"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" are the words penned by the Founding Fathers in their declaration of severing ties to the King of Great Britain. "I have a dream that one day, down in Alabama, with its vicious racists, with its governor having his lips dripping with the words of interposition and nullification; one day right there in Alabama, little black boys and black girls will be able to join hands with little white boys and white girls as sisters and brothers" is just one aspect of Martin Luther King's famous "I Have A Dream" speech. Today we give honor to the slain Civil Rights leader.
A lot has changed since the Declaration of Independence in America to overcome the inequities that existed at her beginning. One thing that still prevails is the lingering racism and the heated rhetoric that comes with discussing the topic. Many laws have been enacted to ensure equality yet we to more harm than good. The last election cycle saw a shift in the political landscape as Tea Party backed candidates and other Conservatives won at all levels of government in a manner never experienced. Then we had the tragic shooting in Arizona by a deranged mad man to which the airwaves blew up with blame, hate, and ignorant thought. We, as a country, are facing a time where government has grown to large and consumes too much while drifting away from one with "unalienable Rights".
Some see the birth of the Tea Party a direct response to Obama being elected President of the United States while mainstream media has spun it as well. Now, as with all groups, the Tea Party does have its fringe element but their views are not aligned with the base. In fact the Tea Party is not much different than the group Ross Perot attempted to form a decade or so ago. I bring the Tea Party into the conversation because the vitriol that has surrounded the movement does not echo the "Dream" of King or the use of "unalienable Rights" within the Declaration of Independence. President Obama's memorial speech did touch on taking pause and reflection hopefully today we can do more.
Take a moment today to read Dr. King's "Dream" speech and look around your community and see if society is living up to it. As well, read the Declaration of Independence and ask yourself, "Is our current path of government allowing ALL people of the United States the ability to Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness?"
Can you tell me what exactly the "main stream media" is exactly?
ReplyDeleteBecause last I checked, Fox news was the #1 news station in the US. So that means THEY are the mainstream media. So given that, your statement seems a bit absurd since it implies that the "liberal" media is smearing the tea party somehow.
Could it be that the GOP backed Fox news simply doesn't report facts about the Tea party accurately? Or misrepresents them, for example, by using old video footage to overblow the true size of tea party rallies?
I'm so tired of this paranoid delusions that the "mainstream" media is out to get people from the tea party. Let's be honest, many in the tea party are not mainstream themselves. Sarah Palin is about as neo-con as they can get. Her party backed candidates were as well, from Angle to Miller were extreme in their ideologies which is why they didn't get elected, not because the "mainstream" media was out to get them.
I mean seriously, there's buying into propaganda and then there's drinking down the Kool Aid without even questioning what it is.
When I refer to main stream media it is the liberal press group. We have this divide in our media - Fox News vs. everyone else - so even though Fox is #1 the collective is what I refer to as main stream media.
ReplyDeleteAnd yes, all media outlets have allowed their bias to taint the picture of the Tea Party movement. Truman - you have to acknowledge that the more liberal press does go out of its way to tie the Tea Party and/or Palin into every act of violence or bigotry out there even when it is baseless.
Truman
ReplyDeleteWhy is your focus or take away the Tea Party and not the bigger question at play? Sometimes I wonder if people focus on the messenger rather than the message.
Et al,
ReplyDeleteI bring this up because again and again, those that support right wing groups try to play the victim by pointing to the evil "mainstream media" as the big bad bully of news when the reality is that Fox news has ~50% of the media market share. Only one news outlet claims to be their foil - MSNBC. The rest are more or less "agnostic" to the news although I'll admit CNN is intollerablely bad at being agnostic.
So who exactly is this big bad news bully that is abusing the poor little tea party so?
And the Tea Party is nothing liek Ross Perot's movement. Ross Perot didn't use demagogic tactics to demonize his opponents as part of a fearmongering campaign to sway moronically ignorant americans. Ross Perot used common sense points people could understand combined with middle of the road political reason to try to sway voters.
Please point out one case where the tea party has done anything middle of the road or common sense based?
Don't want to look stupid as a political movement, vett your candidates better. Dont' want to be associated with extremist movements, don't allow them at your rallies.
The point is own what you do, and so far I see the tea party owning nothing that they've done. They're just poor victims of it all.
For the most part the Tea Party has stayed away from social issues while focusing on the fiscal aspects of government. I see their approach to the fiscal side of things as sensible because we cannot sustain the government we have with increase debt ceiling, spending and the taxes that will follow.
ReplyDeleteViper,
ReplyDeleteDo you understand what happens if the debt ceiling isn't raised in the next few months? I mean do you truly understand it or are you only hearing what you want to hear?
Let's discuss this.
An analogy I've used to explain the idiocy of the Tea party's stance on the debt ceiling is as follows. Not raising the ceiling would be comparable to you defaulting on your families credit cards, mortgages, car loans, etc in order to prove to your wife that you are in charge of the finances. It's idiocy.
The US has fiduciary obligations around previously allocated spending plans set forth by congress over the last 20+ years. Those obligations are the law of the land, not something discretionary. They must be met by law. If the US does not have the credit available to borrow to pay those debts we default on our obligations. Defaulting on obligations as a government is no different than your personal or corporate defaults. This would mean dramatic devaluation of the US $, increased borrowing costs and a more challenging bond market for the US.
And you CANNOT cut spending in the next 2 month enough to avoid this crisis. The CBO has stated that cuts would need to exceed 450Billion in order to meet that obligation. That is larger than the entire federal discretionary (non-entitlement, non-defense) budget for an entire fiscal year.
So how exactly is the Tea Party financial stance tenable in any way, shape or form?
We can talk taxes, but most tea partiers are only able to say they want to pay less taxes to a smaller government in some nebulous form. When you ask them what they'd cut, they point to "pork" or "waste" without quantifying what that is. Pork and waste account for 1/100 of 1% of the federal budget. We need to cut 1/3 of the budget.
When you offer up entitlements, even tea partiers cry "DON"T TOUCH MY MEDICARE".
It's hypocrisy. You want smaller government without giving up the things that make up a big government.
You can't have it both ways so don't claim that this is somehow reasonable or logical. It's anything but that.
Truman - I have to agree with you (and this is just from my personal experience, not that I can say EVERYONE in the tea party thinks this way) that people often want to cut things, but not MY things. Don't touch it if it will affect me adversely (and adversely can be interpretted here as anything that even slightly inconveniences me - which is sad, because we all need to put skin in the game, and maybe even "suffer" a little to right the ship).
ReplyDeleteHaving said that - and please forgive me, I'm asking humbly because I DON'T fully understand this - please explain how we need to borrow more to pay down our current debt? I think you did in your post, but put it more in "laymans terms" for me? :) Or correct me if I mis-read your statement.
Also - if I'm understanding this that we need to increase our current debt to pay down our debt? Are we also working through cuts in spending here? Even if it doesn't get fixed by cuts over the course of a few months - how would it NOT, long-term?
I don't want to profess to belong to any party - and I'm really just spitballing here, trying to dumb it down (appropriate for me). But how is "less is more" not good? There must be a way to compromise here, instead of continuing to spiral out of control?
Respectfully, and humbly - as I really don't understand and would like an education. Chris - please you chime in as well, as I'm you two both will give differing opinions.
Truman
ReplyDeleteI was reading an article by Pat Toomey in the Wall Street Journal today, http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703954004576089963912388314.html?mod=googlenews_wsj, and he penned that "In fact, if Congress refuses to raise the debt ceiling, the federal government will still have far more than enough money to fully service our debt. Next year, for instance, about 6.5% of all projected federal government expenditures will go to interest on our debt, and tax revenue is projected to cover about 67% of all government expenditures. With roughly 10 times more income than needed to honor our debt obligations, why would we ever default?"
Toomey also points out that we'd not be able to borrow the other third to meet current budget requirements thus we'd need to cut. I know that Gov. Pawlenty announced a plan on how we don't have to raise the debt ceiling and still can operate as a country.
The adults in Washington need to treat the American taxpayers no longer as piggy banks. I am open to all aspects of cuts on the board including the phasing out of all entitlement programs.
@anon,
ReplyDeleteOk, I'll put the government into a household analogy.
You buy your house, car, and have student loans. Those are obligations. You also have obligations to buy food, fuel, etc in order to survive. Think of those obligations as "legally ordered", because in the case of the government they are. You can't just stop them without congressional action in the form of new laws. And we all know congress moves as fast as molasses.
So you have "legally" required obligations. HOwever, your boss cuts your pay due to a tough economy. That's what happened with the recession since tax receipts went down through no action by the gov, but instead thru economic means.
Now you don't have the means to pay those obligations through incoming money. You have 2 choices, default and lose your house, car, etc. Or borrow in the short term to pay those obligations hoping the economy returns and your boss gives you a raise. The first of those is perhaps more palatable if you are single and aren't responsible for anyone, but if you have kids and a wife, losing your house isn't an option. So you choose to borrow.
Now say for the sake of this argument that you have the ability to raise your credit limit to keep this borrowing going as needed. If you choose (and it is a choice) to not raise that borrowing limit, you will default on those obligations. If you raise the limit you will continue to pay them although you'll get more debt.
Admittedly, more debt may not be good long term, but the alternative isn't good either. In fact, in the case of defaulting the consequences can be catastrophic.
Increased lending rates means you'll pay more for future borrowing, which means more and more of your budget will be consumed by interest on old debt.
Decreased lending means it will be harder to borrow in the future. And since americans don't pay all their taxes in wk1 of the new year, borrowing is not only required it's essential.
Weakend currency means that the US dollar may be dumped as the reserve currency of the world. It may also be dumped as the commodity currency of choice which means decreased demand which means increased devaluation. This is a death spiral with the result being higher unemployment, less corporate investment and higher government debt as tax receipts drop.
All in all, choosing to default as the tea party says we should by not raising the debt ceiling - purely to prove a philosophical point that debt is bad (which I agree with in pricipal) would have such long term consequences that it would be catastrophic.
Admittedly, not the best analogy, but I think it might make the point.
@Viper
"The adults in Washington need to treat the American taxpayers no longer as piggy banks. "
The fact is, Washington has outspent on the american taxpayers behalf for your benefit. The current taxpayers have not paid for the benefits they have received or been promised. And as a result, we have a deficit.
Example - Tax cuts during a war (let alone 2)? 1st time in history that happened. And we see what the consequences are.
Thanks Truman. Given the analogy you used, help me understand a couple things.
ReplyDeleteAs a parent, let's say my boss cuts my wages and my income has decreased. The first thing I would do is cut my expenses, NOT borrow to maintain a status quo. I may get to a point where I'd need to borrow, sure. But I'd certainly cut everything I can, and the family would suffer a bit, before I got there. Borrowing, with no way to repay wouldn't be the wisest thing to do, I think you'd agree.
Now - my family is much smaller than a nation. And I and my wife can make these decisions, that impact us and the kids. This is much different than the leaders of our nation, and how many people they would potentially impact by certain cuts. But the question I have to ask (and forgive me if this makes me sound like a tea partier - I'm only asking because I do think it's a valid question and this forum allows us to discuss - heck, we're not making the decisions here, so let's even entertain the "utopian" perspective a bit here), have we cut all that we can yet? Are we as a nation eating Mac and Cheese for a while until we get our heads above water? Or are we keeping our cable with all the movie channels, our x-box live subscription, etc and just going into more debt to keep us afloat?
Again - I realize it's not apples to apples when comparing managing a family budget with a nation's budget. And I don't want this questioning to come off as any more than that. I mean it with utmost respect, and I thank you that you even entertain my questions. You've been very helpful.
Ted
Truman
ReplyDeleteWhat about the WSJ article I posted? If our debt is only a third of our current debt ceiling why can we not make a 33% budget cut? I understand it will be tough but that is why we need to be adults. I agree with Ted, if one loses income that means one needs to cut the Xbox Live, perhaps go to dial up, remove some of the bells and whistles to cable package, etc...
When I was let go two years ago we had to reduce our budget and we did it without losing the car, house or altering our health. So I feel that the government can do the same.
Last year during the Hamburg budget workshop it was discussed, and I pushed for, how the city would handle the potential loss of LGA (local government aid) funds; it was decided - which I favor - that a wish list be created and not figure LGA funds into the operating budget for 2011. Thus Hamburg did not have to increase taxes while others in the area did.
@TEd,
ReplyDelete"As a parent, let's say my boss cuts my wages and my income has decreased. The first thing I would do is cut my expenses, NOT borrow to maintain a status quo."
True, you could do this, because you have discretionary expenses. The government is not nimble like that. All spending is set forth through legislation - ie. laws. Laws cannot be broken without consequences. That requires an act of congress.
The amount needing to be cut is ~450Billion per a CBO quote I saw earlier this week. That's greater than the entire discretionary spending of 380B (non-entitlement, non-defense) budget for the year. That means you'd have to cut everything just to get close and you'd still default due to defense and entitlement costs.
So do you then change the law to cut entitlement? Because that's what is required. And we're not talking about some nebulous person 50 years from now. We're talking about grandma's SS check and Grandpa's medicare payments. We're talking about TODAY's obligations, not future obligations.
Are people seriously advocating defaulting on the governments obligations to these types of people because that is what NOT raising the debt ceiling means EVEN if you cut spending 100%.
Again, you can't think of the government like a person. It is not limited by the same financial risks (ie, a government never ends, people and businesses do) and it has limitations that you and I do not in that it is limited to the laws that constrain it's activities.
That means that without an act of god in congress to change all spending in the next 30-40 days by 450 billion, we will default on our obligations if we don't raise the ceiling.
And defaulting means all those negatives I detailed above. Devalued currency, increased borrowing costs for decades, etc etc etc.
The consequences of defaulting just to prove an ideological point are massive.
So to put that back in family terms - would you default on your mortgage just to prove to your wife that you are in charge of the finances?
To think that we can simply cut spending to meet current (Q1 of 2011) spending requirements is absurd.
We all created this mess, we can't simply cut our way out of it in either the short or long term. I personally would have signed off on EVERY component of the debt commissions report were I to be in congress. I hated parts of it but I realize that taking the ideological high road is what got us here. We need to be pragmatic about what we need to accomplish and that means making tough decisions that we may not like.
No - that makes complete sense Truman, thanks.
ReplyDeleteOne thing I want to ask here though - so let's say we raise the debt ceiling. Are we ALSO planning on ways to cut spending, so that we don't have to do this again in a few years?
Truman - Nothing on my WSJ article? I noticed that the GOP put forth $2T in spending cuts. I am trying to find the details.
ReplyDelete"Are we ALSO planning on ways to cut spending, so that we don't have to do this again in a few years?"
ReplyDeleteI would hope the GOP puts conditional requirements on the debt ceiling hike, including significant future spending cuts to reduce our current 1.3T budget deficit.
But those will have to hit entitlements. You can't do it by cutting amtrak's subsidies (1.56B) or high speed rail work (2.5B) or anything along those lines.
Those are red herrings to the real discussion - entitlements. And unless the GOP grows a spine and some balls to go with it, nothing is going to change. Cutting 100B from a 3.4T budget is like cutting caribou coffee from your household budget. It may make you feel like you're doing something but it won't make much of a dent in your total spending.
@Viper,
That 2T in cuts is over a 10 year period, not this year. It did NOTHING to address entitlements or defense spending, which account for 88.3% of the federal budget. So unless you address those two categories, you aren't serious about spending cuts. And until the CBO vetts their savings, I don't buy them anyway. Politicians spin financial results every day to lie to their constituents about the savings/spending "truth".
And my opinion is that the GOP is as bad, if not worse, than the Dem's on this subject given their tax cuts that were supposed to spur growth and medicare prescription plan that was supposed to cut medical expenses.
It's all smoke and mirrors. Unless you do the math yourself or an independent body does - don't believe the hype.
Actually, Truman, cutting Caribou is huge for a family budget. It's not ALL you should cut. But it's a good start. Then you cut out eating out altogether. Then maybe consider whether or not you need that brand new car, or would be better off in a decent used car? And so on. But you definitely don't NOT cut the Caribou because it barely makes a dent. I fear (and as I've said all along, who am to say? I'm very ignorant in this area) that is the mentaility we have - "why do these small things? They don't do much more than make a dent anyway, if that". But the reality is a lot of small things can make a huge dent, and help us toward righting the ship. No, it doesn't right the ship immediately, but as you know it took us a long time to get into this mess, it'll take us a long time to get out. :)
ReplyDelete