|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Melonie
said:
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Former North Dakota Lieutenant Governor Lloyd Omdahl (Dem-NPL) reminds folks what the Boston Tea Party was about:
Show/hide comments|
Why does the name really matter? You and the authors of the previous comments are completely wrong about the mission of the current Tea Party. Yu obviously have never been to a rally or event or even know anything about these people. In addition, you reveal a lot about your character by using the perjurative, "Tea Bagger." I wonder if any of your reasonably-minded blog followers really know what term means. Look it up and ask yourself if that is the kind of language that belongs in an educated person's lexicon. |
|
Archimedes
said:
|
... I think the dictionary definitions of “Teabagger” are: Teabagger - A group of angry white people who are clueless about American history and mad because a black guy is president. A group of angry white people who think that Sarah Palin is the Messiah. A movement fueled by paranoia and exploitation of weak minded people by corporate shills. Teabagging formerly meant a gay sex act where one man rubbed his testicles over the face of another man. Now the republican party has turned its meaning into something disgusting. (Stolen from Bill Maher) |
|
nimrod
said:
|
Where do I sign up? If I join the Tea Party, that means that billionaires will be my friends and will look out for my interests, right? No, wait, that's why I want to join the GOP. |
|
Dave
said:
|
Are you in the seventh grade? Grow up and drop the sex terms. It only demonstrates your lack of maturity. On another note, you are mistaken if you believe the tea party movement is in the GOP camp. It is about regular people who feel the government is out of control. The "D" or "R" after someones name means nothing. They are against career politicians making bad decisions that obviously go against a large number of people. Hence the "taxation without representation" angle. I think that many on the left just don't get it. The constant feeble attempts to marginalize, name call, label as violent or racist, question their intelligence, or link them to the GOP or corporations show that the left is out of touch with a large segment of the population. A good change of tactics would be to address the concerns of people instead trying to insult them. |
|
Chet
said:
|
Teabagge I can't speak for anybody else, but I use the term "teabagger" for a bunch of reasons. The main reason I use it is that people who participate in today's teabagger events need to be distinguished from people who participated in the Boston Tea Party. They -- you -- would love it if they were given the same respect as the people involved in the historically significant event, but you are something else. Today's teabagger movement is made up of a variety of factions. Two of the most important factions are (1) the establishment Republican corporatists, and (2) people being manipulated by the establishment Republican corporatists. (Which are you, "Dave"? Be honest.) You say there's a "taxation without representation" angle, but that's not your issue at all. You have representation, you just don't like the representation you have. You weren't against "career politicians" 6 or 8 years ago when those "career politicians" were dragging America into a war based upon lies, cutting taxes and driving up debt, handing over the reins of our economy to reckless investment bankers. You weren't against them when they were driving the economy into the ditch. You suddenly became against "career politicians" when the Democrats took the majority in both the U.S. House and Senate, and when we elected a black president who happens to be a Democrat. I'm not saying you're racist, "Dave," but I am saying it's an interesting coincidence when people of your stripe didn't say a word until America elected its first black president and the insurance industry and Fox News started stoking your fire. The teabagger movement is a right-wing fringe movement. It is a Republican movement. I also keep hearing it is an athiest movement. It is a movement of people who cannot spell. It's also plagued by people who have selective memory of current events and who apparently don't know much about history. It's a movement by people who are against "fact-based" education. And yes, Dave, it has racist elements. But I also use the term "teabagger" because the teabaggers use the term, and because the folks at Oxford Dictionary recognized the word as a "word of the year finalist," meaning "a person who protests President Obama's tax policies and stimulus package, often through local demonstrations known as "Tea Party" protests (in allusion to the Boston Tea Party of 1773)." (Look it up.) If it's good enough for the Oxford Dictionary, it's good enough for me. But you probably don't like dictionaries. |
|
atom
said:
|
... Of course the teabaggers will not see the irony. Rather than applying any critical thinking skills (not that they have any), it's easier for them to lap up the propaganda pumped at them constanty by the greedy corporate crooks. Until these know nothing dolts realize that they themselves are being screwed over by the corporatist establishment that has a stranglehold on our media and our government, the exploitation will continue. Wake up you fools! |
|
Archimedes
said:
|
... Dave - I listened ex-half governor Palin’s speech to the teabaggers last weekend. What in it was not part of any stock GOP speech since 1960? In fact I have watched other teabag rallies this year like the one in Washington a last Fall. What in those speeches wasn’t taken from the stock GOP speech bank? Nothing. That’s the problem. You can’t claim that the teabaggers are anything other than, perhaps more militantly, reciting the GOP world view. It sounds all homey to say that this is a so called “grassroots” movement. In a sense that is correct. It is a grassroots movement of people who’s ideas have proven a disaster for our Country - the GOP. To avoid that fact teabaggers are looking to Obama to blame every problem we face on. Where were the “grassrooters” when the problems were created. I have heard nothing from the teabag speakers that would give me any confidence they have the best interests of our Country at heart. Instead, they are looking to get control of the government to advance ultra right-wing thought. Cut taxes, drill baby drill, smaller government, Federalism, pre-emptive war, torture. All planks of the GOP platform that has us in record debt, dependant of foreign oil, not respected and even despised by the rest of the world. You want to have a policy debate about what important issues are facing our Country, that’s fine with me. I am sure Chet will give us a form to do that. But please don’t pretend that the motive of the teabaggers is grounded in patriotism and those that don’t buy-in are somehow unpatriotic. The Country bought into these policies before and we lost. Don’t try and tell us that he goal here isn’t one that attempts to manufacture questions about our President’s commitment to the Country in an effort to create a narrative that he is weak and the right wing is righteous and strong. Tea parties are meant to make people paranoid and afraid, to blame someone, and to take advantage of weak minded people........It’s kind of sad when you think about it........ |
|
Dave
said:
|
... You don't have a clue about the tea party (of which I am not a member, not that they have membership). Assumptions: You assume that the tea party is made up of republicans (of which I am also not a member). You assume that you know what kind of people are involved with the tea party. You might assume that people who disagree with you are uneducated or uninformed or racist or otherwise bad. I assume you think it is mature and intelligent to call people names just because you disagree with them. I assume you think that demonizing your opponents is a proper replacement for a good argument. I don't think progressives or democrats are bad and I won't call you names. I am educated, well traveled, and not at all racist. I appreciate the tea party movement because dissension is needed in a democracy. Looking outside of your rut (Dem. or Rep.) is a good thing. You should really not listen to what other people say about the tea party. Much of what is repeated is a lie. Ask the tea party people what they are. |
|
Sto Again
said:
|
question What do you call a group of bloggers that will constantly bash an entire group of people because they disagree with their views? |
|
Archimedes
said:
|
... I think it is a fair to state that demonizing someone you don’t agree with leads nowhere. I concede that. I think the main point of some of those critical of the Tea Party movement is that; 1) It only arises after Obama wins and is started or supported by Dick Armey and his right wing group Freedomworks and groups like Americans for Prosperity - funded by the right wing Koch Oil brothers. 2) The right has a 100 year old play book for demonizing any democrat President. The attacks on Obama are part of a well-honed game plan - He’s a socialist, weak, elite, etc. Same old GOP game that is reiterated by the Tea Party verbatim. Wilson, FDR, Truman, JFK, Carter, Clinton, Johnson - all were subjected to the same stock attacks. It seems like the current tea party people think that the contrived attack on Obama, this intense effort to create a narrative of weakness and un-Americanness is some original thought. Instead, history shows, it’s the same game manufactured to reach the old McCarthy wing of the GOP - the paranoid wing. I hate government debt and think we have been living beyond our means for 30 years. So I am not defending debt or spending. But as a percent of GDP we are currently equal to 1970's levels. We still have a ways to go to match the debt run up under Reagan (As a percentage of GDP) Where ere the tea party people at then?????? |
|
Sto again
said:
|
Metallic Manufacturer an old play book. How about the play book of painting every conservative as dumb (Reagan, Quayle, Dole, G.W. Bush, Palin, Michelle Bachman) or evil (Reagan, G. H.W. Bush, Limbaugh, Cheney). The people on this blog constantly demonize "tea baggers" and conservatives without saying anything of substance. They'll say generalizations that they are only puppets of the NDGOP or of the evil "corporations." That sure sounds like fear mongering to me. Speaking of puppets, how come no one mentions that North Decoder is just a puppet of the ND Democratic Party. In the few months that I have read the posts on this site all I have seen is hatred spewed towards anyone even leaning a little bit to the right. And I have yet to see any type of argument that uses facts. Just senseless generalizations. Archimedes, I'm glad you and I agree on reducing the debt. Just so you know, I was against the huge deficits that the Bush Administration was running. I was against the TARP program from the start, and I would rather not have had the "stimulus" where we each got five hundred dollars or whatever amount it was. So since we both agree on the problem, do you think we could agree on a solution? I'm interested to see what you have to say. I also haven't read a lot of your comments, so don't think that all of my comments are about you. |
|
Chet
said:
|
You're right, "dave" First things first: I did not say everyone in the Teabagger movement is stupid or racist or "not well traveled." I know some Teabaggers who aren't stupid or racist or "not well traveled." What I said is that the Teabagger movement is made up of several components, and I talked about a few of them. If you're claiming racists do not make up part of the Teabagger movement, say so. I'd love to debate you on that. If you'd like to debate whether there are stupid, easily manipulated people in the Teabagger movement, say so. I'd love to debate that. But don't say I said things I didn't say, and then knock down those things I didn't say. That's a typical right-wing argument, and it doesn't fly here. Maybe it's not "right" to inaccurately stereotype an entire group based upon the views/beliefs/intelect of a few of its members. But maybe, after 20 or 30 years of listening to, watching and reading right-wing crackpots inaccurately stereotype Democrats I've become insensitive to your feelings. Do you think all Democrats are "socialist" or "unpatriotic" or "with the terrorists" or "unsupportive of the troops" or "against liberty" or "flag burning" or "Godless" or "tax and spend" or "baby killers" or "libtard" or "gun grabbers" or "Marxist" or "dumbocrats" or "elitist" or "sodomists" or are all of the other pejorative names you guys have for Democrats? I've spent my entire life watching you guys inaccurately stereotype Democrats that way, so I just don't feel bad about pinning stereotypes on you that you might think are inaccurate. And I have a question for you folks who are so offended by the descriptive terms we use here for Teabaggers: When was the last time you went to a conservative blog -- or a newspaper comment section -- and lectured right-wingers there, demanding that they stop calling Democrats offensive names or unfairly stereotyping them? When was the last time you lectured the right wingers on those websites that calling Democrats "socialists" or "libtards" or "dumbocrats" (etc.) is a non-substantive, childish, inaccurate characterization? When was the last time you told them to focus on more substantive issues, and not "name calling"? Never? Yeah. That's what I thought. Have you ever thought about why it is that you're willing to be vocal in your criticism of us, here, and not of them? No? That's what I thought. I have. I've thought about it quite a bit. |
|
Marty
said:
|
The Boxer "A man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest (oh la la la...)" (Simon and Garfunkle?) Just theorizing here -- and, yes, generalizing -- but it seems that it is human nature to create stories in our heads and then pay attention to those facts that fit and reinforce that story. If your story is that Obama may be a Marxist, it really wouldn't matter if he did everything espoused by the John Birch Society, these folks wouldn't notice; they would just try harder to hear words and see actions that support their story that he's a Marxist. We all do it; it is human nature. Its a problem. Its THE problem. I was a devout Dittohead for over a decade; everything I knew and felt I needed to know about Democrats was what Rush told me. I ate it up. And based on the story I had in my head about "what Democrats believe" it was a complete mystery to me how anyone in their right mind could be a Democrat. Democrats are crazy people! They think you can tax a country into prosperity! They think the Government can do a better job than the private sector, at everything! They are against capitalism! They want to raise our taxes! They are not (good) Christians! Took me a long, long time to realize that what Rush was feeding me wasn't true. I give him credit: it is a BRILLIANT technique, and he's mastered it. As have Beck, O'Reilly, Rove and others. I think Dave and Sto are accusing you, Chet, of doing it too. Is that is, guys? But listen, Dave & Sto. You don't know me, you have no reason to trust me or to believe a word I say. But just please consider the possibility that this might be true: what you guys stand for, we all stand for. (By and large). We all have the same basic needs and desires. We certainly have different ideas of how best to achieve them. None of us wants a deficit. But even the economists who were the architects of the Reagan tax cuts are telling us that the way out of today's recession is not to cut taxes and cut spending. We all want a balanced budget and we want a vibrant economy and we all want to pay as few taxes as possible. And right now, REAGAN'S OWN ECONOMISTS SAY, we can't have all those things at once: if we're going to get out of this recession anytime soon, IF ANYTHING, THE STIMULUS WAS TOO SMALL. Now, I suspect your reaction to this is to question my motives. My secret agenda. You probably question that economist's motive. "Oh he's just trying to engratiate himself with the Dem's." "Oh, he was never a 'good' Republican anyway." I shouldn't say that's how you'll react -- I have no idea how you think. See, I'm doing it too. Human nature. But I can tell you, that's how Beck and O'Reilly and Limbaugh would react. Rather than reconsidering our own views, we would dismiss the other person's views based on whatever straw/theory we could grab. So this particular economist who should be someone the Right listens to as gospel, would quickly be dismissed as a turn-coat, crack-pot. That's what I'm asking you not to do, Dave & Sto -- same as I hear you asking of Chet (and the rest of us): don't dismiss our President, our Congress, Democrats, or the folks on this site based on what sinister (marxist, socialist) underlying agenda you think we have. We'll try to extend the same courtesay. Because we all really do want the same thing. Believe it or not. |
|
Sto Again
said:
|
Which Dopses? I love the argument, "but they started it first." It worked so well when we were kids, didn't it? I guess it depends on the parents. Marty, I don't think you're a marxist, socialist, or question your agenda. I do love how you don't try to bash an entire group of people with your comment and how try to make your point about how you think we will get out of this recession by using a logical argument. Oh and Chet. since there are racists and "easily-manipulated" people in the Democratic Party, can we use those terms to describe the entire party? and then use that logic to insist that every idea they come up with is evil and stupid? and honestly, I have never heard the terms "libtard" or "dumbocrat" before. |
|
Chet
said:
|
This one Amen, Marty. I did not, Sto, make the argument "but they started it first." You are apparently making that argument for me, and I'm not interested in making that argument. I'm just saying that I don't have a lot of sympathy for right-wingers who complain that their feelings are hurt because of allegedly inaccurate stereotypes that have been attached to them. I could care less who did it first. A couple other things: I'll confess that I haven't been publishing my best stories over the past several months. Frankly, I've got a bunch of great material, but I'm sitting on a lot of it for a variety of reasons. One reason is that it's just too early. If some smart mainstream media journalist scoops me on one of the stories (a) I'll be shocked, because it will disprove my theory that they're all lazy and/or that their hands are tied by their partisan editors; and (2) I'll be relieved, because I would rather not write about some of the stuff I've found. It makes me feel dirty just thinking about it. And it will make the people involved -- people who will be looking for your vote in November -- look even dirtier. But you have to confess that the mainstream media has been ignoring some important stories that we've covered here lately. For instance, did you see a story in most of the state's newspapers about the 50th place rating for the governor's office's stimulus transparency? I saw one story on the GF Herald's website, and that's all I've seen. Also, have you seen an expose' in any of the state's papers about who's paying for the "grassrootsy" Michele Bachmann /Grover Norquist teabagger event in Bismarck this weekend? I haven't seen anything other than what I've written. Have you seen anything in the media about the tens of millions of state tax dollars Hoeven has directed to companies owned by his high school buddy and partisan campaign P.R. person, Pat Finken? Not a peep. It's literally 10s of Millions of Dollars of state money, the media knows about it (I guarantee they know about it) and they haven't written anything about it. I could go on... You also have to consider what I'm trying to do here. At this blog I've been pretty busy focusing on scandals and hypocrisy of our state government elected officials. I, personally, am not usually all that interested in writing about city, county, or federal elected officials. There are a lot of reasons for that. One is that this isn't my job, and I don't have a lot of free time to go digging around in those things, usually. Another is that there are lots and lots of people writing about federal issues and officials and some of the local newspaper writers occasionally cover city and county government. Sure, I'll write about them when I'm interested, but I'm not usually interested. Bottom line is that I'm mostly interested in writing about the things I'm interested in writing about, and that -- for the most part -- is state government and state political corruption and scandals. If you want me to write about more Democratic-NPL elected state officials and their scandals (1) show me where there are some Democratic-NPL elected officials, and (2) show me where their scandals are. Frankly, the thinnest book in the State Library is "Modern-Era Dem-NPL Elected State Officials: Their Scandals and Corruption." I'd write about 'em if there were any. So, if it makes you feel better, you can call me a "puppet of the Democratic Party" but you seem like the type of cat who's smart enough to know that's not true. Truth is, some of the folks in the Party probably wish they had control of me. Truth is, they don't. I wonder who's scared more by that fact: you or some of them. |
|
nimrod
said:
|
Mr. Pot, meet Mrs. Kettle After all, wasn't it the idol of the Tea Party movement, Sarah Palin, who said it was OK for Rush Limbaugh to call members of Congress affiliated with the Democratic Party "retards," because he was engaged in satire? Inflammatory rhetoric is the stock-in-trade of the Tea Party and those, such as Limbaugh, Beck, and Palin, who are profiting from stoking the anger of the Tea Party. So, don't go getting all holier-than-thou on us bolshevik liberals. |
|
Archimedes
said:
|
... Sto - I don’t have a lot of time to write this week. Here’s a quick response. Our “debt” has little to do with TARP, the stimulus package, or Obama. The right is trying to lay “our debt” solely at the feet of Obama. When I think of “our debt” I think of the 63 trillion is unfunded promises through medicare, medicaid, and social security, and the 13 trillion current operational debt. Both parties have responsibility for these debts. Bank bailouts, TARP, and the stimulus are open to criticism , and rightly so. But these economic devises are not some crazy made up unrealistic socialist agenda that the teabaggers would have you believe. There are in large part the result of years of the study, congressional hearings, and criminal cases that were part of the aftermath of the Great Depression. Back then, Congress held hearings on a constant basis through 1938 regarding the causes of the Depression. Both right and left economists agreed on a plan to respond to future fiscal crises like happened in 2008. The democrats have been terrible at explaining this to the public other than saying “we had to do it or we would have another depression”...... When credit markets freeze like occurred in Sept. 08 banks won’t lend to each other because nobody can tell how many land mines the borrower has in off balance sheet toxic assets like over the counter derivatives. Devices developed by deregulation, just like before 1929. The banks are bailed out with cheap money from the Fed to try and get credit going. (and TARP) The problem is the banks have in interest in hoarding the cheap money because the general economy is still deflating from the shock of the freeze up. I.e. housing prices are falling. So the banks won’t lend to pay for assets who’s value is still dropping because they are better off hold the cash. Therefore, stimulus has to be provided to the economy to keep asset values from dropping and dropping. The whole thing is mess, but not some crazy scheme dreamed up at a whim to take away our freedoms as the teabaggers claim. And all this is just a fraction of our debt. And if it would not have occurred our debt would be much worse because tax revenues tank in a depression and more government liabilities kick in for things like unemployment, medicaid , and Cobra. The problem we all face trying to grasp all this is the left doesn’t think the complexities are worth trying to explain, and the right reduces the complexities to simplistic labels for short term political gain. I would love to write more on this but have to go...Take care.... |
|
Sto again
said:
|
among hooky Chet, when you said, "But maybe, after 20 or 30 years of listening to, watching and reading right-wing crackpots inaccurately stereotype Democrats I've become insensitive to your feelings." it sort of came off of the reason you get to stereotypes is because others have done it before you. I have a hypothetical question for you, Chet. Which candidate would you rather vote for in any election: A: The best candidate. B: The best Democratic candidate. Archimedes, I was asking on your opinion on how to reduce America's debt  |
|
Chet
said:
|
Nope I don't "get to stereotype" [ ] "because others have done it before me." I get to call out the teabagger movement for what it is and if you (or others) are so hyper-sensitive that you can't handle it, I just don't feel a lot of sympathy for you. No excuses. Just the facts. Subtle difference. I always vote for the person I feel is the best candidate. I've voted for Republicans. In fact, I've voted for at least one Republican in every election since about 1994 (and probably some before that, but I don't remember any specifics before then). I'm not as "Dem"-hackish as some of you people apparently think I am. I should point out, too, that some of my best friends are Republicans. Some of my other best friends used to be Republicans. And some of my friends are Independents. I read conservative magazines and listen to conservative talk radio sometimes. I read right-wing blogs. I've done some things -- even recently -- that people in the Democratic Party were quit eupset about. I've gotten "the talk." (And I'm not afraid to tell them they can -- with all due respect -- kiss my ass when they're wrong, by the way. I'm not big on apologizing when I'm right.) I'm not some one-dimensional Democratic Party puppet. The beautiful thing is you probably don't believe me, but I can't think of a single reason why I should care. Maybe you can give me one. Anyway... Have a great weekend. |
|
Sto again
said:
|
dobrynin trolling why would it ever be too soon to uncover/publish these juicy scandals? |
|
Chet
said:
|
hmmmm Well... I can think of a lot of reasons. One is that I'd like to see who's endorsed. No sense wasting my time on working up a story and writing about someone who's going to disappear into the woodwork anyway. Another is that a story I hope not to write is a story about how the media knows about huge, multi-million-dollar scandals, and doesn't do anything with the information. See, if I know about some huge scandal and don't write about it, it's no big deal. There are only a couple dozen people [  ] reading this site anyway. There's no massive expectation that NorthDecoder.com will cover all the news. [Sure, there's a small, respectable contingent of people who expect it from me, but I'll be the first to admit this site doesn't have the same readership as the Forum, Herald, Tribune, Sun, Daily News or any other paper. If, on the other hand, one of those newspapers knows about a multi-million-dollar scandal and they do nothing.... they (arguably) are part of the problem, because we all expect them to put time and resources into covering that stuff. Everybody expects them to cover huge government scandals when they know about them. I will never be a part of the problem. I'm just some guy who participates in a political blog as a hobby. It's my job to do my day job and, for fun and in my free time and when I feel like it, to criticize the newspapers for sucking at what we all expect them to do. Also... Sometimes I know they (the mainstream media) know about a story when they aren't doing anything with it. There are a couple of those stories out there right now. I want to think they're still doing legwork on these stories, and I hate to jump the gun by assuming they're covering it up when they're just working up the story. I know what it's like to work up a story. Sometimes it takes a few weeks or months. Sometimes it only takes a couple days. With respect to those stories, I want to give them a reasonable chance before writing another "the media sucks because..." story. Another reason... the mainstream media has the benefit of getting the courtesy of a returned call or email note when they contact state government officials and offices with questions. I generally don't get that courtesy. (They've made up new, special rules for dealing with me, apparently.) It's not all that easy to write a story when you can't get answers to questions from the leaders involved. Until I get the same courtesy the traditional media gets from them, the traditional media should be able to do a better job at putting together stories (if they'd just try to do their job). But there are other reasons... |
|
Archimedes
said:
|
... Sto - Do my debt reduction suggestions have to be politically practical, or can I just say what I would do? |
|
Marty
said:
|
Of debts and tea parties... I think I like you, Sto. I think you get it: if we all can talk about these things without the hyperbole and lables, problems could start to get solved. That's what's been missing, and that's at least my perception of Tea Party events. Someone suggests that we need to control healthcare costs as a country in some manner beyond tort reform and eliminating state mandates, and a bunch of folks scream "death panels!" and "socialism!" and "bureaucrats!" and "government takeover!" and "Nazi!" and "keep your hands off my healthcare." And a lot of folks who are screaming these things -- based on what I see/hear in both the "liberal media" and Fox News are screaming them at Tea Parties. And that turns me off of Tea Parties. Perhaps unfairly, but it does. Are there folks at these parties who say "listen, let's tone down the rhetoric?" Have efforts been made to tone down the rhetoric? If so, this doesn't get reported or I haven't noticed. I don't know this stuff inside and out, but my guess is that controlling healthcare costs could play a role in controlling the deficits, as this in turn could help reduce employers' and individuals' expenses, so they could spend their money on other things, grow the economy, and increase the tax base. It could be a piece of the puzzle. The current bills might not be the answer for truly controlling healthcare costs, but it is tough to have a serious conversation about what a better bill would look like, when folks are screaming about Nazis and death panels, etc. Defense spending should be on the table. Trouble here again: if somebody suggests it, they are accused of "not keeping America safe" or "wanting the enemy to win" or "waiving the white flag." I side with those who believe there should be a way to do both: keep America safe, be a military power ... and also get Defense spending under control. Means testing for social security. Does Bill Gates need a social security check? Idiologically, most of us would agree -- he shouldn't be "punished" for being successful. Most of us would agree, I think, that we'd prefer not to ask the question of whether Bill Gates "needs" the money, because it should be none of our business. But tough decisions have to be made in pursuit of our larger overall goal of reducing the deficits and debt and still saving Social Security as a safety net for those that most need it. (I might be making a leap of faith on that last part, as to whether you agree there should be such a safety net.) So as between a lot of the other options, I think a means test for Social Security is a pretty attractive one. Yet it seems if someone were to propose this, they would be accused of "Class Warfare." Tax discussions shouldn't be taboo, particularly Estate Taxes. I think we should be open to a healthy discussion about estate taxes. I don't WANT to have to take money away from Paris Hilton and from Bill Gates's kids, but we've got tough problems to solve and I think this should be on the table. Yet people in response scream "Death Tax" and North Dakota Republican Agriculture Commissioners run around the state telling grandma and grandpa that the family is going to lose the family farm due to estate taxes if they don't vote Republican. When the fact is/was, most of these folks' estates are millions of dollars short of the value that would trigger a single penny of estate tax. The discussions tend not to be honest and they are infused with hyperbole, and that gets in the way of these problems getting solved. My "uneasiness" with the Tea Party movement is that it seems feul -- and is feuled by -- this hyperbole. While attendees' motives may be pure and most of the rest of us care just as deeply as they do about deficits and debt and government spending, the Movement is driving people farther away from "the table" than bringing people to it. It is taking subjects "off the table" that should be on it. Rather than encouraging open, intellectually honest discussions about "how are we going to solve these problems" it sounds to us outsiders like a lot of namecalling and hyperbole, and not an open invitation to discuss all these things that should be -- perhaps NEED to be -- open for solemn, thoughful discussion. |
|
Archimedes
said:
|
... Sto - Here’s my kick’n it around the campfire debt reduction suggestions. There is very little original thought on my part here. Primally I am stating ideas from books and articles I have read and agreed with: Government debt is the product of tax policy and spending. Of the two, the easiest to talk about is taxes. Tax Policy - We have a screwed up tax system. About 40-50% of Americans pay no federal taxes. Plus a majority of large corporations pay no income taxes in a given year through lobbied in loopholes. Finally, about 20-30% of the taxes owed to the federal government each year go uncollected. It seems to me the first place to look at new revenues rests here. I suggest that most all Americans should pay some income taxes because everyone benefits defense, having national parks, airport security, and all the other federal functions. Eliminate loopholes, enforce the law, and stop pandering to the middle class for votes via tax cuts while we have the debt we do. I suggest setting aside entitlements for a moment and fund the rest of the federal government with income taxes. Second, many writers, both left and right, claim that we need a Value Added Tax (VAT). I am not sure exactly how it works, but most countries tax this way because it doesn’t have the same depressing effect on the economy as income and payroll taxes do. From what I do understand it works like this: A timber company cuts logs and sells them to a mill, paying a VAT on the value of the product; The mill makes boards enhancing the value of the wood so the mill pay a tax on the added value of the wood caused by milling into boards and they get to deduct any taxes paid by the timber company; The mill sells the boards to a furniture maker who makes and sells tables and chairs. Again the new value is taxed. Reagan’s old economic people are touting this system as much as anyone. It’s a system where there is almost 100% tax collection and no real need for the IRS because it is in everyones best interest to report the taxes through the system. Some combination of income taxes and a VAT are in our future and may even come out of the newly established deficit commission. Spending Policy - The President’s supposed freeze on spending in 2011 is pure window dressing and will have no effect. The type of spending he proposed to freeze doesn’t amount to a hill of beans. First, we need a serious discussion about our role in the world. We have just under 800 military bases throughout the world. We still have 50,000 troops in Germany, troops in Japan and Korea. With our debt we can’t afford it. I say that the President should tell the joint chiefs that they should pick the top 200-300 bases needed for protecting our interests and defending our homeland and close the rest. We also need a “BRAC” type commission not just for bases but weapon systems. Every year the military is forced by Congress to take weapon systems and equipment they don’t need or want because defense contractors lobby for them and have set up operations in many congressional districts creating political support. We can’t afford this anymore. On entitlements we must do a lot, but I am not sure what. From what I understand social security can be fixed without a lot of pain. Medicare and medicaid are a different story. I don’t have the answers other that the stock stuff like means testing. I do think we are going to have to budget for health care costs like other countries and force some discipline on the spending and fraud that goes on. Now there is no budgeting, the feds just pay the bills in a system that encourages more medical testing that is needed. I do not support major payroll tax increases to support entitlements because that can suppress the economy and job market. Perhaps this is an area to target VAT funds? It’s all complex stuff. My beef with the tea party people on this is that their slogans are “cut taxes” and “cut the debt”.....The two don’t go together..... |
|
Sto Again
said:
|
... Archimedes and/or Marty, I agree that the DOD can spend their cash a lot more efficiently and still be a dominate super power in the world. As a matter of fact, all facets of government can be more efficient in the way they spend money. I also agree that our tax system is way past ridiculous. I like the idea of getting rid of the loop holes. That’s why I would favor a flat income tax rate, or just have a national sales tax. I like the idea of a national sales tax because then people get taxed on the things they buy, and we stop taxing the same dollar four different times. What do you gentlemen (I assume Archimedes is male) think of a balanced budget amendment? |
|
Marty
said:
|
Balanced Budget Amendment The devil would be in the details ... and the unintended consequences. I don't know. I confess I hadn't thought much about it. I appreciate the debate -- I think it is healthy to have the discussion. But seems to me, if the economy were teetering on the brink, we wouldn't want Congress (or the courts) to raise taxes in order to satisfy the balanced budget requirement. I hope we can think of some other way to hold Washington's feet the fire to make sure deficits are RARE -- the exception, not the rule -- because I am fearful of the untintended consequences. |
|
Archimedes
said:
|
... Sto - Considering the fiscal mess we are in and the lack of political will to deal with both spending and taxes I think a balanced budget amendment makes sense to debate out. It would have to be written right so we could react to national emergencies like war and disasters by increased spending. I would also be concerned about The Fed just printing more money to balance the budget. State’s can’t print money so state balanced budget constitutional provisions work. |
|
nimrod
said:
|
Blame it on Bush. We can't ignore the costs of the two Asian wars started by Bush. I'm in agreement with Grover Norquist, to paraphrase a recent TV interview on MSNBC: Don't start a war unless you've committed to a revenue increase/domestic spending cut plan to pay for it. If you can't do that, the war isn't worth starting. Regarding spending, why should I believe the conservatives, who fantasized that Iraq oil revenue would pay for the Iraq war? Why should I believe the conservatives, when they delivered tax cuts to the wealthy at the same time as they started two Asian wars? They don't seem to be very good at reality, math, or reining in deficit spending. |
|
Sto again
said:
|
... Most of the proposals that I have seen for a balanced budget amendment included that during times of war, or national emergencies, congress could pass a budget that would induce a deficit if 60-75% of the chamber votes it through. I would think that most congressmen would decrease spending instead of raising taxes, if they had to pass a balanced budget, especially representatives that have to answer to voters every two years. Nimrod, it wasn't just conservatives that "started" those wars. And they weren't acting "conservative" when they didn't try to bring down their spending. So since you can't trust conservatives, does that mean you'll trust liberals to rein in deficit spending? Or should I point out that conservative and liberal congressmen are still congressmen, and shouldn't be trusted to begin with. |
|
nimrod
said:
|
Rhetoric Sto, exactly -- the Republican claim to be tough on deficit spending is shattered by the record of irresponsible spending while W was President. |
|
Marty
said:
|
Not arguing ... just thinking out loud Sto, your second paragraph is intruiging to me. Seems to me, the predominant purpose of a BBA is to FORCE Washington to make the tough choices that they are unwilling to make today for political reasons. It is to force them to quit making decisions based on what will get them re-elected (or not re-elected). Right? It is to say, a balanced budget trumps any existing political taboos. To me, that's why the BBA has some appeal -- because we want them to make some tough decisions today, ahead of their re-election concerns. Said another way, BBA provides "political cover." "Hey, don't blame me for making that tough decision; we had to do it for a balanced budget." Again, that's why it has some appeal. What I hear you saying is, it still won't make any difference. They will still avoid those third rails (such as tax increases) in order to stay elected. That tells me we're barking up the wrong tree. The BBA doesn't remove the third rails; it won't tone down the rhetoric. The Constitution is neither the problem nor the solution: This is going to take a person-to-person conversion, to agree there are no third rails -- everything is on the table including tax increases. Until then, we're just wasting more time. |
|
Sto Again
said:
|
... Nimrod, you didn't answer my question of whether you'll trust liberals/democrats to rein in deficit spending. Because if we're looking at the track records here, neither party is a gleaming example of that. Hence the argument for a Balanced Budget Amendment. Marty, if in your personal budget you were running a deficit, would you look at things you don't need to spend money on? Or would you go to your boss and insist on a raise? I think that the difference between you and I (and I don't like to concentrate on what makes us different) is that I believe that the government is spending too much money. You can cut out enough just from the spending to get us a balanced budget. I believe you (and correct me if I'm wrong) think that even after cutting the spending of the government, we'll still need to raise taxes to get a balanced budget. Is that how you feel? |
|
Marty
said:
|
Sto 1) re personal budget deficit -- I'd look at a lot of things. Should I get a second job? Should I borrow or restructure current debt? Should I shop myself to try to get a better paying job? I don't know which option or combination of options I would choose, but they'd all be on the table, although yes, certainly, tightening the belt would be the first step. 2) I don't know. Maybe we can. I hope you are right. Truly. But when Hoeven himself runs an ad saying he opposes the "cuts" in Medicare ... then really, what hope do we have? Democrats are cutting Medicare expenses, and the Republicans are protesting? That's what I'm talking about. If the BBA would stop the hyperbole -- the insanity -- that is politics today, I'd be in favor of it in a second. But it won't. Any attempt to cut any program is going to be played for political advantage by either party, same as any tax increase would. THAT's what has to change. |
|
nimrod
said:
|
Sto Who do I trust? Not many politicians, liberal or conservative. Congress does not have the will to make the tough choices or tackle the big issues. We are a society of selfish children and Congress resembles us. |
|
Sto again
said:
|
... Marty, that's what I think the tough decisions would be, cutting the lowest priority programs in order to balance budget and once they're cut, they won't be be brought back just because someone new gets voted in. Nimrod, do you agree that a balanced budget amendment would a great thing to have, since we can't trust any congressman? |
|
nimrod's twin brother
said:
|
balanced budget amendment I ain't no economist. But I think a balanced budget amendment is a gimmick or band-aid. Our economic troubles are based on bad politics. We need more deep-seated political change, based on reality and not on dogmatic sloganeering and rabble-rousing. The balance of the budget is only a symptom. |
|
Marty
said:
|
Sorry Chet, for using this as a chatroom... I'm with the Nimrod twins, Sto. A BBA doesn't change what needs to be changed. The problem here is not with our Constitution. Start getting politicians to commit to a balanced budget, and start holding them accountable for that -- you don't need to change the Constitution to do that. And the problem we'll still have is we still can't control what spending goes to other states. We don't want ND to be starved of Federal money, while other states get the gravy train -- how do we solve that (BBA or not)? Maybe the US should just sell North Dakota to Canada and balance the budget that way. Hmmmm. |
|
Sto Again
said:
|
... Nimrod’s Twin, I never once said that a BBA would cure our economic problems. In fact, I never said a BBA would help our economic problems (although I think a balanced budget and lowering our public debt could strengthen the dollar, and that could help our economy). So I’m a little confused as to why you’d dismiss a BBA just because it wouldn’t cure our economic problems. Marty, just because people would want an amendment to the Constitution doesn’t mean that the Constitution is the problem. It just means that the problem can be solved by using the tools our Founding Fathers gave us. I’m sure had they envisioned that we would be spending trillions of dollars more than what the government was taking in; they would have had it put in Article One of the Constitution. As for holding congressmen accountable, I think that’s a separate issue that involves taking away the enormous advantage that incumbents have when it comes to elections, especially for senators (Eliminate war chests, Eliminate seniority when it comes to who gets to be on which committee, etc). A BBA (not the 70’s Swedish pop music group) would help eliminate some of the “federal” money that states crave because a lot of those programs would have to be eliminated. You can’t tell me that you think it’s more efficient for people to give money to the federal government, only to have the federal government turn around and give it to the state government. I think we could eliminate a middleman and save a lot of money. Maybe they should have a committee that could see how much money gets wasted by this transaction. I think that instead of deep seated political change, we need deep seated personal change. It seems like Americans have this feeling of entitlement and everything should be handed to them. That is what needs to be changed, in my humble opinion. |
|
Marty
said:
|
Feelings of Entitlement Well, I have a "feeling of entitlement" to have a decent highway system. How about this flood diversion talk -- should we pay for that with local, state, or federal tax dollars? Or not at all? Or leave it to the private sector to do it? I didn't feel "entitled" to have FEMA in Fargo last year or otherwise having federal tax dollars being used to fight the flood (there were federal tax dollars used to fight the flood last year, weren't they?) but I certainly appreciated it. When you say "feelings of entitlement" I assume you are speaking of social programs -- welfare, farm subsidies, and things of that nature? I see these as "safety nets" and while I don't feel we are "entitled" to have safety nets, I appreciate that we as a people have agreed we would establish them. And I am all in favor of getting people off of /out of those safety nets as quickly as possible, and stopping the abuse by people who do not actually need them. Nobody wants able-bodied slackers to be able to lay around at home and cash welfare checks. And I bothers me as well that such people exist and that they would think they are "entitled" to my money like that. So let's do something about that. But that is an issue a thousand miles tangentially removed from a Balanced Budget Amendment. I'm not sure I'm sold on the "feelings of entitlement" theme. Let me throw you some more red meat: I have personally benefited from the recent programs designed to minimize Foreclosures. No, not because I was in danger of losing my own house. But because I've got a lot of neighbors who were in that danger. And I, and my entire neighborhood, would suffer if we started having a bunch of foreclosures in the neighborhood. If you've had some foreclosures in your neighborhood, you'd know what I mean. Now, am I "entitled" to have the Fed help my neighbor? No, but I'm still glad they did. In my view, the Federal Gvt did something good there. Did it cost more than it was worth? I don't know. Should they not have done it? We can/should debate that on its own merits; we don't need a BBA to be able to scrutinize the decision. |
|
Sto Again
said:
|
... Sorry I haven’t responded, I was in Texas for a friend’s wedding so I didn’t have a lot of time to write. What I meant about feeling of entitlement is that when people are voting, they are thinking, “who can get me the most stuff” instead of “who would represent me the best.” This is obvious when the state of ND will vote Republican for the president, but yet vote in two senators and a representative that consistently (above 80%) vote against those republican presidents. Why would they do that, well, either they are scared of changed or they understand that with more seniority the better stuff senators can bring back to the state. Anyway, I’m not sure you’ll actually read this, so I’ll cut it short. I thoroughly enjoyed this conversation, Marty, Archimedes, Nimrod and your brother. |
|
Write comment
Show/hide comment form
| < Prev | Next > |
|---|
| How Long Does It Take To Get A North Dakota Open Records Attorney General's Opinion? |
|---|
|
96 days 20 hours 39 minutes and 30 seconds |
| Spotlight Link |
|---|
 |
| Login Form |
|---|
| Main Menu | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
| Popular | |
|---|---|
|
|
|
|
| Lijit Search |
| Feature Stories | ||
|---|---|---|
|
|
|
| ND Blogs (leftish) | ||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| ND Blogs (apolitical) | ||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| Regional Blogs (leftish) | |||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| Other Links |
|---|
 |
| ND Blogs (rightish) | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| ND Political Sites | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
