Trackbacks

• No trackbacks exist for this post.

Comments

• 9/23/2010 9:32 PM Kenneth wrote:
  Well. I’ll be honest. I’m a borderline Tea Party supporter. There are aspects I agree with, there are aspects I disagree with. But I know what it is that causes my more “liberal” friends to consider the Tea Party radical: It’s not the dramatic tendency for emotional presentations. It’s the sweeping generalizations.
  It’s as accurate to say all “Liberals” want to destroy our culture and support welfare for all as it is to say all “Conservatives” want all women who’ve had an abortion to be shot in the head. Are there those that do? Undoubtedly. But to generalize all to such over-simplified caricatures seems so conceptually destructive.
  Now I recognize this for what it is: I believe you INTEND this to be a simplification. I respect your intelligence enough to not think you honestly believe ALL liberals want to have heroin in every corner store and state regulators in every office building. But intent aside, interpretation by many people with liberal roots tend to take such consistent sweeping generalizations as cause to presume likely foolishness regardless.
  Specifically, what makes this “radical” to my liberal friends is the way the complexities of those who disagree are being swept away into inappropriately simplified ideas which deny even chance for contention. I know this isn’t the norm in the Tea Party, but it does seem to be par for the course that those deafly yelling the loudest at those who disagree are also the ones standing closest to them. It’s a real image problem that has become a barrier to achieving all of our mutual goals.
  Patriot, I very strongly support your outline you presented for where our Government needs to go: “limited government, reducing taxes, increasing individual liberty, following the Constitution, reducing government regulation, and honesty in government.” This is a powerful list that no one I’ve presented it to has disagreed with. Critically, most of the people I get in conversations with this about also tend to be highly liberal.
  Reply to this
  1. 9/24/2010 1:37 PM The Patriot wrote:
     

     Kenneth, just as an aside, please, never begin a statement by saying, "I'll be honest with you."   It makes one wonder whether you are normally not honest in your dealings with them.  

     Again, I think you must understand that there is no one Tea Party and as such there is no one set of beliefs one must subscribe to in order to be a part of the movement.   As I specified in my article, it is not those in the Tea Party who are radical.   The Tea Parties all wish to preserve American traditions, protect the country and protect liberty.   I would profess that it is your liberal friends who are radical.   They simply regard themselves as main stream because all their friends think alike and see people such as myself as radical as a matter of perspective only.   The reality, there is nothing extreme about the majority of us.   Certainly there are some who we would all think are radical but on average if you are seeking a sanity barometer, the Tea Parties are high on sanity. 

     I don't believe for a moment that all liberals want to destroy this country or as you suggest that liberals want a country of drug addicts but understand, the Democrat Party is no longer simply liberal.   They have been controlled by leftists since the McGovern nomination back in 1972.   The very people who were rioting on the streets of Chicago in 1968 moved inside and have controlled the party since 1972.  Gone are the Scoop Jacksons and the Sam Nunns who one could call statesmen of the Democrat Party.   I believe the key is in what you mentioned yourself, "interpretation by many people with liberal roots tend to..."  regard persons who oppose their ideas as radical.   It is a matter of perspective.

     Sadly, with this group that is now in control of both the Democrat Party and this nation I doubt that we have many mutual goals.    I want my grandchildren educated in critical thought, not what to think.   Yet we are in contention with this very subject because leftists want to exclude certain points of view from the classroom, rewrite history and overtly downgrade student grades when they have opposing opinions.   Why is it that in so many universities and schools that liberals outnumber conservatives by such huge margins?   It isn't because they have a monopoly on the answers.   If this were true we wouldn't be having this discussion.  How and why have so many former militant radicals, Weathermen, Black Panther, SDS and Communists gained tenure in our universities across the country?    I'll point you to David Horowitz.  Read his book, The Professors, for a real scare regarding our education system. 

     Why is it that Horowitz or other conservatives cannot safely speak at major American universities without threats of violence or actual assaults occurring?  I point you to the Minutemen who spoke at Columbia in NYC and was effectively silenced by a militant crowd who promoted their refusal to allow him to speak as their protecting their own right of free speech.   

     Those who currently control the Democrat Party have as their base a group of leftists that support immediate removal from Afghanistan and abandonment of our allies.   They forced this in Vietnam and the result was the Killing Fields of both Cambodia and Vietnam.   Our allies were left as lambs to the slaughter.   Conservatives do not want to see this happen again.   We want these allies to have a chance at their own government free of the influence of either Al Qaeda or the Taliban.   Who is radical? 

     Those currently in control of the Democrat Party believe in social engineering.   This is another radical point of view and includes such things as Obamacare, something 70% of this country does not want.  The liberals who have elevated themselves to an elite status seem to believe they know more about what is best for me than I do myself.   Through this legislation they wish to redistribute the labor of some to enable the government to pay for the healthcare of others and worse, they wish to insert themselves in the decisions that are normally made by the patient and their family.    Who is radical?   Those who would deprive people of their liberty or those who would wish to protect liberty and deal with the problems of affordability in other ways?

     It is the liberal who believes that every woman should have a right to an abortion without regard to the baby growing in the womb.    Who is radical?   The conservative who points out that the matter of choice occurred when she allowed him to ejaculate in her vagina not when the consequence became inconvenient?   Is it radical to point out that 40 million babies have been slaughtered since Roe v Wade or that Roe v Wade was itself an abominable, treasonous decision made by a court that began with the decision and went in search of some language they could bastardize into a right that is truly non-existent in our Constitution?  Those seven justices did not honor their obligation to this country when they decided Roe v Wade.   They effectively disenfranchised every one of us by not allowing this issue to be resolved legislatively where the issue truly belongs.   Those seven justices were radical and all those who continue to support that decision are also radical because they are imposing their mores on everyone else through judicial fiat, not legislative debate and vote where I might influence that decision.      

     It is the liberal who believes that rights come from government and that my money is automatically theirs to determine how much I should get and how much they can keep.   Here we probably find the greatest hypocrisy of all when we witnessed Ted Kennedy hide his assets in the Cayman Islands and Hillary arrange the payment she received from her publisher in a manner that would allow her to avoid the taxes she professes to support.   What about Charles Rangel who was Chairman of the House committee that dealt with taxation yet refused to report all his income?   Why have so many of Obama's cabinet appointments been in arrears in their income taxes including the former Senate Majority Leader and the Treasury Secretary?   Just who is radical?   Here is a clue, it is not the conservative.  

     It is conservatives who want their laws enforced on the border and illegal immigration halted.   It is the liberal, including both the liberal Democrat and the liberal Republican who do not want those laws enforced?  Why is that?  They are being selfish.   Both want the larger Hispanic vote they believe will someday influence elections and both want the source of cheap labor for their industry.   Who is radical, the Conservative who says we've got the laws, enforce them, do not allow persons here illegally to benefit from our welfare systems and do not allow them to ultimately crowd our prisons or those who would grant persons amnesty as a reward for breaking our laws? 

     There are many more examples that make it an oxymoron to equate the largest preponderance of conservatives with radical.    It is the liberal and especially the leftist who is radical because it is they who wish to control our lives and take from us to finance programs they never seem willing to spend their own money to promote.

      

     
     Reply to this
• 9/23/2010 9:33 PM Kenneth wrote:
  My point is that the Tea Party is picking a battle too large to win. All of our pressing priority should be getting our Government back on track for being able to be sustainable. What exists now is a port-of-call for power hungry politicians funded by and supporting special interests, to the determinant of us all. Our current course is national suicide and countless conservatives and liberals alike are recognizing this. The only way to get the votes to change this, however, is to somehow have liberals and conservatives working together. We MUST develop ways to respectfully reach across the aisles. By using as a pejorative the term “Liberal” to encompass those who act as if the Government’s coffers are endless and its reach should be limitless, those of us who without qualm consider ourselves liberal but also find such policies to be insanity have a much harder time standing shoulder to shoulder in the Tea Party to serve our mutual demands.
  
  What needs focused upon is that there are two general sides to peoples’ political affiliations: social and fiscal. Your list above is entirely fiscally related. It has become obvious to the majority of Liberals and Conservatives alike that a fiscally-liberal Government will fail. There is an army of voters, socially-conservative and socially-liberal both, who can all come together and agree on that point. That is, as I see it, the KEY point and current short-falling of the Tea Party Movement. We need to focus on the broader national recognition of the importance of fiscal conservatism to achieve our mutual, most pressing goal: a government that is not fundamentally self-destructive.
  
  The Tea Party is losing critical momentum by trying to sweep socially-conservative values under its umbrella at the same time as fiscally-conservative ones. We need a truce, socially-conservative and socially-liberal minded individuals alike, and the times are stark enough to easily justify one. The American Government is a system of two-parties, but that is a system that must across the board be founded on fiscally-conservative ideals. Once we recover our country together into one that we can all place faith in again, then those of us leaning socially-conservative and those of us leaning socially-liberal can return to our divisions of Conservative and Liberal Parties. But till then, if we do not all stand together as one people to return our entire political ship back to fiscally-conservative ideals then we will waste away as we bicker amongst ourselves. Liberal and Conservative alike, we must all put our social differences aside and send an unmistakable message to all politicians: those who fail to respect our hard earned dollars in taxes will never be elected again. To that extent, I whole heartedly agree with you: I am Taxed Enough Already.
  
  -a social-liberal.
  Reply to this
  1. 9/24/2010 8:59 PM The Patriot wrote:
     

     To the contrary, you had better hope this is not too big a battle to win.  The future of our nation and of our kids depends upon it.   If we do not win this battle we will never get our government back on track and our budget will never be sustainable ever again.  

     I have no quarrel with your description of the status quo as national suicide.   This is exactly what it is.    There is no possible way to get liberals and conservatives working together because our ideas are diametrically opposed.   I used to believe that we all wanted the same things but we had different ways of going about this.   No more.  Especially after watching as our elected "representatives" ignored their constituents and voted party over nation and party over constituents in the recent healthcare fiasco.  They left no doubt but that the Democrat left is my enemy.   I no longer believe they want the same things I want.   They are willing to surrender their liberty and mine along with it to a nanny state that I will have nothing to do with.   They would indoctrinate my kids instead of educate them.   They would deny me my rights under the auspices of protecting their own.    The Democrat Party is no longer the party of JFK, FDR, Truman or even LBJ.   Today the Democrat Party presents as big a threat to our liberty as did Nazi Germany or Imperial Japan in 1942.    What is surprising is their acceptance of radical islam as a respected ideology as though they present a smaller threat than do I as a conservative or than do Christians.  Ironically, were the muslim radicals to gain power in this country, destroy the Constitution and impose sharia law, their first targets would be those who so readily support tolerance toward them.   Imagine how the Taliban would treat homosexuals, independent women or Hollywood actors. 

     We conservatives wish to preserve what was given us by our founders.   We want a strict interpretation of our Constitution as to its original intent in the same way as I am sure you want an original intent interpretation of your home mortgage.  Imagine a mortgage bank that could come back to you after thirty years and interpret your mortgage as a living document and require you to pay on your mortgage an additional ten or twenty years because it would be to the benefit of the economy.  

     The voting electorate is about 20% leftist/liberal and most people define themselves as conservative.   Fewer than 40% identify themselves as Republicans and fewer than 40% identify themselves as Democrat.   Thus the 20+% in the middle who on average regard themselves as conservative also regard themselves as independent, apolitical or of some other political persuasion.   This is why the battle is always for the vote of the independent.    To a great extent they are apolitical.   They are too busy raising families and starting careers to become involved in politics.   This is also true of many Republicans and Democrats as well.   They are vulnerable to the 30 second sound bites because they really don't pay attention to politics during the majority of the year.   They watch sports, go to movies, read books and they spend their time raising kids and climbing career ladders.   Politics to them is a subject of interest only in the fall of even numbered years.   They may or may not go to the polls and when they do many know who they want to be president but they may have little or no idea who they will vote for in any state or local elections.   They have no idea about the judges they may be asked to elect or confirm.  As a result politicians and judges become entrenched and they are easily corrupted by lobbyists or other politicians who will give them their vote in exchange for support in some other area.   

     I agree that many people look at fiscal policy differently than social policy but there is also considerable overlap.   Social policies cost  money and you can never completely separate the two.   My list is not entirely fiscal.   There is considerable social overlap within the things I have already stated.   When I talk about limited government, protection of liberties, reducing regulation, honesty in government and adherence to the Constitution these are relevant social topics.   They may relate to much of the fiscal topics we discuss as well but how can one separate adherence to the Constitution from social policy?   The largest issue of all since 1973 has been Roe v Wade.   There are no Constitutional grounds for a woman having an individual right to abort her baby.  As I stated in another response, the seven justices who voted in favor of that did so in a manner that ignored the written word in preference to what they wanted the Constitution to say.  At best they were derelict in their responsibility to our nation.   At worst they were treasonous in their decision.   We did not shed the monarchy of England to be ruled by an oligarchy of nine men and women in black robes.  Legislatures are to define policies, not the courts.     

     When we speak of illegal immigration we are talking social and fiscal issues.   When we speak of welfare reform we are speaking social and fiscal issues.  When we speak of environmental causes, natural resources, workplace safety, food and drug regulations, these are all social policies.  Understand, I am not in favor of eliminating all regulation.   I simply believe in a balance that protects the economy over the spotted owl and I do not like being lied to about the environmental impact of drilling in ANWR or of off shore drilling because a radical environmental lobby wishes to eradicate all oil exploration in favor of uneconomical substitutes that do not yet exist and here is where we bridge between social and fiscal policy again.   Just as man's ingenuity solved the sanitation problem caused by horse manure on city streets by developing the automobile our ingenuity will also resolve the problem of fossil fuels but the market should dictate how and when this will happen, not the government.  

     I have no desire to reach across the aisle and cooperate or compromise with elected Democrats.   Far too long compromise has been defined as giving the Democrats half of what they want in return for nothing at all.   Republicans have for decades been poorly represented by an establishment group of Republicans that hold many of the same interests as the Democrats but those beliefs are contrary to mine and as such I have no desire for further compromise.   I want repeals of existing laws and regulations.  I want the elimination of departments that did not exist when I was a child.   I want organizations like the EPA brought back down to earth and returned to their original purpose.   I want Roe v Wade overturned and the issue of abortion debated and decided by my elected representatives.   Where in all this would your liberal friends wish to compromise because this is where I am going.  I want every law Congress passes to conform to the legal responsibilities of the federal government as defined in the Constitution.      

     We have more to worry about than economic bankruptcy.   We also must worry about moral bankruptcy.  They are related.   Our current government is morally bankrupt because of its emphasis on cradle to grave welfare for generations of people.   What we do out of compassion stifles people's dignity and destroys their ability to become independent themselves.   This in turn has an economic toll.   LBJ's War on Poverty destroyed the black family.  In order for families to receive welfare the father could not be in the home.   The figures are staggering but I am not able to actually quote them of illegitimate black births in this country and this has an economic impact on the entire nation.   The majority of these young children will grow up poor and will not look at this country as a land of opportunity because they have no examples of anyone to teach them.   They will grow up on the streets.  Many end up in prison and many die young.   These are the real consequences of the bankrupt ideas of the left.   They simply will not admit it.  

     I couldn't disagree more when you say the Tea Parties are losing momentum.   Their influence is being felt all across the country, most notably in Alaska, Utah, Nevada, Colorado, Delaware, Kentucky, Florida, New York and many other states where a long sleeping population has awakened to the tyranny they witnessed in the last Congress and within this current Obama Administration.   Tea Parties have not lost momentum at all.  We are gaining momentum.   If the Republican establishment continues to fight Republican candidates supported by the Tea Party there could at some point be a third political party and Republicans will be the minority party along with Democrats.  

     I would welcome a battlefield where Democrats were fiscally conservative and socially liberal but the social battles are far too important to "call a truce" and allow the tyranny of the past continue into the future.   No, I couldn't disagree with you more.

     
     Reply to this
• 9/25/2010 1:22 AM I don't trust you wrote:
  I'm an independent because I don't trust either party. I agree with many of your ideas, but I cannot support your movement for one simple reason.
  
  Where was the 'fiscally conservative' tea party movement when George Bush spent more money than any president in history and ran up the largest national debt in history at that time?
  
  That is the reason I can't get behind the tea party. Your story of fiscal responsibility doesn't ring true. It is also why many liberals think your radical. You can't sit by and watch YOUR party create unfunded spending to the tune of billions adding up to trillions on programs such as Medicare Part D, Tax Cuts, the Wars in the middle east and suddenly have credibility when you only get active and vocal when YOUR party is no longer in power.
  
  I don't think you're radical. I think you're disingenuous.
  Reply to this
  1. 9/25/2010 8:53 AM The Patriot wrote:
     

     You miss the point.    Those in the Tea Party agree with you about not trusting either Republicans or Democrats for the very reasons you cited.   The Tea Party is not a political party.   It is more of a movement.   It includes Republicans, Democrats, Independents, Libertarians and others who have awoken to what has gone on in Washington far too long.  The Tea Party grew out of the disappointment you describe and the often quoted message of Howard Beale, "I'm mad as hell and I'm not going to take it anymore!" 

     I would venture that a plurality are Republicans.   Certainly it has been within the Republican Party where the Tea Party has supported individual candidates for seats in the House and in the Senate and many have won.   They unseated establishment Republicans who betrayed their professed roots by supporting Bush in 'No Child Left Behind', an education bill actually written by Ted Kennedy.   We also found it disingenuous of the Republican Party to pass a huge entitlement increase with the 'Medicare Prescription Drug' legislation.    George W Bush was not a conservative.   He is an establishment Republican who refused to veto bills that needed to be vetoed and he was supported by a Congress that included too many establishment Republicans who apparently say one thing but mean something else.

     But, look at what the Tea Party has done.   We put McDonnell into the governor's chair in Virginia, with our support Christie won the New Jersey gubernatorial election and without our movement do you believe Scott Brown would have taken the Senate seat in Massachusetts that once belonged to Ted Kennedy?  We took Bennett's seat away from him in Utah.   We took Murkowski's seat away from her in Alaska.   We took away the opportunity for Castle to represent Delaware in the Senate.   We beat the establishment candidates for Senate in Kentucky and in Nevada.   We defeated John McCain's hand chosen Senate candidate in Colorado.   These people stand to defeat liberal Democrats who despite Republicans failings in the earliest part of this century look like amateurs compared to the Democrats currently in control of this Congress under Pelosi and Reid.   Are they perfect candidates?  We'll have to wait and see but we certainly have disposed of some we know to be imperfect.  We will probably never purge all that we would like to purge.   We were not successful in Arizona as JD Hayworth failed in his bid to unseat John McCain but we expect our numbers to increase and if entrenched Republicans think that those we elect will sit quietly and simply follow their direction they are in for a rude awakening.    When their time comes for reelection I fully expect to see someone besides Lindsey Graham representing South Carolina.  Mitch McConnell and Orin Hatch may have some problems in Kentucky and Utah when they come up for reelection if they don't take heed and follow the principles that are driving this movement.  

     A danger in remaining independent is that you only get to select from the candidates the parties present to you.   The attitude you express is the same attitude that you will find from corner to corner at any Tea Party rally.   Go with them into the Republican Party.   Make a difference there in the candidates they select as we have done in the states I have already mentioned.   Make a new Republican Party that will not deny its roots and that will not betray its professed beliefs.  Help us rid that party of the establishment group who speaks of a big tent but refuses to endorse the candidates that big tent produces.   Look at the arrogance of Mike Castle and Lisa Murkowski and understand that these are the people we are working hard to defeat and there are still more just like them.   Help us rid the system of these self appointed elitists who believe they should rule instead of govern.   Don't just sit on the sidelines and cast stones.   You may hit somebody but you won't have changed a damn thing as an independent.

     
     Reply to this
     1. 9/27/2010 12:07 AM I don't trust you wrote:
        First, let me thank you for a thoughtful response. I half expected to get suppressed as often happens on political sites. I don't think I'm missing the point. I know you've accomplished a lot of your goals and I'm impressed. But your success also leaves me with the same question. Where were you from 2001-2008? What about 2009 tipped the balance? I was screaming my head off at that puppet G.W. and pissed as hell at the Iraq invasion, and everything else you cited. But not one of my conservative or republican friends would listen. Most tarred me with b.s. talking points like asking me why I hated America, or why I didn't support the troops. Even after that settled down and these same people started to understand that I had a point, not one would go anywhere near complaining about TARP. No, they were too worried about their brokerage accounts. And to be clear, many of these friends are members of the Tea Party movement. And when I ask them the same question I've asked you, they just start calling me a kool-aid drinker. One even had the nerve to call me a liberal. I no longer speak to him.
        
        So, please, why were so many silent from 2001-2008? I appreciate your time and effort and you certainly don't need me. But I could stand with you if there was one good specific answer to my question. Thanks.
        Reply to this
        1. 9/27/2010 9:48 AM The Patriot wrote:
           

           Political discussions should be thoughtful.   You are right to ask, "Why."  You are right not to appreciate dismissal of reasonable questions as you have described.  This says more about the person you have challenged than it says about you.   Name calling or dismissive comments as you describe are indications that one hasn't a substantive reason to tell you why they are right and you are wrong.  

           To ask where the Tea Party was between 2001 and 2009 is like asking where was Ronald Reagan in 1964.   He was there.  He was speaking to the nation.   The problem, there were not enough people listening and the movement was not yet truly formed that would propel Reagan to the White House in 1980.  Carter had to happen first.   It is likely we would have never had Reagan had Carter never been president.   This is the only thing worth thanking Carter for other than hammering a few nails for Habitat for Humanity.   The mood of the nation wasn't ready in 1964.  

           The Tea Party is thought to have had its birth as a result of that CNBC outcry from Rick Santelli who denounced the bailouts as promoting bad behavior in 2009.   http://startelegram.typepad.com/politex/2009/02/cnbc-santelli-rant-spurs-tea-party-rally-in-fort-worth.html  Regardless, we were there and we were making noise as we opposed No Child Left Behind, the Medicare Prescription Drug program and criticized Bush for his unwillingness to defend our border with Mexico and of course, TARP.   Despite his claim to be a "compassionate conservative" he was not a conservative at all.   He believed in using large government programs to finance what he considered his conservative causes.  The very nature of conservatism is that we oppose large government.  But there were many things where we did support GW Bush.   One of those areas was his response to 9/11.   I for one supported Bush in both his incursion into Afghanistan and Iraq.  

           History will tell generations that follow us whether the invasion of Iraq was or was not a good idea.  I supported Bush when he went into Iraq and as such I support that decision today.  I refuse to be a Monday morning quarterback who would support him on Sunday and then criticize him on Monday.  Presidents don't have the luxury of changing their minds once they authorize war.  I'm not including you in this criticism because it sounds like you opposed the Iraqi War from the beginning and you may prove to be right but this hasn't yet been proven.  I support Bush's decision because of what he knew at that time. 

           Saddam had done everything to make the world believe he had WMD's.    We knew from his past history that he had used them before against his own people and he would therefore logically use them again.  We knew that Iraq had sought a supply of yellow cake uranium from Niger.  Israeli, British, French and American intelligence agencies believed him to have chemical weapons and an active program to develop nuclear weapons.  With this in mind it seemed to me that Bush had two choices:

           1.  Do nothing and risk that Saddam had the weapons and would become a nuclear bully in the Middle East threatening the world's oil supply.

           2.  Invade and ensure the world that if he had them he would be denied the opportunity to ever use them.

           The outcome of either case would be that he either did or didn't have them.   If he didn't have them then the invasion might seem unnecessary from a strategic point of view.   However the risk of his having them and our doing nothing could have been cataclysmic.  

           I hear many arguments that he didn't have them but I always remind people that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.  Bush's politically correct delays by playing by the international book and waiting for one UN resolution after another was detrimental to anything we could ultimately have done.  Did we give Saddam time to spirit what he had away?  There was evidence found of programs themselves.  He had 500 tons of yellow cake at his nuclear research facility when we entered Baghdad.  Scientists volunteered information of centrifuges that had been buried in their yards.   As I recall there were small warheads found with traces of chemical weapons but it is also my understanding that we found nothing in any quantity that confirmed the immediate need to invade.  Still, I would like you to consider the following:

           ×        30 million people were liberated from a sadistic tyrant.  Saddam Hussein and his two sons who terrorized citizens are now dead. 

           ×        Saddam Hussein had supported terrorists throughout the Middle East providing bounties to the families of suicide bombers.

           ×        Saddam Hussein had provided safe haven to Al Qaeda as evidenced by the presence of Abul Musab al-Zarqawi who healed from his war injuries in Afghanistan.

           ×        Saddam Hussein was in violation of the peace treaty that ended the first Gulf War.  Hussein was shooting at American war planes as they enforced the no-fly zone and he was clearly violating the UN Oil for Food humanitarian program through collusion with European bankers.  

           ×        After the invasion Iraq became a magnet for Al Qaeda and we dealt crippling blows to that organization that we probably could not have done as easily in Afghanistan.    The terrain of Iraq made it far easier to reach our enemy as they came to us

           ×        The geographic location of Iraq provides pressure to Iran from both the west and the east where we have a presence in Afghanistan. 

           ×        We left Iraq with a functioning independent government with a source of revenue again from its sale of oil.  The existence of a democratic government to its west, Iraq provide further evidence to the younger generations of Iranians that democracy might also be possible in Iran.  

           But, the real answer to your question as to the Tea Parties is that many were there.   Perhaps you don't listen to Conservative Talk Radio.   Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, Laura Ingraham, Mark Levine, John Gibson, Mike Gallagher, et al opposed many of Bush's big government spending programs I identified above.  The outcry was heavy when Bush promoted comprehensive immigration reform supporting John McCain and Ted Kennedy's proposed legislation.  We challenged the administration and we shut down the Congress' switchboard as they attempted to debate the topic.  The legislation was eventually withdrawn because of our pressure.   We simply did not yet have a name and we weren't yet thought of as a collective group.  

           The concept of the Tea Party has grown as a movement because like Carter, Obama has become a straw that has broken the camel's back.   It took the destruction of the economy in the late 1970's to awaken a huge number of American's who might have disagreed with other Carter policies but now saw his policies impacting them.  It took a huge stimulus bill in 2009 to awaken an even larger number of Americans to the fact that the hope and change that Obama campaigned on was not change that they might want.  Then the Tea Parties grew in number as we watched the Congress and this President as they pushed a socialist healthcare plan down their throats using a process that was clearly undemocratic and downright tyrannical.  It took these events.  Despite what others might want you to believe, Bush presided over a growing economy from 2001 to 2006.   Certainly it had rough spots.  Following 9/11 there were some downturns, especially in the travel and hospitality industries.  But overall people were satisfied with a 4.6% unemployment rate that we had a strong economy and opportunity for growth was there.  With these circumstances disagreements over his increased entitlement programs were shallow because people were not being personally impacted.  This all changed in 2006 providing more evidence that Conservatives were there and speaking out against huge growth in government in the Bush Administration.  Conservatives turned their backs on Republicans who had campaigned since 1994 promising they would change Washington but then allowed Washington to change them.  Democrats took control over both houses and we have had economic downturns since.  I find it amusing to listen to Steny Hoyer speak about the performance of the Congress as though his performance is totally dependent upon who is president.  We began this downturn in employment as we neared 2010 because Congress continued to not do anything about extending the Bush Tax Cuts and because of the uncertainty with which businesses viewed this new administration and this new Congress and the impact it would have on their costs of doing business.  On Fox News Sunday, just yesterday, Hoyer tried to pass these tax increases that will go into effect on January 1 as the Bush Tax Increases because he had made his tax cuts expire on that date.  He conveniently ignored the fact that the only reason those tax cuts weren't permanent was Bush could not sell them to the Congress in any other way in 2001 when Democrats controlled the Senate as a result of Jim Jeffords switching political parties and beginning to caucus with Democrats.   Hoyer also spoke of the performance of the economy as Bush v Obama instead of Hastert v Pelosi or Frist v Daschle.   From my point of view Republicans spent too much by promoting unnecessary programs and new entitlements during their tenure but despite this they look like amateurs compared to the Pelosi - Reid Congress.  It is this huge debt that this Congress has amassed with the blessing and orchestration of this President that has caused the Tea Party to grow and as people continue to see their liberties washed away by a government that continues to ignore the Constitution the Tea Party will grow even more.      

           
           Reply to this
• 9/29/2010 9:13 AM TickleMeElmo wrote:
  The fact that the Tea Party is taken seriously is a bit alarming considering its plaform is insane and unworkable. The main components are low taxes (a common Republican theme) and deregulation. Anyone with a basic college course in microeconomics learned that low taxes do not stimulate the economy and therefore are not an effective solution to widespread unemployment. Unfortunately the measures Preaident Obama has taken are mostly short term because the real changes driving the unemployment are due to longstanding increases in efficiency that require less workers, which means there are fewer jobs. Economist Jeremy Rifkin's book "The End of Work" analyzed the problem and came up with the solution to limit work hours and grow a large volunteer sector with guaranteed welfare subsidies for people working in it. These should be tried. If we follow this silly Tea Party we will waste time. You people should join a real movement and hang it up.
  Reply to this
  1. 9/29/2010 1:58 PM The Patriot wrote:
     

     It is hard to know where or how to begin to answer a comment like you have made but let's begin with your statement about microeconomic policy.   With all due respect you truly need to return to that economics class you took because tax policies require a study in macroeconomics, not microeconomics.   Micro = small and as such microeconomics is the study of how a tax might impact an individual, a single business, etc.   Macro = large and the study of macroeconomics will describe how an entire economy will react to specific shifts in economic policy.  

     You have been dismissive in your comments about the Tea Party by stating that the Tea Parties should not be taken seriously.   You have accused the ideas we promote as being insane and unworkable.   These are dismissive statements that are common substitutes for persons without any substantive arguments to make.   You have stated the main components of the Tea Party are lower taxes and deregulation.   Yes and no.    Lower tax RATES are absolutely a component of Tea Party philosophy, certainly it is a component of mine but deregulation?   I have not heard anyone in any Tea Party speak of deregulation.   We speak often of reducing onerous regulations like those imposed on offshore drilling, oil drilling in ANWR, harvesting timber, mining, "climate change", the Obama imposed shut down of the Gulf of Mexico, certainly the regulations imposed by Obamacare are without comparison.   This is not deregulation.   But if this is what you intended to imply then yes, I will continue to oppose this or any administration's attempts to over-regulate the private sector with shallow, unsupported theories about the environment or over-regulation of the economy.      

     What bothers me the most perhaps is your insistence that anyone with a basic college course in microeconomics learned that low taxes do not stimulate the economy and therefore are not an effective solution to widespread unemployment.    What you have stated here simply does not make sense.    Forgetting my criticism of your having cited micro instead of macroeconomics the fact is that low tax RATES will stimulate an economy because the resultant economic growth will result in higher tax REVENUES.   This MACRO concept has been proven three times in my lifetime.    Kennedy lowered tax rates on the theory that a rising tide will raise all boats.   He was right.  Reagan repeated this and this resulted in a doubling of tax revenues collected by the federal government during his administration.   GW Bush did the same thing in 2001 which resulted in an increase in overall revenues and more importantly, contrary to your argument, an unemployment rate of 4.6%.    But remember, this is only one half of the equation.    Congress must also do its part to use these new revenues wisely, to reduce debt and avoid the temptation to do more and more for their friends at  home.   Congress typically does not do this.   Democrats did not do this during the Reagan administration despite the promises by Tip O'Neal and deficits continued into the Clinton administration until a Republican Congress came to town and forced Clinton into Welfare Reform and threatened a Balanced Budget Amendment.     Sadly, some of those same Republicans disappointed we Tea Party believers by also spending the new revenues during the Bush Administration and it was this that resulted in a change in the Congress again in 2007.     Since this time the Pelosi and Reid Congress has made our economy exponentially worse.   That 4.6% unemployment rate went to over 7% and since the Democrats took the White House this philosophy has resulted in an unemployment rate of 9.6%.     Do you think that perhaps the intent of the Pelosi - Reid Congress to allow the Bush Tax Cuts to expire in 2011 might have something to do with businesses reaction that was to reduce employment risks and that this may have much to do with that current 9.6% unemployment rate?  TickleMeElmo, you are simply wrong on your statement.  

     There have also been attempts to manage the economy as you suggested from your reading of the Rifkin book.   The solution of limiting work hours and growing a large volunteer sector with guaranteed welfare subsidies has been tried.   How did the Eastern European Block compare to the Western Block when the Berlin Wall came down?   Communism is not a solution to anything and if Jeremy Rifkin were a true objective economist he would recognize this and not offer solutions that involve a large central government designing and controlling an economy in the manner you suggest.   Prosperity has followed Capitalism wherever it has been tried.   How do you think Communist China grew to be such a world economic force?   Because it abandoned Communism and adopted Capitalism.   This was truly a novel approach for such a regime but they could see the difference between their mainland and Hong Kong and where Hong Kong flourished with its laissez faire capitalistic model, mainland China did not.    With the death of Mao this change was made and China has been an economic force to reckon with since.  

     You are likely not persuaded by what I have said but hopefully others are who may read this but I would like you and everyone else to think about something as they look at your ideas or the model you described as belonging to Mr. Rifkin.   Why would anyone want their government to tell them how long they should work or how many people should work for them?    Does anyone truly believe that limiting a person's work week to force more employment would be more productive than a single individual performing a required task to the extent required by the job?    Does anyone want a segment of society totally dependent upon the government for welfare as a payment for volunteerism?   Who will pay for such a model?    Those on welfare won't pay the freight thus those who are productive would have to.   But, in your model, you make those businesses less productive by your restrictions.   None of it makes sense but you are welcome to continue your beliefs and hold your hand out for others or even put money into the hands of others who have not earned it.   I only ask that you not burden me with your ideas because these are the kinds of ideas that Obama also has and he is literally in the process of destroying a fine nation by destroying its economy.   

     
     Reply to this
• 9/29/2010 11:13 PM TickleMeElmo wrote:
  >This is not deregulation. But if this is what you intended to imply then yes, I will continue to oppose this
  
  Do you want another Katrina New Orleans and Gulf of Mexico oil disaster? This is what deregulation gets you.
  
  >What bothers me the most perhaps is your insistence that anyone with a basic college course in microeconomics learned that low taxes do not stimulate the economy and therefore are not an effective solution to widespread unemployment.
  
  What you are talking about is called the Laffer curve. Look it up on Wikipedia. Moreover you are using it incorrect. Basically it says there is an ideal tax rate for tax revenues and when you go too high it causes a decrease in revenues. I don’t dispute this, but this is a different issue from fixing unemployment. As I said, you need to read that book I previously referenced.
  I don’t like how you ignore the fact that Bush’s decrease in unemployment wasn’t sustainable. That’s cherry picking data.
  Short term debt is not the problem we need to worry about regarding unemployment but rather we have to take into consideration Rifkin’s long term changes on the economy and redesign a more workable system rather than hold on to the vestiges of the old outdated one.
  
  > Bush Tax Cuts to expire in 2011 might have something to do with businesses reaction that was to reduce employment risks and that this may have much to do with that current 9.6% unemployment rate?
  
  It has nothing to do with it. The main problem here is not “business reaction” to taxes but a lack of demand due to the long term trend of declining wages and job losses from increased efficiency and overseas plants.
  
  >The solution of limiting work hours and growing a large volunteer sector with guaranteed welfare doesn't work...
  You are comparing apples and oranges. Communism in the 1950s is not Rifkin’s increased volunteer sector in 2010. Moreover it isn’t communism because it isn’t mandatory. There is still a private sector, but the difference is that it becomes one of three legs of the system rather than only the two we have now which are government and the private sector.
  >Prosperity has followed Capitalism wherever it has been tried.
  Read the newspaper and note the unemployment rates in numerous capitalistic countries. It is high because they have the same problems that we do.
  Why would anyone want to live in a society plagued by high crime due to rampant unemployment? Have you no compassion for your fellow countrymen? The Republicans certainly don’t, poverty rose during Bush’s administration.
  Shortening the work week actually raises productivity because workers are better rested. It also makes more time for families. This was proven successfully during world war II when it was used to increase employment.
  (continued)
  Reply to this
• 9/29/2010 11:14 PM TickleMeElmo wrote:
  >Does anyone want a segment of society totally dependent upon the government for welfare as a payment for volunteerism? Who will pay for such a model? Those on welfare won't pay the freight thus those who are productive would have to.
  Again you need to read the book. Capitalism is productive in making consumer goods but many services that people would love to volunteer to do are underpaid. Volunteerism now is at a low because people have no time for it. Rather than taking a negative view, people should see it as a chance to help society by doing what they love.
  I encourage everyone to read Rifkin’s book and learn about these issues from a real economist rather than depending on poorly informed Tea Party mouthpieces who are trying to save the failed vestiges of the most conservative republican ideas for their information.
  Reply to this
  1. 9/30/2010 12:49 PM The Patriot wrote:
     

     No one is talking about deregulation except you and your comments make no sense.   Neither Katrina nor the Gulf Oil Spill were caused by a lack of regulation.   In the first case, Katrina was a storm.   The levees broke because the corrupt politicians in New Orleans continued to ignore those levees and they did not use the money appropriated to maintain those levees for their stated purpose.   Further failures resulted during and after Katrina as a result of the failure of state and local government to properly prepare low areas for evacuation.    Mayor Nagan was more concerned about setting up a posh command center from which he could weather the storm and feed that all important ego making himself feel important.   Governor Blanco refused the federal emergency support that was offered to her prior to the storm.    Subsequent to the storm we received the real grade for programs like those you support.   Multiple generations of welfare dependents had sat and waited for someone to rescue them rather than acting to help themselves.   Mayor Nagan who had primary responsibility failed to move those buses to evacuate those accustomed to the nanny state.  Instead all those empty buses sat without drivers in a parking lot that eventually was four feet under water.   The biggest lesson of Katrina was the loss of human spirit among those who sat and waited for help that did not immediately come.   Further, it took only 24 or 48 hours for those who were ushered into the Super Dome to turn that stadium into a ghetto.   This is what programs like you advocate have as their unintended consequences.   Too many did not move to help themselves and when placed in a confined area that area became a center for crime and vandalism because many had no pride in themselves nor for the property of anyone else.   Contrast Louisiana with Mississippi.  Governor Barbour and the citizens of Mississippi did not sit idly by and wait for the federal government to come by and make things right again.  They went to work clearing debris and reconstructing their communities.  Contrast it also with the deep snows that isolated communities in the far northern states.   They didn't sit idly by waiting for the government to come dig them out and restore their power, their heat or their access to markets, schools and hospitals.   The tragedy that followed Katrina had absolutely nothing to do with regulation.   It was a problem of incompetency in execution by the government, particularly state and local government.   Lesson:  Don't rely upon government, rely upon yourself.

     As for the Gulf Oil Spill, this was also not a result of deregulation.   There has been tremendous over-regulation of drilling in the Gulf.   Fear of spills near shore led to regulations that forced oil companies miles off shore and to depths that prevented an immediate resolution of that spill.    Further, there were regulations that the Department of the Interior had waived allowing BP to shortcut their processes.  I have not yet heard what the actual cause of the explosion or the broken pipe was but it was not the cause of deregulation.   It was more than likely caused by over-regulation  and failure to properly follow the inspection procedures and business processes that are a part of those regulations.   Further, it was not only BP that took shortcuts.   The Department of the Interior took its own shortcuts.   They did not have the equipment or tools available that were mandated by "regulations" to contain the oil spill.   Regulations prevented Obama himself from accepting help that was offered from Norway who had direct experience in containing such a spill.   It was regulations that also stopped Governor Jindal from constructing those sand islands to keep the oil away from the coast.   The fact is that the Obama administration in a  moment of heightened stupidity required Jindal to complete and file an environmental impact study before they could build those sand islands.   Can you imagine a sand island constructed from dredging the river bottom at the delta to be used as a temporary barricade to the approaching oil slick as being any worse than that oil itself reaching the marshes in that delta?    Government regulation typically equates to insanity because government bureaucrats typically know nothing about what they speak because their experience is in public administration, not in science or industry.  

     No, I have no intention of wasting my time on a book by an author who would propose a government created economic model that misses one key component, liberty.   I mentioned nothing about long or short term debt in my comments about the impact of tax increases and deficits but to that extent there is no such thing as short term debt when this nation continues to run deficits year after year without paying down that debt.   Any short term debt is of no consequence because it is constantly renewed.  

     Despite your statement, the impact of lower tax rates and increased revenues to government has everything to do with the unemployment rate.   When government reduces taxes it leaves money in the economy that it would otherwise steal from the economy.   Money left in the economy is then available to expand and to hire new people.  It is really very simple.   When government reduces taxes and the economy grows it is not simply more product that is being produced and profits to those businesses that are increasing and being taxed.  It is also the wages of new employees who are now contributing to instead of taking from the government that causes government revenues to increase and government expenditures to decrease.   The problem is that Congress in similar times is always ready to find new and different things to spend those new revenues on.   Bureaucrats went advertising to try to find people who might qualify for food stamps when welfare reform took people off the welfare rolls and made them productive.     

     Is Rifkin the only thing you have ever read regarding economics?   Where is it true we have lost many manufacturing jobs to overseas economies and we have become more tilted toward a service economy where wages are less than the jobs that many left behind, why do you think this is?   Could it again be the over-regulation of industry that has made it more economically feasible for those manufacturers to build plants in Asia or on other continents?   Despite all the visible evidence of jobs going overseas in the past several years the United States is also an importer of jobs.  Toyota has built manufacturing plants in the US at the same time that traditional American automotive manufacturers have built plants north and south of the border.  It is difficult to know sometimes whether a car we might see on the road is truly a foreign or a domestically manufactured automobile.   I have no idea where we are on this scale today as Obama has created his own rash of problems that are always created when government attempts to introduce artificial stimuli into a market.  The largest of course is his takeover of General Motors and Chrysler to protect the labor unions to whom he was beholden.  

     The capitalist countries around the world are far more prosperous than its socialist counterparts.  Have you seen the riots in Greece.  Why are they rioting?  Because the government in this socialist society that rewarded people for not working suddenly ran out of other people's money.   The economy fell and there was nothing left to pay their retirees.   They are cutting stipends.  They are making people wait longer to retire.  The give-me's are all disappearing because Greece must now rely upon other nations to finance itself and it has no money left to also finance the public.   The standards of living of West vs. East Germany were in sharp contrast in 1987.   Which do you believe East Germany quickly adopted to bring its standard up to that in the west?    Nobody said that capitalist countries have no problems but on the whole they are far more prosperous than any socialist country in the world.  Compare the poorest worker in the US with his/her counterpart in a socialist country and tell me that the American worker doesn't have a higher standard of living than his counterpart or even than many in that socialist country who are thought to be of a higher economic strata than the worker in this country.   

     If you want a book to read, read Milton Friedman's Free to Choose.    I would certainly not recommend your Mr. Rifkin given his proclivity for government models that are no different than government sanctioned slavery in the place of a market.   Despite what you say about Rifkin's volunteer section somebody has to pay for it and this can only be from the private sector.  In essence he wishes to steal from productive people to reward non-productive people in jobs that have no value to the economy.   Yes, you stated they have value but no, they don't.  If a job or a service has a value in an economy then people will provide for that service in a free market.   If the cost of the job exceeds the value someone is willing to pay for that job then the job is really not necessary.  There could be many additional jobs in this economy but once again government regulation has prevented the service or the creation of the job by laws that dictate labor rates and conditions.   I support some of these laws, further evidence that I and probably no other Tea Party person favors deregulation.  Mine safety laws, child labor laws, etc. I believe to be a necessary component to our economy and I fully support those types of laws but when the government gets in between an employer and a prospective employee by telling them the wage the employer must pay or the person the employer must hire then the government has over-regulated and has prevented the goods or service being provided to the market at a cost that would represent a value to the consumer.  

     I do not equate high crime with unemployment.    Why do you?   During the great depression there was not a high crime rate.    Oh there was Al Capone and John Dillinger but they didn't steal because they were unemployed.  They were employed in illegal activities.  What has happened in this country over the last fifty or sixty years is a loss in values that families used to pass down from generation to generation that had their roots in the church.    Government, specifically Lyndon Johnson's Great Society and War on Poverty, created the very thing  it tried to avoid by paying people to have children and by only allowing them to collect if the father was no longer in the home.  These are unintended consequences of the pie in the sky ideals of those like you who prefer government models and regulations.   Government makes things worse and has for multiple generations of citizens who know nothing but welfare like Rifkin apparently promotes and who have no respect for education, hard work or any of the opportunities that could present themselves if they were only to have some respect for themselves and compete in the private sector.   Yet sadly, it is to the disadvantage of the Democrat Party to lead these people away from a lifetime of dependency because these people continually vote for their candidates who promise to not reduce or eliminate all they have at this time.

     Shortening the work week makes for more efficiency because workers are more rested?   Prove it.   World War II proved nothing of the kind.   A large number of workers were fighting  a war overseas and were replaced by their wives in manufacturing plants building planes and tanks.   Rosie the riveter had less time for her family, not more and dad was away.  

     Contrary to what your Rifkin book might proclaim, people in volunteer positions are not underpaid.   Volunteers are not paid at all.  This is why they call them volunteers.  Many people volunteer for many reasons but none of which is to be paid.   People are volunteering all the time.   I volunteer in my community.   I see others volunteer in theirs.  We don't expect a stipend from government to encourage us to volunteer and I would not expect my taxes to go to a stipend for anyone else. 

     It all boils down to freedom.    No government created economic model can provide freedom to the individual because it relies upon coercion of one form or another to make it work.   The government will eventually dictate the place and terms of your employment and / or will take from the productive worker to pay the "volunteers" as proclaimed by Rifkin.   In any other realm this would be simply called stealing.   Stealing from one person to give their income to another person who has not worked for that reward.   It is sad that Democrats and leftists like this Rifkin or by you who proclaim to know how to create nirvana actually know nothing of the real world and what motivates people.   "For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction."   This is a law of physics that also applies in economics.   When someone like your Mr. Rifkin defines his perfect economic model he relies upon one single thing, the adherence to that model by everybody.  But, for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.   The entrepreneur, the worker, the salaried, everyone will move to do what they perceive to be to their greatest advantage.   Entrepreneurs have recognized income in 2010 to avoid having that income taxed in 2011.   Businessmen have put the freeze on new hires until the government can tell them what their costs of employment and their tax liabilities will be in 2011.  Some are already contracting with medical centers in Costa Rica due to their fear of healthcare availability for them if Obamacare is not successfully repealed.  It isn't as simple as professed by this Rifkin model.   The only way a model like this can work is to force adherence to the model and suddenly the worker is no longer working for himself.   Where do you logically think production efficiencies will go when this is perceived?   Clue:  They will disappear just as happened in Eastern Europe under Communism, not just in the 1950's but also through the 60's, 70's and into the 80's.   

     
     Reply to this

Leave a comment