Moment of Silence and Solidarity in San Diego

C

ColonelHaiku

True Classic
“I think we should have a moment of silence in solidarity for the person they said was from the Washington, D.C. Occupy. Maybe, why did he feel the need to shoot the White House window today?"

Yes... these people are just like the Tea Party folks... :eek:mg:

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dL7QRluEeEk"]Occupy San Diego Moment of Silence/Solidarity for W.H. Shooter!? - YouTube[/ame]
 
OWS and the Tea Party have...

at least this much in common-neither seems to be able to articulate exactly what it is they want. OWS claiming to be the 99% could be wanting just about anything given that broad of a base(to be virtually everybody is to be nobody in particular). The Tea Party apparently wants 'small government' but can't come up with just how small given their defence of both Social Security and Medicare. What use are these fringe groups if they are just as willing to ignore basic reality as the US Congress is? :hrmph:
 
Have you research the TEA party at all?

They are nothing like the OWS people. TEA stands for Taxed Enough Already. They are very politically active at all levels of government and when they have "rallies" they leave the place looking better than when they arrived. VERY little in common indeed.
 
I have....

and as my post says I find them alike in the ways stated there. As far as their public hygeine and care in cleaning up,very laudable. They are however, like the OWS, a party of bellyaching and do not represent a coherent political position. They have glommed on to candidates here and there but not in any systematic way. Some of them apparently revere Rand Paul and his father but when it comes to SS and Medicare and the military they are not on board with real Libertarian politics. They don't want to be taxed any more but won't have the social programs or defence which are at the center of the deficit and debt problem dealt with. This looks like 'me first' thinking. By the same token the OWS folks get on their high horse simutaneously about big time capitalism and are pissed off because there are not enough jobs to go around. I suppose there is some system that can both dilute the current market system and provide abundent jobs, health care and education, but again the OWS hasn't put forward a coherent plan for doing that-likely because no such thing is even theoretically possible.
The TP has been politically effective in the electoral sense but in the governing sense they have proven to be nothing but obstructive. A deal on the deficit could likely have been cut at the ratio of $1 of new revenue for every $4 of spending cuts but the TP leaning members of the House say NO revenue rise at all, period. This thinking found its apotheosis in the GOP debates when all the candidates said they wouldn't strike that bargain even at the 1:10 ratio. This is isn't politics at all but just a temper tantrum. The TP platform as stated calls for balancing the budget and eliminating the debt, yet the two major avenues available for doing this-controlling the cost of SS and Medicare, significantly reducing defence; and raising revenue are essentially off the table.
 
Last edited:
Let me guess...

your a 9*9*9 guy.

So your OK with paying more taxes to reduce the rate at which spending increases (not actual spending reductions)?

Say I spend 10 dollars a day and every day I receive taxes to cover that. Everything is fine. But what if I increase spending by $.50 a day but only ask you to increase your tax payment to me by $.25 a day. Very soon, I would be paying a lot of interest on the money I had to borrow to fill the gap. If I ask you to pay an extra $.01 for my $.10 reduction in spending increases, I still have the same problem I had before. TO MUCH SPENDING!! Tax increases are not going to solve the problem/culture in Washington and the TEA Party is trying to do that; change the culture and solve our spending problem.
 
I apologize...

I get a little "debate-y" when it comes to political stuff. My comments may have came off as condescending, and I apologize. I am politely bowing out of this thread and reserve my comments to things less political. Sorry if I upset anyone.
 
I'm on board with your

posts #3 & #5, Angle T. The TP folks seem to be the only people even talking about - much less pushing for - spending reductions. The Congress critters speak of a cut in the growth of spending like it's a significant achievement... and they can't even agree on that.

For some, there will never be enough taken from the productive in taxation... er, "revenue enhancement". :wink2:
 
Tom, I am....

essentially un-upsettable-can't speak for others. Also, not a 9-9-9 guy at all and not opposed to spending cuts. I am opposed to spending hiding as tax credits and deductions of just about every stripe. I don't have any particular allegiance except to the recognition of the magnitude of our deficit and debt and to the simple arithmetic of reducing those. Ideology won't do it and as far as I can tell it is ideology that is standing in the way of some solution being reached, however unsavory it may be to either side of the tax/spend divide.
The political tide seems to be pulling us further from a solution to this problem than pushing us towards it,consequently the Congress and the Administration is getting away with avoidng the leap off the spending cuts cliff and the radical simplification of the tax code and the establishing of strict balanced budget rules (amendment, triggers, whatever). Harping on taxation will not get spending cuts in place, why the TP and the GOP continue to pretend that it will is beyond me. Bargaining for as high a ratio of spending cut to taxation as possible probably is at least possible.
 
Let's see how far a GOP...

candidate gets running on a platform of enough cuts to reduce the deficit outright and start buying down the debt. In other words cutting or eliminating SS, Medicare, Pentagon, tax deductions, etc.... Oh, yeah that's Ron Paul isn't it? He is hanging in there but he won't be around for the ending credits. Too many old people, too many defence contractors, too many big businesses plumping up the bottom line on tax avoidance strategies, you name it...
I will believe in all the talk when someone puts real skin in the game-ain't seen it yet and don't think I will either.

Here is the pie chart, start counting how many votes you won't get as you wittle away at the spending:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Fy2010_spending_by_category.jpg
 
usta in Portland said:
and as my post says I find them alike in the ways stated there. As far as their public hygeine and care in cleaning up,very laudable. They are however, like the OWS, a party of bellyaching and do not represent a coherent political position. They have glommed on to candidates here and there but not in any systematic way. Some of them apparently revere Rand Paul and his father but when it comes to SS and Medicare and the military they are not on board with real Libertarian politics. They don't want to be taxed any more but won't have the social programs or defence which are at the center of the deficit and debt problem dealt with. This looks like 'me first' thinking. By the same token the OWS folks get on their high horse simutaneously about big time capitalism and are pissed off because there are not enough jobs to go around. I suppose there is some system that can both dilute the current market system and provide abundent jobs, health care and education, but again the OWS hasn't put forward a coherent plan for doing that-likely because no such thing is even theoretically possible.
The TP has been politically effective in the electoral sense but in the governing sense they have proven to be nothing but obstructive. A deal on the deficit could likely have been cut at the ratio of $1 of new revenue for every $4 of spending cuts but the TP leaning members of the House say NO revenue rise at all, period. This thinking found its apotheosis in the GOP debates when all the candidates said they wouldn't strike that bargain even at the 1:10 ratio. This is isn't politics at all but just a temper tantrum. The TP platform as stated calls for balancing the budget and eliminating the debt, yet the two major avenues available for doing this-controlling the cost of SS and Medicare, significantly reducing defence; and raising revenue are essentially off the table.
Click to expand...

The similarities of incoherence between OWS and the TEA Party are pretty clear. However, I would disagree that drawing a line in the sand on "increasing revenue" is a "temper tantrum". Maybe for some it is but for many it is a principled stand based on the strong belief that the government is far too big and spends far too much and increasing revenue only helps to feed that. The fact is that the deficit can be eliminated by shrinking government and cutting spending while still leaving intact and very large federal government with a bigger defense budget than the next 5+ countries combined and a substantial social welfare system. If that weren't the case then I would agree with you.
 
Well put as usual...

Matthew, but the deficit reduction you are talking about is something on the order of $1.2T right now, not in ten years, and those kinds of cuts would have to have some quid pro quo on the tax side even if the ratio were 1:10. That's the reality of the situation at the very farthest fetched extent. Otherwise the 'principled position' will be characterized as having gone from obstruction to virtual nihilism (it has been already so charasterized by center right newspapers already).
Your suggestion assumes cutting the Pentagon about in half - couldn't agree more, but....
I'm sure you are aware that the ugly logic of the standoff over absolutely no revenue increases is playing itself out at the moment in the "Supercommittee". That impasse will be identified as such on Thanksgiving and then we will see the unedifying spectacle of the Congress reversing itself on the automatic across-the-board cuts required under the sequestration part of the law that raised the debt ceiling. And then so much for any more 'negotiated settlement' -both sides will have entrenched themselves more deeply than ever and will wait out the 2012 election in hopes of an all-or-nothing outcome (WH and Senate in one party) God have mercy on our souls in the meantime.
 
The politicians screaming about "devastating cuts to defense spending" are just taking Page One out of the standard "PlayBook for Shameless Politicians" that is used at every level of government.

Just remember back to the last time someone advocated budget cuts at your city, township, or schoolboard level. Didn't some shameless political hack start screaming about having to cut police patrols, close firehouses, and shut down libraries?
 
The devastation...

they are talking about is to their campaign contributions I think:p:p:p

I do like how a 10% cut is 'devastating' to a military that spends(not even counting the war budgets) more than the next 20 national militaries combined. What alarmist nonsense:mallet: And Mitt wants to increase the budget to make sure we spend a good solid 5% of GDP-why that number is so important I don't know.
 
Yeah, it's totally absurd. While I think that defense should be at least half of the federal budget the entire budget should be less than 5% of GDP. How anyone can call themselves a conservative while advocating increases in any portion of the federal budget, especially defense, is beyond me.
 
I grew up in a military family, was in the military after college...

and when I argue cutting defense at work I am met with spits and sputters from co-workers who stammer out mindless sentences like

"but... Ir.the... what about Iran!?!?!?!?! The, you know don't you?... it, because, well you clearly just don't know!"

I cannot fathom why they can wax poetic for the whole shift about cutting every program the government has ever started, but mentioning defense simply snaps their brains. When defense comes up on the table, numbers simply don't matter to them, and they start throwing out terms like 'the constitution' as justification for the military spending that is off the charts.
 
And I've found that many of those same kinds of people will agree 100% that we have too many overseas bases, are in too many countries and the job of the military isn't to nation build. But don't cut the military!:wacko:
 
The military is...

among other things a very effective wealth transfer system that helps out pretty much the whole socio-economic spectrum. It provides benefits to big business and their stockholders at the upper end and employment opportunity at the lower end and career building everywhere in the middle(one of the real scandals of the current military is the sheer number of high ranking officers who go out on very generous pensions). Every Congressional district by law must get some cut of the Pentagon budget, so there is built in incentive for House members to protect it. And there is always a plausible, if virtually impossible threat, lurking somewhere, around which the arguments for a dominant miltary can be rationalized. It is kinda perfect from the governments point of view from both sides of the aisle-it redistributes wealth for the liberals and appeals to the hegemonic tendencies of the conservatives (or neo-cons anyway).
In fact it might be best to rename it the Department of Hegemony and be done with it. The Founders had a healthy suspicion of standing armies for good reason.
 
Bet if the police raided....

an average TP protesters house they would find a lot more firepower than a bucket of 'projectiles' (which by the way I have sitting out in the back yard from some constructon cleanup). There wasn't much non-peaceful activity here with the Occupiers-the worst part was the mess and the surly attitude of the cops to anyone walking past the encampment-typical macho posturing for nothing and a lot of 'em too, I counted 40 standing around the already fenced off park days after the Occupiers left.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top