undo the effects of the first term and limit the "flexibility" he wants to exhibit in his presumptive second term.

As for the movement, I suspect they will continue to take over riding associations (or whatever the correct term in the United States is) and remove incumbents to replace them with their own choices. The Republican Party establishment needs to either align themselves more closely with the movement to build on the strength being exhibited, or close ranks and engage in a fight to the death (political scuicide, but the only way to maintain control of the GOP if that is their true goal).

http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Articles/2012/08/12/Republican-Convention-Will-Be-No-Tea-Party.aspx#page1



> *Republican Convention Will Be No Tea Party*
> 
> By SAMUEL P. JACOBS, Reuters
> August 12, 2012
> ...


----------



## Edward Campbell (28 Aug 2012)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> Indeed, and it is quite interesting to follow the rapid evolution of the TEA Party movement. The initial street protests against massive government spending was initially ignored, then slurred. TEA Party protesters attempting to engage their elected officials in "town hall" meetings rapidly discovered their elected officials were not interested in listening, and watching various tactics like filling the "town halls" by invitation only, bussing SEIU members to fill the halls, cancelling townhalls or moveing them to inconveinient locations (along with the endless slurring by the Legacy Media) convinced many that they needed to take over the process themselves. The 2010 midterms were totally amazing in the speed at which TEA Party movments took over various Republican "riding associations" (sorry, forgot the American term) and ejected sitting incumbents in some cases, and rolled establishment candidates for nomination in other cases, culminating in a remarkable victory not only in the House, but also a great many downline races at the State level.
> 
> The movement has now had three years to organize and grow, and from what I have read and heard, the movement is busy attempting to repeat its success, only they [the Tea Party folks] are now trying to win the entire electoral process from POTUS to the city dogcatcher. Simple time/space/distance considerations suggest this is not possible all the way up and downline, but the determined effort being put in place is changing the electoral landscape, and it is very possible the TEA Party movement will have elected enough people in enough jurisdictions to make a real and substancial change (the Newly Red states swept in the 2010 elections are seeing economic recovery due to the new Governor and State legislators enacting a TEA Party like economic platform of lower spending and freezing or reducing taxes and regulation, success should breed a certain momentum as well).
> 
> The American analogy which I liken this to is the raid eclipse of the Whig Party in the mid 1800's and its replacement by the Republican Party. The Whig establishment had no answers to the economic and political issues of the time, and were seemingly not too interested in what their supporters had to say about the issue. The end result was a rush of former supporters to the new party. The GOP in its current form is in a similar state, and the GOP "establishment" may find itself swept away for the same reasons.




Well, here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_ is an ... interesting is, I guess, the right word ... report on one _conservative_ candidate in one local race:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/worldview/texas-judge-warns-of-civil-war-if-obama-re-elected/article4504647/


> Texas judge warns of ‘civil war’ if Obama re-elected
> 
> PAUL KORING
> Washington — The Globe and Mail
> ...




Good luck with that.


----------



## cupper (17 Sep 2012)

*Poll: Tea Party Less Popular Than Muslims, Atheists, 21 Other Groups*

http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2011/08/17/297731/poll-tea-party-muslims/?mobile=nc



> The debt ceiling deal has left the Tea Party more disliked than ever, as a recent New York Times poll shows. In April, 2010, 21 percent of Americans approved of the Tea Party while 18 percent disapproved of it. Now, 20 percent approve while a stunning 40 percent disapprove of it. Ironically, the conservative movement is now more unpopular than two often-marginalized groups it sometimes rails against — Muslims and atheists — and is the least popular of the 23 groups the poll asked about:
> 
> 
> > The Tea Party ranks lower than any of the 23 other groups we asked about — lower than both Republicans and Democrats. It is even less popular than much maligned groups like “atheists” and “Muslims.” Interestingly, one group that approaches it in unpopularity is the Christian Right.


----------



## Brad Sallows (17 Sep 2012)

I suppose with about 40% of the electorate identifying as "Democrat", you'd get at least 40% disapproving of the Tea Party.

Does anyone run through such sh!t in their own minds to give it a "sniff test" before triumphantly posting it?


----------



## cupper (18 Sep 2012)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> I suppose with about 40% of the electorate identifying as "Democrat", you'd get at least 40% disapproving of the Tea Party.
> 
> Does anyone run through such sh!t in their own minds to give it a "sniff test" before triumphantly posting it?



http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/09/17/the-most-unpopular-group-in-america.html

Apparently not.  :nana:


----------



## Redeye (18 Sep 2012)

I'd say I was surprised to read that poll.  But even taken with an industrial sized grain of salt owing to the source, I can't. I've read nothing sourced to Tea Party folks that is actually particularly intelligent or insightful. Given that they were celebrated for wild success in "taking control" of the House in the 2010 midterms, and that Congress has become one of the most unpopular in history (IIRC a 10% approval rating?), the polling makes sense to some degree.


----------



## Brad Sallows (18 Sep 2012)

I suppose the final measure of approval will be this Nov, when voters decide whether they want more of what the TP delivered, or less.  Count the seats held by each party and you will have your definitive answer.


----------



## a_majoor (14 Dec 2012)

TEA Party activists scored a huge win in Michigan, of all places, by passing right to work legislation. The article pulls out the usual deamonization of the TEA Party movement as being in the pocket of one or two conservative billionaires (odd how the funding and affiliation of MoveOn, Media Matters or the Tides foundation is never discussed in those terms), but careful reading shows that there was quite a bit more to this than that. The takeaway is it only looks like a surprise if you are not paying attention:

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/12/13/us-usa-unions-michigan-idUSBRE8BC06W20121213



> *Insight: How Republicans engineered a blow to Michigan's powerful unions*
> 
> By Nick Carey and Bernie Woodall
> 
> ...


----------

