Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Oh yeah, that and you will impart values on your child no matter how hard you try not to. Typically those values have a "leaning" no matter how hard you try. I don't believe it is about propping up political views. How can you tell your child to make their own decision but own a gun or belong to the military? Make your own decision but without the union pension grandma eats dog food or daddy is out of a job and the whole family is on a dog food diet? There are many decisions that are made on both sides of the fence that are affected by our political affiliation, there is no getting around that.
I'm not sure what to think, but there are some very deep pockets funding the teaparty movement (just like George Soros on the left with Moveon.org) and I would hope they don't appropriate the populist sentiment for their own purposes.
Wow, really? I wonder why I didn't get paid to do graphic design work. I wonder why the woman organizing the Huntsville tea party is not getting paid. I wonder why the print shop that is printing the signs and materials for this event is donating their free services and paper. I wonder why participants to the Huntsville tea party put their pennies together in order to buy an insurance policy to cover liability in the case of damage or injury at our event.
What are the deep pockets funding, exactly? The national web site I guess? National advertising? What's wrong with that?
People with money are allowed to contribute too. That doesn't invalidate all the efforts of others who are investing time and money on the local level. I don't know about anyone else's tea party, but I can say with a relative degree of certitude that the Huntsville tea party has been put together by the efforts of normal, local residents volunteering their time, money, and services.
Quote:
Oh yeah, that and you will impart values on your child no matter how hard you try not to. Typically those values have a "leaning" no matter how hard you try. I don't believe it is about propping up political views.
I'm sure FiveDime and 33458 fully intend to impart their values on their child. Their point isn't to suggest they intend to raise their child in a values vacuum. I totally get where they are coming from. It's a matter of teaching those values in an age-appropriate matter. At preschool age is, basic religious tenants and ethics - such as, don't take things that aren't yours, don't hit your brother, mind your manners, etc. Spouting off things about political candidates and tax policy is meaningless to a 4 yr old, and any effort to do so could be accurately described as "using" your child to parrot something because they have no understanding of what you're talking about. For the same reason, I've always abhorred the "mock election" that Scholastic encourages schools to host during presidential elections, during which elementary school students vote between the two major candidates. Heck, most 18 yr olds don't really know what they are voting for if they vote for a presidential candidate, let alone 8 yr olds. It's not age-appropriate, IMO, to force children to conjure up opinions on things they don't understand.
But then again, I suppose that is part of imparting the value to my own child of: "Don't talk about or vote for things you don't understand." (That's how I operate - if I haven't made the time to educate myself about candidates or issues - I don't vote.) If you are the type that just votes down party lines no matter what, I suppose it might make sense to teach your children the same. (And by the way, this is no major criticism of anyone who brings a preschooler to this or any other demonstration. I understand why you would. I also understand why you wouldn't and as a parent, I personally feel likewise, and it has nothing to do with not wanting my children to have my values.)
Why are people protesting? I can't answer for anyone else, but I am furious over a government that has gone awry. Yes, the previous administration was less fiscally responsible than I would have preferred, but that does not excuse what is going on now...
Unless you were out protesting during the Bush years you have no credibility with me what so ever.
Obama has no intention to continue trillion+ dollar deficits. The democratic economic mantra right now is largely Keynesian - demand side as opposed to conservative favored supply-side (tax cuts aka trickle down). Just posting this brief summary for those who may be reading but not knowegeable on the subject - basically, its the democrat view that says in times of recession it is critical to expand the money supply and restore aggregate demand. Because of economic instability, people have cut back on their spending even if they themselves are financially stable (perfectly rational, considering you might lose your job - thus the reason for FDR's famous quote "The only thing we have to fear, is fear itself" during the great depression) but in aggregate, it only aggravates the existing strain on the economy. This over correction results in additional job loss and begets a snowball effect. Private spending is cut back, private sector profits fall, private sector costs are cut due to lost demand, more people are let go, resulting in further private spending cuts. It's a downward spiral on a huge scale. The only entity with the clout to put a halt to it is government... deficit spending to take up the slack of the private economy. In our current case, the situation is pretty nasty. The US economy is basically a credit engine. Large companies tend to pay the salaries of their employees via short term loans. When the credit crisis began (when the mortgage mess reached a head), costs on this credit skyrocketed or became largely unavailable. If not for government action, it was probable that many companies (even states) would have been forced to release employees simply because they could not secure this short term capital. The government did what it should have done by stepping in to ensure liquidity (access to money by banks, companies and consumers).
Now, the government is stepping in to prop up demand (stimulus). Government spending today is necessary in a recession, as long as it puts money in the hands of consumers who have a high propensity to consume (aka those that will spend it). The problems in housing and banking only began the recession - now we're in the downward spiral. If you ask me, the stimulus was too small. Look back on the great depression and all the attempts to restore the economy then (after Hoover's initial treatment of the federal budget like an individual's checking account) and you'll notice repeated attempts... only the HUGE deficit spending of WWII pulled us out of it. I personally believe its better to spend a decade paying off huge debts you incurred during bad times than it is to spend a decade with inefficient use of national resources as a result of high unemployment and lack of capital because you're not willing to put the money in up front. To their credit, dems have demonstrated the willingness to run surpluses in good economic times (see the 90's) rather than immediately jump to tax cuts... why? Because that's the whole philosophy - taxes that create surpluses in times of plenty do two things: 1) reduce over consumption and the likelihood of asset bubbles - taxes having a proper cooling effect on a heated economy and 2) paying for the deficts you're going to run in the bad times. Unfortunately, some people think if the gov runs a surplus, it should mean an immediate tax cut.
Now, more on topic - the size of governments - sure Obama does want to expand government; particularly in those areas that are "private" only in name. The most recent being his desire to remove private banking institutions from the federal grant program for students - where the feds provide all the money anyway and garantee something like 97% of student debt. Another example is the gov contractor workforce. There are pros and cons.
The major issue of the size of government however is not peculiar to the current economy or administration, so unless someone has been railing against the size of government since Reagan (who presided over the previous spending high prior to Bush's 2008 or Obama's 2009), you really have no credibility and only reveal yourself to be a partisan.
Last edited by DvlsAdvc8; 04-14-2009 at 09:12 AM..
"Don't talk about or vote for things you don't understand."
Disagree - talk about everything. Vote or don't vote. If you're not actively talking about it, how is one supposed to gain an interest, much less an understanding?
What's most important isn't teaching about particular issues anyway. Rather its important to teach "spin". Everything one hears should be doubted and interpreted in terms of how it might have been spun to suite the purposes of the speaker. The great thing is that this has nothing to do with politics - its life in general.
The tax teaparties are silly in my view - nobody wants to pay taxes, and nobody wants big expensive wasteful government. In the end, people must pay for that which they want the government to do. IMO, advocate against the government service being provided - not the accounting. Its so easy to advocate that people keep more money in their pocket... now advocate what gets cut. That's partly why Ron Paul has such cult following... it comes off less as a greed-based "I want to keep my money" ploy than it does a legit constitutional argument "federal government shouldn't have this power".
I'm an unabashed liberal (albeit fairly moderate) - but a conservative friend recently put his view of conservatism to me this way: "national defense really ought to be the only major federal government priority" and it was his view that most conservatives think along these lines.
I told him I wish he chaired the RNC. Good luck winning elections with that one.
If you're not actively talking about it, how is one supposed to gain an interest, much less an understanding?
What I meant was, don't pontificate about things you know nothing about, i.e. the 19 yr old who shows up at your door with a "STOP THE POWER PLANT" petition because she thinks power plants are bad, but can't answer questions like, "how will our energy needs be met?" "What are the alternatives, and how are they better? What will the alternatives cost, and who will pay for it?" Etc. Discuss it and ask questions, but don't just take a knee-jerk emotional/party line position.
What I meant was, don't pontificate about things you know nothing about, i.e. the 19 yr old who shows up at your door with a "STOP THE POWER PLANT" petition because she thinks power plants are bad, but can't answer questions like, "how will our energy needs be met?" "What are the alternatives, and how are they better? What will the alternatives cost, and who will pay for it?" Etc. Discuss it and ask questions, but don't just take a knee-jerk emotional/party line position.
Gotcha.
With that in mind then, what do you desire to cut from government, assuming our present economic situation/bailouts and partisan politics isn't the impetus for your interest in the tax teaparty? ("how will our enegery needs be met?" if you will).
I'm not an economist...I was an Art major with a disdain for number crunching. It takes me a great while longer to make sense out of vague predictions, no matter how eloquently presented. I do make an effort, though.
So my opinion, in contrast to my husband, will be a much more earthy twitch - that spasm that plagues someone when they have to process something that neither appeals to them or plays out logically. Brain says NO.
I have listened, read, tried to comprehend the Stimulus...yeah, sat there and read...until I got a headache. It didn't take long.
Went through this with the bail-out, too...
Trying to apply the expenditure/assistance to an actual, desired result - and that's where I take issue...unlike you, I do not see this package as what it claims to be. I see it as a path being cleared for a progression of changes that will be difficult to turn back. We are about to change the American mindset to one that is even more dependent - and I'm not speaking of the necessary aid someone might need at this moment because they are about to experience complete collapse...I mean, I FEAR that we have set the stage for a new kind of thinking that I find reprehensible.
Forgive my layman's terms, but what I gather from the bill I was able to view and the discussions surrounding it, is that this is a bit of money to pump in to projects that have little bearing on the present economy. I have so far failed to see how we, by investing in asides, diverting funds for projects that in my view are less than practical or necessary, will provide us with a stable support to restructure. And I'm sure you and I will disagree on the validity of my opinion. That's fine. Still friends.
I am FOR progress, FOR research, FOR improvement...but please explain to me how a task set for frux in 5-10-20 years will benefit the struggling citizen now, if your argument is in fact that we will offset the decline by spending in such a manner. When and how? REALLY? There is such a great amount of 'OOH, I want shiny new, give me the money' tucked away along with what might, in part, be an effective approach that it taints the suggestion. And that IS a bi-partisan complaint.
OK, now about protesting...I did that kinda crap in college, in the 80's. And I was a Libertarian-ish then, too...husband still calls me a hippie. My habits have changed...but my mind still echoes a solid core belief.
Ahem.
I exercised my vote, vocally expressed my concerns...pick up a picket sign lately? Not since then, because I've actually been working F/T all these years, and not at jobs that would typically allow long lunches. I am not the Engineer in this family.
I don't think chiding someone for not being visible before now is an effective dismissal. I mean - how many alternate views do nothing until...certainly the folks I know personally, who spew venom online, complain in person but don't take initiative to get face time...from all sides.
Priorities...some think it's more important to ***** and moan about getting a group discount at the local fair than to take a stand against an even greater, life-altering discrimination. Methods and personal theology are always questionable. We all have our buttons.
There comes a point in someone's life where they finally get that kick in the ass...the one, final straw...and they stand up. Agitated.
Is it a bandwagon? Yeah - there's a touch of that...I've said as much on the political forum here. But if the organizers and protesters can with maturity and clarity present the argument, I am all for it.
My support for the Tea Parties is a reflection of my want for a viable (non-flaky version of) Third Party...for numbers to come together and realize that they are not being well-represented. That's my thing. That such a display might be used as a tool for propaganda for either "side"...true of any 'movement'. So I would suggest that the organizers, to better show themselves, continue to make a non-partisan argument and represent themselves as Americans and not by party affiliation.
About Sweet Pea...I see my role as her parent, bearing full responsibility, as that of provider, protector and educator. However, to instill my political or (non)religious beliefs, in my mind, is inappropriate. At this ripe age she is subject to fancy, though able to apply a basic reason she can NOT explore the the fundamentals behind a belief system.
Example: War is bad. I don't actually know anyone from any spectrum that thinks war is "good". I guess I don't hang with them.
So on the surface, that may seem like a valid protest. In 'child-ish', war hurts people, causes rifts between nations and is generally bad for the environment. A child can reason that much of it.
But, why is there war? Why is some war seen as acceptable and some not? What side are we on? Why do we take sides? Why are we involved at all?
Oh, then we get very personal and begin to require a depth no average 5 year old posseses...because they have not yet had the life experience to form their own educated perception.
Therefore, for me to instruct her that she is to emulate my stance on what I consider a personal matter better determined at a later age (practicing reason) would be to USE her, and that is morally questionable. (Talk about pawns...Yes, heathens have morals, too.)
She may understand that I object or support certain issues and I will explain in age-appropriate terms why...but to assume that she falls in line with me - that she could even fathom the greatness of such a decision, is too much a burden for such a small child.
So, that's it. Those who disagree with me probably do so with strength, or think I'm a half-witted nimrod...and that's alright...I certainly welcome open, polite discussions about...anything...but before Keeper barks, I'm thinking we need to work this back in to the actual Tea Party...thing.
(Even husband and I disagree, often. ;)
Last edited by 33458; 04-14-2009 at 11:52 AM..
Reason: I hate smilies.
Forgive my layman's terms, but what I gather from the bill I was able to view and the discussions surrounding it, is that this is a bit of money to pump in to projects that have little bearing on the present economy.
So your problem isn't really with the money, but rather how its being spent? See, my understanding is that the majority of the stimulus bill goes to infrastructure spending and short term projects... the pet projects of various congressmen. A bridge here, a road there... stuff that will take a couple years to complete and typically employ a bunch of people. Sure, there's a bunch of other spending mixed in there that's less effective at pumping money back into the economy immediately, including tax cuts (which go more toward those who have more money, because obviously they pay more in taxes... but unfortunately, the more money you have, the less likely you are to spend each new dollar of income... economists term: lower propensity to consume) but all that junk is what it takes to pass a bill in congress - compromise and vote getting deals. Since just throwing money to public from a helicopter is better than doing nothing at all - I have no problem with the deals. Spend spend spend spend spend - and break the downward spiral - then recover it when the economy returns to growth. In all honesty, this is what smart investors really want - a less volatile business cycle (shorter and less severe downturns combined with slower more sustainable growth created by limiting an overheated economy of money/credit - that is the result of maintaining tax rates as surpluses return and not cutting them)
Part of the problem IMO is in thinking that this is otherwise a normal short-lived recession. If you're an economy nerd like me, you more likely feel this will be a protracted recession by modern standards. Don't think '91. Think 1929, except with all the nice features in place that diminish panics and mitigate a recession (courtesy of the great depression): unemployment insurance, FDIC, a government willing to expand the money supply etc. The most recent, comparable recession was that of '81, which took a couple years to work out. This recession on paper appears significantly worse, and has been ongoing since late '07. For reference, the average modern (post WW2) recession lasts about 10 months. The longest since WW2 is 16 months... this recession has gone on now for 15 months and most of the economists I've read (who aren't well known partisan hacks one side or the other) believe the earliest signs of recovery won't be seen till June or later... with many believing there will be a series of "false starts" just as there was in the early 30's. A return to long term sustained growth is probably a few years off WITH the stimulus figured in.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 33458
I don't think chiding someone for not being visible before now is an effective dismissal. I mean - how many alternate views do nothing until...certainly the folks I know personally, who spew venom online, complain in person but don't take initiative to get face time...from all sides.
So 8 years of rampant spending under a republican wasn't long enough to build such concensus? Of course, 4 months of a democrat in office will do it... THAT is really my point. IMO, This isn't about spending as much as it is partisan rancor. Or is it rather that massive spending in support of a war is okay... massive spending to mitigate economic desperation at home is not? The 800 billion we spent in Iraq sure would look like a nice stimulus now.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 33458
My support for the Tea Parties is a reflection of my want for a viable (non-flaky version of) Third Party
That is a laudable objective. If you want it, spend your time supporting election reform - not tea parties. The two party system in the US is fostered by the fact that we have a single winner takes all election. People fear voting for their first choice long shot for fear it may contribute to the election of a candidate they oppose - think Perot electing Clinton or Nader electing W. That can be instantly cured by having runoff or if you will "playoff" elections. Top two vote getters have a runoff election. Better yet, a "ranking" election system whereby one ranks the candidates in order of preference - which earns that candidate points. The candidate with the most points wins. Thereby the candidate that most reflects the values and priorities of the nation is elected and the party system is vastly diminished.
On the subject of children, I honestly have no problem with the indoctrination of children in one's beliefs - it will happen anyways as children most often emulate their parents. Its perfectly natural. Ironically, a balanced education is a value most here appear to hold - and you have no problem impressing that upon your child. In the end, all of your values will be imparted, as as long as your child eventually learns to think, they will accept or reject as they please. What I think would be a greater mistake, would be to allow someone else to impart values on your child due to your enlightened reluctance to do so. The void will be filled.
This is seriously the most civil (and well thought out--on all sides) internet debate on these type of issues I've seen. It's good to hear some intelligence rather than some dim-witted people spouting the same nonsense without knowing what any of it means... Yeah. That's all I wanted to say. Cool.
(Oh, and Ron Paul is my hero. )
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Good luck winning elections with that one.
)
