Tea Party Illustrated Dictionary and Field Guide

[oladub]

gp, I tend to agree with your previous post although I tend toward more local government solutions and would involve government less when there are other solutions. You mentioned four examples of government subsidies; homes, schools, roads, and food. The first three can better be provided by local and state governments to the extent necessary.

There are sometimes alternative solutions to such services as municipal street plowing or public schools that could be better done privately. School vouchers come to mind. In some places, sparsely populated rural areas for instance, public schools are just more efficient. However, if poor parents in Milwaukee are thrilled with the results a voucher option offered them, such a voucher option could be expanded and taxpayers could be partly relieved of the more expensive public school option.

The fourth subsidized item you mentioned was food [[corn). The federal government should get entirely out of that. On the illegal alien thread, cheap exported US corn was a reason cited for why illegals come here. Also, the federal government has no good reason to subsidize the likes of Monsanto and ADM. Such policy distorts the economy. If, on the other hand, Detroit or Michigan chose to help set up Eastern market or hundreds of smaller farmers' markets, the effect would be the opposite in many ways.

rb adds, "well, again, considering that MOST people paid less fed tax this year, that is a moot point. Tax cuts to the wealthy don't work because they are not necessarily consuming more. tax cuts to middle/lower income folks does result in more consumption. problem is, taxes have been cut to the wealthy at the same time companies were heavily incentivized to move production off-shore and cut wages for the workers [[even as their productivity skyrocketed), resulting in a smaller tax base, relative to inflation "

Most people paid less fed tax this year only because a significant portion of their taxes were temporarily deferred with government borrowing. Their taxes were actually higher to pay for more government but haven't yet been billed. Some of that government expansion, as you mentioned , includes regressive benefits for the wealthy including moving jobs offshore. Even half the cash for clunkers subsidies left the country to buy foreign product. I agree that the rich have benefited from both the Bush tax cuts and ongoing government subsidies that benefit them disporoportionally.

[ghettopalmetto]

Oladub, I agree with most of what you wrote. The concern I have, however, is that most state and local governments do not have the financial and human resources for implementing necessary programs that are currently the purview of the federal government. One could argue that if these things were cut from federal administration, they could simply be shifted to the states. I think if that were the case, though, you'd begin to see a huge disparities. For example, it would be erroneous to assume that Southern states, as a whole, would be willing to apply greater funding to public works, education, or social programs. It would become the 19th Century all over again.

And not to say that all subsidies are bad. Some of them do influence positive behaviors. But items like the tax break on mortgage interest, farm subsidies, and federal funding for endless freeway construction [[among others) deserve scrutiny, as it seems like they've become nothing more than market distortions.

[oladub]

Oladub, I agree with most of what you wrote. The concern I have, however, is that most state and local governments do not have the financial and human resources for implementing necessary programs that are currently the purview of the federal government. One could argue that if these things were cut from federal administration, they could simply be shifted to the states. I think if that were the case, though, you'd begin to see a huge disparities. For example, it would be erroneous to assume that Southern states, as a whole, would be willing to apply greater funding to public works, education, or social programs. It would become the 19th Century all over again.

And not to say that all subsidies are bad. Some of them do influence positive behaviors. But items like the tax break on mortgage interest, farm subsidies, and federal funding for endless freeway construction [[among others) deserve scrutiny, as it seems like they've become nothing more than market distortions.

gp, What's wrong with us today? We are agreeing on more than usual. There would be disparities but they, in turn, would sometimes attract relief to poorer states. For instance, If companies weren't federally subsidized to move jobs overseas, they would more often locate in places like Mississippi which have lower wages. The additional resulting wages would result in more State revenue on top of whatever was no longer being sent to Washington.

States like Iowa with good educational systems and a moderate cost of living, taxes, and regulations would probably be picking up high tech jobs. Voters and their elected representatives would be forced to look around and decide what works and what they want once their state's welfare checks from Washington were reduced.

Some of the often maligned southern states have already begun to create a better educated work force with the intention of luring more investment. Meanwhile test scores are plummeting in California despite high State expenditures there. California used to have one of the best educational systems and now has one of the worst. We have to update our notions of which states are effectively progressive or corrupt. I'm assuming a cutback of federal subsidies to states would be offset by a partial offset of increased state spending. Party is not necessarily a factor either. Montana, with a Democrat governor, has a sounder budget than California with it's showboat Republican Governor.

I am still lobbying for a progressive coffee party movement which would take on the Democrat establishment much like the tea party is challanging Republican power brokers. Even in the states' rights arena, progressive coffee party activists could promote right to die legislation like Oregon has, more liberalized drug laws, or a hundred other issues that might pass in certain states but not nationally.

[ghettopalmetto]

Oladub, your ideas might play out in theory, but I think the reality would be far different. For example, you're going to have an incredibly difficult time getting "high-tech" caliber people to move to Iowa en masse.

Yes, the Southern states have been progressing to an extent, and still have lower wages. But even with lower wages and Right-to-Work laws, South Carolina still had to throw millions of dollars at BMW to locate in Greer, and at Boeing to expand operations in North Charleston. Never mind numerous questions surrounding the educational attainment and capability of the workforce [[which have, in fact, been expressed and documented by people other than me).

On top of that, South Carolina receives approximately 4 dollars for every 3 dollars it sends to DC. How much money would have to be cut if federal programs were decentralized to the states? And that's just to exist at the present level--that's not trying to establish an educational system on par with Connecticut, or provide the rail service that Illinois does. This is what the "States' Rights" folks refuse to recognize. The irony is that the states who are loathe to tax and provide services are the ones benefitting from federal largesse made possible by states who tax themselves at higher rates, have higher incomes, and provide a wider array of public services.

[Papasito]

On top of that, South Carolina receives approximately 4 dollars for every 3 dollars it sends to

DC. How much money would have to be cut if federal programs were decentralized to the states? And that's just to exist at the present level--that's not trying to establish an educational system on par with Connecticut, or provide the rail service that Illinois does. This is what the "States' Rights" folks refuse to recognize. The irony is that the states who are loathe to tax and provide services are the ones benefitting from federal largesse made possible by states who tax themselves at higher rates, have higher incomes, and provide a wider array of public services.

we cant continue our rate of spending. IMO each state and the Fed should only spend what they take in. if they can't get by, then trim some fat. dont like it? too bad. its the only way this country is going to continue to exist. spending in the red for all the future to come is unsustainable. We are going to have to draw the line in the sand, or Greek riots are going to look like a joke compared to 320 million people who have the right to own guns.....

[Sstashmoo]

Quote: "Greek riots are going to look like a joke compared to 320 million people who have the right to own guns....."

You're suggesting the American people are going to somehow band together and take it on? When I was younger, I used to think that same thing, some day there will be a revolt, people will take it to the streets and right all the wrongs. I seriously doubt we'll ever see it. Look at what our country is made up of. A large part of the population is still working, they aren't going to revolt. A large part of the population is here illegally, they aren't going to revolt, if they did, it wouldn't be for the reasons you suggest. A large part of our population live here, but their hearts are somewhere else, they aren't going to revolt, they'll just go back home. What you have left is starkly divided and the one half that will revolt, is the ..... Tea partiers.. There's your revolt. About as effective as a popcorn fart. We're in for a rough ride, one we may not survive as a country.

[ghettopalmetto]

IMO each state and the Fed should only spend what they take in. if they can't get by, then trim some fat. dont like it? too bad. its the only way this country is going to continue to exist. spending in the red for all the future to come is unsustainable.

And I think most people agree with you. The intellectual chasm, though, is due to a difference in how both the TARP and economic stimulus are perceived. One side [[IMO, correctly) perceives both packages as necessary for the perpetuation of a stable economy in a time of mass recession. The other side sees these blips as an indicator of a long-term trend that does not yet exist.

Yes, something needs to be done at the federal level in order to eliminate deficits and pay down debt. What that is, I don't know. By the same token, though, it means that when we have surpluses, we don't squander them by handing more money to those who already have plenty. It means that we don't engage in needless and expensive wars that are poorly planned. It means investing money in activities that generate prosperity and increase incomes in the long-term, such as education. It means refusing to fund expensive new highway construction for which states lobby just because it's "been on the planning maps since the 1950s". It means cutting public subsidy to global food conglomerates whose mission it is to make us fat and unhealthy.

In short, it means insisting that we start doing things SMARTER.

[oldredfordette]

Americans won't riot unless everybody's television goes blank all at once. And the moment service is restored, they'll go back into their houses and obediently resume watching and consuming. Don't be so silly.

[Sstashmoo]

Orf you may have a point there. All the zombies staring at the light in the box.

[Papasito]

looks like the tea party is the real deal
as much as they have been ridiculed, they have only gotten stronger
maybe calling them teabaggers and inflaming them was a mistake
you appear to have motivated them into a powerful force....

Rebel candidates prevail in primaries

Two anti-establishment candidates — one on the left, one on the right — scored major victories in U.S. political primaries — the latest signs of voter anger that has jolted American politics. Sen. Arlen Specter, a five-term incumbent who switched from Republican to Democrat last year in hopes of keeping his Pennsylvania seat, lost to Congressman Joe Sestak, who defied party leaders in pursuing the nomination. The vote was a defeat for President Barack Obama, who supported Specter.
In Kentucky, Rand Paul, a political novice supported by the conservative tea party movement, won his party's nomination for the Senate, defeating Trey Grayson, a state official. Grayson had been backed by Kentucky's senior senator, Mitch McConnell, the most powerful Republican in the U.S. Senate.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/37213050/from/ET/?gt1=43001

The results reflect the growing polarization in American society, where politicians in both parties are being pushed away from the center.

just look at the tags you've given this thread for example:
Tags anti-american sentiment , sick cult , tea party
you really only see them with your blinders on.

[johnsmith]

Rebel candidates prevail in primaries

Great news!

I wonder how the corporatist neo-con republicans will spin this to try to make it look like they're on board with this. Same goes for the establishment corporatist socialist democrats. They have no choice but to back these candidates now since the establishment losers are out of the picture in these races.

Sen. Arlen Specter, a five-term incumbent who switched from Republican to Democrat last year in hopes of keeping his Pennsylvania seat, lost to Congressman Joe Sestak, who defied party leaders in pursuing the nomination. The vote was a defeat for President Barack Obama, who supported Specter.

That's oh so sweet. We don't need flip-flopper politicians who only look out for themselves, we need true representatives of the people.

[Papasito]

It's too bad that the 2 big parties have politics all locked up. The only way for conservatives or tea partiers to have any real chance for the White House is to align themselves with the Republicans

[johnsmith]

It's too bad that the 2 big parties have politics all locked up. The only way for conservatives or tea partiers to have any real chance for the White House is to align themselves with the Republicans

By the looks of it, it may actually be the other way around. The only way for the Republicans to survive is to align themselves with the true conservatives and libertarians who are beginning to take back the party and hopefully, our rogue gov't, which includes both parties.

[ghettopalmetto]

The only way for the Republicans to survive is to align themselves with the true conservatives and libertarians who are beginning to take back the party....

I missed something. Is Teddy Roosevelt back from the dead?

[Papasito]

I missed something. Is Teddy Roosevelt back from the dead?

If we could only be so lucky

[barnesfoto]

Attacked by RNC, Pot smoking NC Tea Party Candidate claims to have found lost Ark, plus claims ability to raise dead:

[[must be another "progressive plant")

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2010/5...arty-candidate

http://gawker.com/5547002/republican...ill-crush-them