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.
Nicely put. I am not accusing you of creating the political echo chamber in this thread, but that is clearly what I read. The notion of liberals soiling their nests and ruining the world is simply a ridiculous read on the vote in Oregon. I was sorely disappointed by the lack of rigor of the discussion. That is not your fault, of course. And it is entirely appropriate to put my feet to the fire after my cranky post.
I have had a nice cup of coffee this morning, so I'll rise to your challenge. Measures 66 and 67 were proposed to stop a funding shortfall that was created by this economic downturn. Now, depending upon your view, Oregon has had too many social program for its tax base, or too low a tax base. My impression after 12 years in the state is that the ballot initiatives of Oregon have been whittling away at the tax base every year. So much so, that the small university (Southern Oregon University) in our town of Ashland has cut staff by 10% twice in the last ten years and has some of the lowest salaries in the US, and my son, who is in kindergarten, only goes to public school 4 days a week for three hours. Usually such efforts were spearheaded by Bill Sizemore, a professional antitax activist, who is now under indictment for tax evasion. So, I felt the tax base was declining for ideological reasons rather than overexpenditures by the state. I could be wrong on that.
Oregonians, alone among the We Coast Coast states, long depended upon a narrow economic base. People (usually men) could land a nice, if a bit boring, job in the woods or at the sawmill with a high school or lower education and support a family. The virgin forests were cut, the timber industry changed and globalized, and environmental restrictions had further effects, so that the liquidation phase ended. The working poor were hammered. This all came to a head in the 1990s, but the true costs were masked by the housing bubble, which allowed young men to move into the building trades constructing McMansions for incoming Californians with a boatload of cash and box full of stupid. In fact, house prices were rising so fast and building trades so hot, your typical working dude in Redmond could afford a 2500 sf home, a Triton v-10 work truck, a boat bought with a nice HELOC. We know where that led. And with housing in the tank, both building and logging trades, and all supporting industries, are toast. So here we are, with a depressed, backward state that is second only to Michigan in unemployment. It is not the Oregon welfare state that drove the unemployment, but rather the simplicity and narrowness of our economic base. We must educate our people and diversify our economy, we have needed it for decades, but our educational institutions from kindergarten graduate school are, with the exception of OSU, starved, and second-rate. When our fundamental schools are underfunded and staffed, we are eating the seed corn, in my opinion. Education is the future for Oregon, in my opinion, and it needs investment.
So, it could be debated that Oregon has promised too much with its government, and the public employees are being selfish and undermining the state. It could also be said that professional, antitax activist slike Sizemore have been paid to decrease the responsibility of corporations and wealthy to the state as a whole. Who do you think he works for? The citizens as a whole or the wealthy who support him? The challenging issue is how we develop and maintain a tax and government structure that is transparent and sensible relative to current and future needs.
As for measures 66 and 67, they passed largely due to the major population center in the NW part of the state. Surprisingly, Oregonians voted to support a voluntary tax rate increase on wealthier citizens and businesses, which I should add, due to Sizemore’s initiatives, pay a lower marginal tax rate than lower earners. I am not sure what is right here, but it is important to state that Measures 66 and 67 were an effort to return to a tax responsibility profile that matches with historical (1960-1990) norms. At least until we get through this downturn. I would like to say that Oregonians decided to pay up front for their economic woes, but the truth is a tax raise for the middle class would have certainly failed. They were glad to raise the wealthy’s taxes, but given past cuts by Sizemore et al., which have helped create a regressive income/tax burden, and the fact that the richest stratum in Oregon has been increasing in wealth as the rest fall, I am not feeling too much pity. Opinion: Editorials & Letters | "EDITORIAL: Oregon’s taxing decision, Part I" | The Register-Guard | Eugene, Oregon
( I realize this is an opinion piece, feel free to google Oregon income gap,etc. for a broader discussion)
They are actually having a spirited, though fairly civil debate on this over on the Oregon Boards: //www.city-data.com/forum/orego...ve-oregon.html
(The thread runs off on a few tangents about autism,etc. but generally folks disagree, and are pretty civil in presenting their views on this complex topic.)
Bottomline, Oregon is a diverse state, and people have a range of opinions from place to place and across different social groups. As for what it means for Idaho, I cannot say. I don’t know if you ever had as high of a level of social infrastructure as Oregon, so probably less of a need for a Bill Sizemore type characters to fight it. But I am glad to learn more of your history. I find it interesting that unemployment rates in the Intermountain West are so much lower than in the far West. Not sure why. Obviously the bubble hammered the latter, but it was the case before the bubble too. Glad to be educated on that front, and for your sakes, I hope taxes and expenditures are somewhat in alignment and reflect your priorities as a state.
One last comment on my previous snarky post. I am reading Alexis De Toqueville’s Democracy in America, written in 1835 and 1840. The lucidity of Toquevilles political assessments of America, the breadth of his knowledge, and the accuracy of his predictions are shocking. And before that I read the Autobiography of Ben Franklin. When reading the sophisticated and exceptionally thoughtful perspectives of our founding fathers and great thinkers like Toqueville, it is utterly depressing to see the self-satisfied ranting that now passes for political discourse in this great country. Can government save everyone? Of course not. Can we live without government and social investment? Of course not. So, reading stale tirades about the evils of spreading liberals or conservatives is boring, and makes me ashamed of what we have let this country become. Obviously, we need honesty and transparency in government and political dialog,and an ability to learn from experience, with much less demagoguery. Saying we are socialists here in Oregon is a joke. Not ever going to happen. More troubling is the trend for both liberals and conservatives tend to think of how to line their own nests at others’ expense. Ranchers and loggers are just as eager for a handout as welfare moms, and Republican and Democratic legislators both promise something for nothing. This fundamental dishonesty is the real problem, and when every fact, story, and event is filtered through a political lense, we have no hope of advancing as a country and civilization.
I suppose that I would be branded a liberal because I care about the environment, education, and think that EVERYONE should have access to healthcare. However, I love my wife and son and fishing, pay my taxes honestly and on-time, and lean forward that opportunity to make our country better. I love this country, and I am glad to discuss how to make it better with people of all political persuasions.
If I was personally insulting, I apologize to all. I guess I was cranky yesterday. My point was to say we can do better. And I believe we can.
Last edited by Fiddlehead; 01-29-2010 at 11:44 AM..
Hey Sandpointian,
The notion of liberal soiling their nests and ruining the world is simply a ridiculous read on the vote in Oregon. I was sorely disappointed by the lack of rigor of the discussion.
Ummm...your posts, up until this one, were some of the least rigorous.
Quote:
Measures 66 and 67 were proposed to stop a funding shortfall that was created by this economic downturn.
Actually, it was aggravated by the economic downturn. It was caused by overspending:
Now, depending upon your view, Oregon has had too many social program for its tax base, or too low a tax base.
If people could make their own money, they wouldn't be reliant on social programs.
Quote:
..my son, who is in kindergarten, only goes to public school 4 days a week for three hours.
Don't fall into the fallacy of extraordinary vividness. Your personal situation doesn't mean that we should revamp the entire state tax system to your benefit.
Quote:
Oregonians, alone among the We Coast Coast states, long depended upon a narrow economic base.
With anti-corporate policies, Oregon can never hope to diversify its economy. You can't have it both ways: you can't soak companies, and then expect them to come here and offer jobs to residents. One, or the other, must go. Guess which one is winning out?
Quote:
Education is the future for Oregon, in my opinion, and it needs investment.
If you mean money, then there is very little relationship between how much is dumped into education and any sort of intelligent yield. Utah, for example, is at the bottom of the barrel in education spending:
And has the highest literacy rate, most households with computers, and is, not so coincidentally, consistently in the top ten "business friendly" rankings:
As for measures 66 and 67, they passed largely due to the major population center in the NW part of the state. Surprisingly, Oregonians voted to support a voluntary tax rate increase on wealthier citizens and businesses, which I should add, due to Sizemore’s initiatives, pay a lower marginal tax rate than lower earners.
Apparently, Sizemore, your go-to hobgoblin for all of Oregon's fiscal woes, has been very ineffective then. As Oregon has a history of soaking the rich to pay the poor.
In fact, the bottom 60% of all Oregon taxpayers contribute a combined total of less than 14% of the income taxes paid ($647 million out of $4.8 billion). The top 40% of Oregon income earners pay 86% of Oregon’s personal income tax revenue ($4.1 billion of $4.8 billion).
The extreme ends of the earnings chart reveal differences that are even more dramatic. Oregon’s lowest wage earners are not only exempt from paying taxes, the state sends them $20 million in total cash payments. More than 200,000 taxpayers (tax-receivers?) benefit from Oregon’s Earned Income Tax Credit and Working Families Child Care Credit. Conversely, at the high end of the income scale, Oregonians who are in the top 1% of income earners pay 23% ($1.1 billion) of the entire personal income tax bill.
How's that for rigorous conversation?
Quote:
They are actually having a spirited, though fairly civil debate on this over on the Oregon Boards: //www.city-data.com/forum/orego...ve-oregon.html
(The thread runs off on a few tangents about autism,etc. but generally folks disagree, and are pretty civil in presenting their views on this complex topic.)
Actually, the woman who posted about autism was making the very legitimate case that not every household that grosses over 250k a year is rich. That you consider that a tangent is reflective of your political bias.
Quote:
I find it interesting that unemployment rates in the Intermountain West are so much lower than in the far West. Not sure why.
Do you really not know? It can't be that you've never stumbled upon the answer that higher taxes and anti-corporate policies kill business. I think you might one of those people who is "...forever learning, but never coming to the truth." Quit going around your elbow to get to your thumb. Liberal policies kill business, jobs, and the incentive to work.
Quote:
Obviously the bubble hammered the latter, but it was the case before the bubble too.
Yes, Oregon had bad public policies before the bubble as well. Idaho has its head screwed on "straighter." Let's keep it that way.
Quote:
I suppose that I would be branded a liberal because I care about the environment, education, and think that EVERYONE should have access to healthcare.
No, you are a liberal because you expect other people to bow to your will and values. And if we won't, you will go to whatever means you deem necessary to force us onboard. You can't force us directly, so you'll work to pass laws that affect us all.
In this thread alone, you attempted to impose your will by villifying its participants. When that strategy crashed and burned, you composed this backpeddaling, supplication-laden post, to win people over with pseudo-kindness and faux-intellectualism.
In other threads, you've discussed moving to Idaho, so my point is made: liberals run their region into the ground, become enamored with a new one, move there, try to change the culture (after a brief ingratiation period,) and then destroy that place as well.
Quote:
However, I love my wife and son and fishing, pay my taxes honestly and on-time, and lean forward that opportunity to make our country better. I love this country, and I am glad to discuss how to make it better with people of all political persuasions.
If I was personally insulting, I apologize to all. I guess I was cranky yesterday. My point was to say we can do better. And I believe we can.
Idaho residents beware, this is the face of liberalism. It does not come honestly and directly. It wants you to drop your guard, so it can take charge. The last quoted section above serves no other purpose than to convey, "I'm not a bad guy, I'm just like you; I want the same things that you want. Let's be friends. That other stuff that I said, the stuff I honestly meant that was offensive, that's 'cause I didn't have my coffee and was just a mistake."
Many good points about the Oregon situation, and I look forward to pondering them and hopefully learning. No need to be insulting to me though. However, I'll let it pass because I threw the first insult. Only fair. But assuming I am a jerk because I am a liberal is silly. I was annoyed, plain and simple, made an outburst, and apologized. What else do you want? It is beyond insulting to say I am dishonest, or that people with different political view are dishonest. That is an ad hominem attack that adds nothing. I see very little difference between extreme right and left mentalities. Both are dogmatic and blinded to their faults.
I think you are dead wrong that I want to force everyone into my thinking. And the comment in the Oregon forum about autism was not germane to fair tax policy. Autism strikes rich and poor families without prejudice. A red herring. Otherwise a good discussion there, and Silverfall is notably sensible most of the time.
I appreciate the different approach in your follow up post. Thank you.
I struggle with someone reading Tocqueville but appearing to miss his observations of what made America so great at the time of his visit. (But I do understand your point about reasonable discourse)
For example, you say you believe that "EVERYONE should have access to health care". And generally conservatives like most Idahoans are in complete agreement but via different methodology and to a different extent.
The conservative view is to get the government out of badly run programs that seriously screw up the market forces in health care, reform health care so that the government protects the industry from excessive malpractice garbage that drives the costs through the roof. You only have to go back 20-40 years to find that American health care WORKED for the most part in a pretty good way. And medical insurance was bought by those who wanted it, and others took their chances, but the truly poor still had the ability to receive critical treatment.
To keep this relevant to Idaho, let me offer you a scenario. Here in Sandpoint, we have Bonner General Hospital, and a medical group that includes urgent care. It seems to work quite well because we have just about zero illegal immigrants, but we do have our share of folks on some sort of public assistance. So this is probably a decent cross section of "average America" exclusive of the immigration political mess.
The docs at the medical group have competitive rates. They accept most insurance plans, and if someone comes in without insurance (or are under insured), they still are going to get seen and at least get basic treatment. Those of us with insurance and/or more money understand that each of my visits may be a couple bucks higher to cover some folks who don't have as much, and we're OK with that. This, to me, is how health care and "group risk" should work. But it's become so screwed up across the country and so many areas have 40% of the people having to pay for the other 60% that it's simply unworkable.
My other statement on the health care issue is that a lot of very well meaning people seem to believe that health care should be a "basic human right". Well, any time you assign a "right" to something that has a price tag, you are immediately start to run afoul of the American principles that so impressed the young Frenchman so long ago. We know the government can never "give" you something it has not first "taken" from someone. So while I understand your freedom to hold that view, you conversely must understand the depths to which others will find your view reprehensible. Not because we don't care about people, but because we believe you are pushing large government on us. I think this IS in fact a fundamental difference between Idaho and Oregon in political beliefs. Idahoan would like a modern day version of principles championed by Jefferson and Madison and that Tocqueville wrote about. I don't think Tocqueville would even recognize modern America as anything vaguely resembling the nation that so impressed him, although I truly believe he would find some remnants of it in states like Idaho and he's wonder what the hell happened in places like New York and California.
You care about the environment. Awesome. So do I. So do (I think) most Idahoans. We Idahoans especially want to protect our waterways and wilderness areas from future pollution. But I believe there is a reasonable balance of stewardship of this planet the hysteria fomented by the likes of Mr. Gore. I absolutely believe that there need to be some very serious consequences of blatantly polluting our environment (superfund sites, etc). But a REASONABLE and truly scientific (not politically-bastardized science) approach must be employed. As soon as science became politicized it ceases to be reliable. So while we know the planet is warming, it will take decades to truly know if it's a trend toward the medieval warming period or in fact AGM (which of course we're told 85 times a day by politicians). Idahoans aren't dying to build coal burning power plants, and we're lucky enough to have several hydroelectric sources for power. We'd much rather have nuclear energy like some efficient European nations, but (and I expect you to admit to this) the political left goes bananas about the "threat" of nuclear power plants, even though France has 56 nuclear power plants producing 76% of their power (and they sell a lot of power to Italy). FRONTLINE: nuclear reaction: Why the French Like Nuclear Energy
So it's not that we Idahoans want to drive around spewing fumes and killing Bambi. But I believe we are also very resistant to hysteria and politicized environmental (mis)management.
Caring about Education doesn't make you a liberal. HOW you go about expressing your support for it and how you define that support makes you a liberal. Do you think that conservatives want to raise a bunch of slack-jawed drooling yokels and shut down universities? But when being fiscally responsible, you just can't make education sacrosanct when cutting budgets. Again, Idaho has a balanced budget amendment. So when we're short, things get cut. Does it suck? Of course it does. Now, we're a homeschool family like well over a million others in the country. But 90% of my kids' friends are in public, public charter, or private schools. Budget cuts always hurt. But it doesn't make someone morally or intellectually superior to refuse to cut education where there isn't the money to support the current level of funding. I'm also fascinated with the rationale behind education funding. My wife (decades ago) was a private school teacher (after working in the public school system). Their school was right next to a public school, with over DOUBLE the per-student spending, yet the private school constantly outperformed the public schools in the area by 10% or more in testing and by 15-20% in scholastic competitions.
So my view of a classical liberal is someone who accepts the budget demands as submitted by the public school district and say "we've GOT to maintain funding or you're anti-education". A conservative view is to say that schools have to get leaner and more agile and do more with less, and we KNOW it's doable because the private sector does it. Now, to be fair to YOU, even Idaho has a problem with bloated school budgets and a general hysteria about cutting school budgets. So it's a place where the NEA has done it's propaganda job quite well. When "Ah-nold" tried to stop the runaway education budget in California as a new governor, the NEA and CTA ripped him to shreds as "gutting education" because he LIMITED the growth and it was less of an increase than they were demanding that year. Wow.
My general feeling is that I can support your right to your own views, but I can be happy if you live in a state like Oregon and don't come to anti-federalist Idaho and take it in the same direction as Oregon. Washington, or (gasp) California. I can hope that my fellow Idahoans embrace MORE conservative ideals and fiscal policies that keep us from taking away from what made Idaho great in the first place (sounds like Tocqueville, huh?).
If people could make their own money, they wouldn't be reliant on social programs.
Don't fall into the fallacy of extraordinary vividness. Your personal situation doesn't mean that we should revamp the entire state tax system to your benefit.
With anti-corporate policies, Oregon can never hope to diversify its economy. You can't have it both ways: you can't soak companies, and then expect them to come here and offer jobs to residents. One, or the other, must go. Guess which one is winning out?
If you mean money, then there is very little relationship between how much is dumped into education and any sort of intelligent yield. Utah, for example, is at the bottom of the barrel in education spending:
And has the highest literacy rate, most households with computers, and is, not so coincidentally, consistently in the top ten "business friendly" rankings:
Apparently, Sizemore, your go-to hobgoblin for all of Oregon's fiscal woes, has been very ineffective then. As Oregon has a history of soaking the rich to pay the poor.
In fact, the bottom 60% of all Oregon taxpayers contribute a combined total of less than 14% of the income taxes paid ($647 million out of $4.8 billion). The top 40% of Oregon income earners pay 86% of Oregon’s personal income tax revenue ($4.1 billion of $4.8 billion).
The extreme ends of the earnings chart reveal differences that are even more dramatic. Oregon’s lowest wage earners are not only exempt from paying taxes, the state sends them $20 million in total cash payments. More than 200,000 taxpayers (tax-receivers?) benefit from Oregon’s Earned Income Tax Credit and Working Families Child Care Credit. Conversely, at the high end of the income scale, Oregonians who are in the top 1% of income earners pay 23% ($1.1 billion) of the entire personal income tax bill.
How's that for rigorous conversation?
Actually, the woman who posted about autism was making the very legitimate case that not every household that grosses over 250k a year is rich. That you consider that a tangent is reflective of your political bias.
Do you really not know? It can't be that you've never stumbled upon the answer that higher taxes and anti-corporate policies kill business. I think you might one of those people who is "...forever learning, but never coming to the truth." Quit going around your elbow to get to your thumb. Liberal policies kill business, jobs, and the incentive to work.
Yes, Oregon had bad public policies before the bubble as well. Idaho has its head screwed on "straighter." Let's keep it that way.
No, you are a liberal because you expect other people to bow to your will and values. And if we won't, you will go to whatever means you deem necessary to force us onboard. You can't force us directly, so you'll work to pass laws that affect us all.
In this thread alone, you attempted to impose your will by villifying its participants. When that strategy crashed and burned, you composed this backpeddaling, supplication-laden post, to win people over with pseudo-kindness and faux-intellectualism.
In other threads, you've discussed moving to Idaho, so my point is made: liberals run their region into the ground, become enamored with a new one, move there, try to change the culture (after a brief ingratiation period,) and then destroy that place as well.
Idaho residents beware, this is the face of liberalism. It does not come honestly and directly. It wants you to drop your guard, so it can take charge. The last quoted section above serves no other purpose than to convey, "I'm not a bad guy, I'm just like you; I want the same things that you want. Let's be friends. That other stuff that I said, the stuff I honestly meant that was offensive, that's 'cause I didn't have my coffee and was just a mistake."
Sure.
Venusian,
I did not read all the way to the bottom of your post before sending my previous reply. It started off fine,reasonable ideas and all, and ended up nasty.
I did feel Sandpointian (and Sage) made a good very point about contributing my perspectives before attacking others. That is why I took the time to articulate my points in good faith. Accusing me of pseudo-kindness, backpedaling, or supplication is assinine. I don't know all the answers on tax policy, but I certainly expect a decent level of discourse about it, rather than eye rolling and backslapping. The latter was my beef. And guess what? I am intelligent enough to know when I was not communicating well or fairly, and man enough to cop to it. That makes me neither a sycophant nor liar.
[MOD CUT]
Last edited by Sage of Sagle; 01-29-2010 at 02:46 PM..
Reason: Let's be fair. There were going to be some hard feelings after your first post(s). Let's move on folks.
I appreciate the different approach in your follow up post. Thank you.
I struggle with someone reading Tocqueville but appearing to miss his observations of what made America so great at the time of his visit. (But I do understand your point about reasonable discourse)
For example, you say you believe that "EVERYONE should have access to health care". And generally conservatives like most Idahoans are in complete agreement but via different methodology and to a different extent.
The conservative view is to get the government out of badly run programs that seriously screw up the market forces in health care, reform health care so that the government protects the industry from excessive malpractice garbage that drives the costs through the roof. You only have to go back 20-40 years to find that American health care WORKED for the most part in a pretty good way. And medical insurance was bought by those who wanted it, and others took their chances, but the truly poor still had the ability to receive critical treatment.
To keep this relevant to Idaho, let me offer you a scenario. Here in Sandpoint, we have Bonner General Hospital, and a medical group that includes urgent care. It seems to work quite well because we have just about zero illegal immigrants, but we do have our share of folks on some sort of public assistance. So this is probably a decent cross section of "average America" exclusive of the immigration political mess.
The docs at the medical group have competitive rates. They accept most insurance plans, and if someone comes in without insurance (or are under insured), they still are going to get seen and at least get basic treatment. Those of us with insurance and/or more money understand that each of my visits may be a couple bucks higher to cover some folks who don't have as much, and we're OK with that. This, to me, is how health care and "group risk" should work. But it's become so screwed up across the country and so many areas have 40% of the people having to pay for the other 60% that it's simply unworkable.
My other statement on the health care issue is that a lot of very well meaning people seem to believe that health care should be a "basic human right". Well, any time you assign a "right" to something that has a price tag, you are immediately start to run afoul of the American principles that so impressed the young Frenchman so long ago. We know the government can never "give" you something it has not first "taken" from someone. So while I understand your freedom to hold that view, you conversely must understand the depths to which others will find your view reprehensible. Not because we don't care about people, but because we believe you are pushing large government on us. I think this IS in fact a fundamental difference between Idaho and Oregon in political beliefs. Idahoan would like a modern day version of principles championed by Jefferson and Madison and that Tocqueville wrote about. I don't think Tocqueville would even recognize modern America as anything vaguely resembling the nation that so impressed him, although I truly believe he would find some remnants of it in states like Idaho and he's wonder what the hell happened in places like New York and California.
You care about the environment. Awesome. So do I. So do (I think) most Idahoans. We Idahoans especially want to protect our waterways and wilderness areas from future pollution. But I believe there is a reasonable balance of stewardship of this planet the hysteria fomented by the likes of Mr. Gore. I absolutely believe that there need to be some very serious consequences of blatantly polluting our environment (superfund sites, etc). But a REASONABLE and truly scientific (not politically-bastardized science) approach must be employed. As soon as science became politicized it ceases to be reliable. So while we know the planet is warming, it will take decades to truly know if it's a trend toward the medieval warming period or in fact AGM (which of course we're told 85 times a day by politicians). Idahoans aren't dying to build coal burning power plants, and we're lucky enough to have several hydroelectric sources for power. We'd much rather have nuclear energy like some efficient European nations, but (and I expect you to admit to this) the political left goes bananas about the "threat" of nuclear power plants, even though France has 56 nuclear power plants producing 76% of their power (and they sell a lot of power to Italy). FRONTLINE: nuclear reaction: Why the French Like Nuclear Energy
So it's not that we Idahoans want to drive around spewing fumes and killing Bambi. But I believe we are also very resistant to hysteria and politicized environmental (mis)management.
Caring about Education doesn't make you a liberal. HOW you go about expressing your support for it and how you define that support makes you a liberal. Do you think that conservatives want to raise a bunch of slack-jawed drooling yokels and shut down universities? But when being fiscally responsible, you just can't make education sacrosanct when cutting budgets. Again, Idaho has a balanced budget amendment. So when we're short, things get cut. Does it suck? Of course it does. Now, we're a homeschool family like well over a million others in the country. But 90% of my kids' friends are in public, public charter, or private schools. Budget cuts always hurt. But it doesn't make someone morally or intellectually superior to refuse to cut education where there isn't the money to support the current level of funding. I'm also fascinated with the rationale behind education funding. My wife (decades ago) was a private school teacher (after working in the public school system). Their school was right next to a public school, with over DOUBLE the per-student spending, yet the private school constantly outperformed the public schools in the area by 10% or more in testing and by 15-20% in scholastic competitions.
So my view of a classical liberal is someone who accepts the budget demands as submitted by the public school district and say "we've GOT to maintain funding or you're anti-education". A conservative view is to say that schools have to get leaner and more agile and do more with less, and we KNOW it's doable because the private sector does it. Now, to be fair to YOU, even Idaho has a problem with bloated school budgets and a general hysteria about cutting school budgets. So it's a place where the NEA has done it's propaganda job quite well. When "Ah-nold" tried to stop the runaway education budget in California as a new governor, the NEA and CTA ripped him to shreds as "gutting education" because he LIMITED the growth and it was less of an increase than they were demanding that year. Wow.
My general feeling is that I can support your right to your own views, but I can be happy if you live in a state like Oregon and don't come to anti-federalist Idaho and take it in the same direction as Oregon. Washington, or (gasp) California. I can hope that my fellow Idahoans embrace MORE conservative ideals and fiscal policies that keep us from taking away from what made Idaho great in the first place (sounds like Tocqueville, huh?).
Great post Sage,
I appreciated these perspectives. You are right, Tocqueville noted a certain dynamism in America that could be construed as the enterprising, bottom-up energy. He also despaired of the emergence of an industrial aristocracy, the proliferation of special interest and hijacking of fundamental rights, and the tyrrany of the majority. I did not cite him to talk about his views, of which there were many, that could be construed in many ways. However, I felt that healthy and nuanced discussion of these ideas has been going on for hundreds of years, and the shouting that often emerges in modern discussion is saddening in comparison. We should be advancing, not regressing.
Well Sandpointian, having been raised in E. Oregon, and having lived in Idaho for over 10 years now, I see one thing that should keep Idaho politics from going the way of OR and WA. That one thing is diverse population centers.
The Oregon legislature is dominated by the Willamette valley residents, and Washington is dominated by the Puget sound residents. Granted the Treasure valley is a loud voice in Idaho politics, it isn't as powerfull, or homogenized as the aforementioned places, nor do I see it becoming that way any time soon. What also makes Idaho different is the presence of significant populations in North and East Idaho. That brings a balancing dynamic largely missing from both OR and WA.
I suppose that I would be branded a liberal because I care about the environment,
It depends on how you go about caring for the environment. You may be surprised to learn that most conservatives, especially sportsmen, care at least as much, if not more, about the environment as most liberals do. They just have different views about how to protect, care fore and use for it. No one wants polluted waterways or barren lands.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fiddlehead
education
Again, it depends. Few people are against education, it's how the schools are run that people have conflicts over.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fiddlehead
and think that EVERYONE should have access to healthcare
Everyone should have access to healthcare, but where we probably differ is on who should pay for it. I don't think that people have a right to free access to health care. Just because a doctor has the skills, equipment and drugs to treat an illness does not entitle anyone to that doctors labor for free, nor does someone needing some treatment have any right to what I, or you, have earned to pay for it. There is no constitutional right to health care. Honestly I was more willing to help pay for others, like Sage, before so many started demanding it as a right and demanding that others pay for them. I am usually willing to help those in need, but I will resist having what is mine taken.
The Declaration of Independence states: We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
Some people think this means people have a right to healthcare. First off, it's not in the Constitution, it's in the Declaration of Independence which isn't the test for which laws are constitutional or not. Second it says we have the right to the life, there is no guarantee it will be a long or healthy one one, just that no one should be allowed to take it from you. There is the right to the pursuit of happiness, that doesn't mean everyone will be happy, only have the opportunity to strive for it.
I'm thankful I no longer depend on a society for my livelihood that continues to be deluded into thinking that increasing the cost of creating wealth by expanding government and increasing taxes will somehow lead to more jobs. At the same time, as one who makes payroll here in Asia and knows now where all the bodies are buried in the globalization process, it saddens me that my native land is in such a downward economic spiral when it needn't be that way.
Downsize government and provide tax breaks to the small business owner, so they can hire folks. Make the dealings of Congress and the Senate open to all. If your representative does something unethical ensure he or she receives a good sound buffeting about the head and is run out of office. Look at people with their hand out with a jaundiced eye, and investigate where the money actually goes before you just hand them our hard earned tax dollars. If Idaho goes the way of WA or Oregon shame on all of us.
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.
I am not accusing you of creating the political echo chamber in this thread, but that is clearly what I read. The notion of liberals soiling their nests and ruining the world is simply a ridiculous read on the vote in Oregon. I was sorely disappointed by the lack of rigor of the discussion. That is not your fault, of course. And it is entirely appropriate to put my feet to the fire after my cranky post.
