Festive Friday
Jenson Hagen
I'm thankful to live in this country. We have such amazing wealth and opportunity. I try hard not to take any of it for granted. I'm thankful for all the progressive minded individuals around me, whether at work or at home. But I continue to get so frustrated with the current political trend, although that trend might be correcting itself a bit.
This has got to be the most outrageous thing for me: $8 trillion in national debt. $8 trillion. I'm up late. I'm really tired. It's Thanksgiving day. But I got the most obnoxious email bad mouthing Democrats from this hick relative of mine, and it just irks me. I wrote back.
We're almost at $8.1 trillion. The lucky number is $8.2 trillion. Congress has the ability to keep raising the spending cap, but the current cap is set at $8.2 trillion. I'm sure as they near this number, President Terd will be out selling us on the idea that we need to spend indiscriminately during times of national distress, i.e. failed war and relief effort. It's called buying yourself a few approval rating points.
"We need to spend whatever we can to make sure that what is spent is spent on things we need to be spending money on like the hunt for Al Kaieeeda and the Guld Coast" as said by President Terd.
If you want a good cry or just political fodder, just look at our debt.
|
0 readers like this.
Like it!
|
Nov 25, '05
I believe that the problem here is that no one is willing to do what is needed to end this mess. The Democrats don't want to be seen as soft on defense so they won't cut the defense budget and about 25% of that budget goes to keep some 280,000 U.S. troops in about 120 foreign countries. That's a lot of dough over the years. And even though Bush leaves a lot to be desired he's not much worse than Clinton. They're both about the same. Just ones more obvious than the other. For what it is worth Bush should be impeached, then arrested and upon conviction for his crimes sentenced to work as an orderly for those he has injured and maimed in this war. Michael
Nov 25, '05
The Democrats cannot appear to be "soft" on defense.
For anyone that has not already read Lakoff, I highly recommend it. Most dedicated liberals and progressives already have. While not the "Silver bullet" to save the Dems, he makes some solid points about framing and models of how people think.
The Dems have to win by actually proposing ways to be fiscally responsible... not historically an easy think for them to do, but they are more poised to do it than the Republicans are now. Our military needs to be made more lean and efficent and used for humanitarian efforts. That's good morally and good for PR.
"The American Empire" will fall on its own, with or without help from either party. All empires rise and fall accordingly. It is a historical fact. They nearly always fall because of economic reasons. The U.S. will be no different. What the Dems can do to lessen the effects of this is starting to lead by example. Using our influence to bring parties together for peace and giving of ourselves all over the world will do wonders to turn the tide of terrorists. Unfortunately, we give very little and take far more. By changing this dynamic the Dems can bring us on the road to remaining a leader in the world... abeit a more equal and respectful leader than we are today.
As to Bush and those spend thrift Conservatives... those that have difficulty balancing a checkbook... I would strongly suggest that our next President in '08, God willing... a Democract signs on to the International War Crimes Tribunal. This way, we can be better assured that not even the US is above International Law.
Nov 26, '05
Jenson,
You're not going to get very far with your "hick" relatives when you tell them about President "Terd" (by the way, it's spelled "turd") and his funny Southern accent (because don't we all know that Southerners are just stupid).
Nov 26, '05
Let's cut Jenson some slack. No way does anyone have to resort to tired Rebel-baiting stereotyping to point out the risibility of GWB's speech. He is just a carpetbagger anyway!
Nov 26, '05
I actually think Jenson's juvenile language is very appropriate in this case. Our current Administration is so immature, reactionary, timid, emotionally vulerable, and shallow that the debate almost can't be held on any other level. The sad part, in my opinion, is the view the people running our country have of the rest of us. They actually believe we'll fall for their crap, and I think they are seriously shocked that their BS isn't working on us.
Nov 26, '05
Neither party has the collective balls to reduce overall spending.
This administration makes feeble efforts to slow spending growth while allowing the deficit to balloon.
Democrats would opt to spend as much (or even more) but hike taxes to lessen deficit growth.
It's a game of pick your poison. In this case, fiscal conservatives reluctantly pick the one that keeps their taxes lower. (libertarians too, even though they find themselves stuck in a "queer" political-marriage with the religious right).
Eventually, we'll have to face reality: current spending cannot be sustained and the appetite for higher taxes on the middle class will not emerge.
Increase taxes on the uber-rich? Watch them hire attorneys to avoid the pillage or emigrate to a tax haven. Same with corporations. Wouldn't help in the long run if you could enforce it anyway.
We're a few years away from facing the sorts of tough decisions GM is making right now, but reality will eventually assert herself. Federal spending must be significantly reduced (foreign and domestic) and we'll probably have to sell some assets (federal lands) to pay down the national debt.
If we had a balanced budget amendment at the federal level ("thank-you" Sen. Hatfield) we might have avoided some of this. One of the inherent flaws of a representative government with unrestrained borrowing and spending powers is that maintaining sound fiscal policy is rarely an expedient route to greater political power. Getting elected and re-elected requires many campaign promises - often more than are possible in the best of times. The promise to reduce spending is usually the easiest to ignore.
Nov 26, '05
-Pancho,
You cannot cut your way into a better country. Hurricane Katrina showed us that.
Fiscal conservativism is a recipe for selfishness.
I do agree that we need to have campaign finance reform that offers candiates a set amount of Federal funds and THAT is IT.
As to law suits to avoid paying taxes... just try it. The rich would not likely be rich if they lived in any other country. The owe their wealth to the opportunity that this nation has provided them. If they don't like a raise in taxes then they can move away.
There is a supreme lack of morals in this nation with regard to taxes and wealth. I am frankly sick of it! Take the "Me generation" stuff and transplant yourself a heart. Perhaps, if conservatives used their "God given gift" of emapthy they would not resort to bombing people, having people choose between healthcare and food. The SIN here is that the poor are NOT evil. They do not deserve their lot in life.
I pay a higher percentage of taxes than most people and I DO NOT complain because I am smart enough to know that we all benefit when we act together as a family, not raving individuals looking for the latest deal on the market.
Nov 27, '05
There is a supreme lack of morals in this nation with regard to taxes and wealth. I am frankly sick of it!
Sounds like a pretty selfish statement to me.
I'm frankly sick of the rationalization that your feelings of empathy are sufficient moral authority to compel your neighbors to contribute to your favored social purposes.
The whole labelling others as "selfish" for an unwillingness to contribute the fruits of their labor to wasteful government programs is just insipid marxist bluster.
The SIN here is that the poor are NOT evil. They do not deserve their lot in life.
Very revealing strawman. No one calls the poor evil, so you invent an absurd position to rail against.
The poor in the US have a better standard of living than the majority of people in the rest of the world. They don't lack for food or available work. Education is offered for free. They have on average,a far easier lot in life than the immigrants who settled and built this country. Any person with basic skills can get a job paying enough to feed and house himself. More people own property (their homes) than ever before.
Your beef is more about relative poverty than any true measure of poverty. If most of the world was eating hamburgers you would be bitter with the few people eating steaks.
Nov 27, '05
Ed,
No, sorry, I don't want to cut slack. As long as progressives don't challenge small minded stereotyping of "hicks," "rednecks", Southerners, suburbanites, and Christians, we're doomed to be a shrinking minority party isolated in urban areas.
Bill Clinton, Al Gore, Jimmy Carter, and LBJ were all Southerners. Would we similarly make light of their accents as a way to say "hey, those Southern boys sure are stooopid, ain't they!"
Yep, so stupid that they beat us in two straight elections and control the House and Senate. Never, ever underestimate your opposition. It may make you feel superior, but it won't win you a national election.
Nov 27, '05
paul wrote:
No, sorry, I don't want to cut slack. As long as progressives don't challenge small minded stereotyping of "hicks," "rednecks", Southerners, suburbanites, and Christians, we're doomed to be a shrinking minority party isolated in urban areas.
The problem with this type of statement is that it assumes that progressives lack personal familiarity with those stereotypes in real life. At one point in my life, someone trying to be PC called me out for my use of the terms "trailer trash" and "white trash." I told said person that since such stereotypes existed In Real Life in my family, my usage of such terms was as valid as an African American calling himself "nigga" or other in-group terms which would be viewed as derogatory if used by an outsider. It's not a wise idea to make assumptions about people using these terms--it very well could be that you're looking at a progressive person struggling with the best way to communicate with a family that is locked into such a mindset.
Now, of the above-listed stereotypes, the only one I can't claim personal knowledge of and relatedness to is the Southern label...and, by golly, I miss that by about five generations. I do admit to the redneck label m'self, especially every fall around the first of October. I used to be a hick, and by golly, I'm a blue voter who faithfully shows up at Mass every week and even more often than that when I feel the need to do so...and most of my relatives are proud suburbanites (shudder, give me a good backwoods hick lifestyle any day!).
That said, sometimes it's those of us who have left such lifestyles who react so intensely to them. I love my relatives dearly, but with some of them, political discussions cannot be held in a rational fashion because....well, they just can't be. Not with people who have not learned to disagree about opinions but still like, love and appreciate those who disagree with them for who and what they are.
In other words, I don't think stereotyping is the real problem here. It is the current inability in modern life for people to agree to disagree, and learn to compromise and work effectively with others for the common good. As long as personal power and "I've got mine" are more important components for political life and participation than the common good, I think we're going to see this growing polarization expand--and not for the good of anyone.
Food for thought: Where are the Clay Myerses, the Tom McCalls, the Bob Packwoods, and other moderate Republicans of yesteryear in today's Republican party?
Why is it that the Democratic Party is supposed to be the tool of moderation these days?
Just what would happen if we got a real, honest, fercertain rip-snortin' Populist Progressive Farmer Labor Democrat that could appeal across the party divide?
(Hint: they wouldn't make it out of the primary lineup. BTDT. One reason I won't follow the party seduction dance to work on campaigns any more. The only campaigning I'm interested in these days has to do with what might happen if I get a four-legged whinneying critter that is blessed with the talent, the soundness and the mind to go for the Worlds...and who has time for that, anyway? Not to mention the money...campaigning a reiner, cutter or reined cowhorse ain't cheap. But, compared to the current political environment, at times it seems to be a lot more doable than running a primary gauntlet at any level past the dogcatcher with a candidate I can believe in).
Nov 28, '05
-Pancho,
"There is a supreme lack of morals in this nation with regard to taxes and wealth. I am frankly sick of it!"
Actually, my "friend" this is not a lack of morals. A MAJORITY of the country feels that you are in the WRONG. You are arrogant and foolish.
"The whole labelling others as "selfish" for an unwillingness to contribute the fruits of their labor to wasteful government programs is just insipid marxist bluster."
This is TYPICAL of conservative jerks like you to call Democrats Marxists. Have you ever taken a political class whatsoever? What about history? Do you even have a degree? Oh, I forgot it is in law, right? You enjoy suing people, right? What sort of morals does that entail?
Pick up a book and READ it.
"The poor in the US have a better standard of living than the majority of people in the rest of the world. They don't lack for food or available work. Education is offered for free. They have on average,a far easier lot in life than the immigrants who settled and built this country. Any person with basic skills can get a job paying enough to feed and house himself. More people own property (their homes) than ever before."
Yes, the poor do have a better standard of living than in most places in the world. Finally you got something right. But, it is all according to perception isn't it? Have you EVER been poor in this country?
Education IS NOT free? What the hell school did you go to? I am 30,000 in debt from school. Did your Dad put you through school or what?
My immigrant family were a part of those that built this country. So, don't try thinking that you are someone special. We are ALL immigrants this nation... that is... unless you are Native American.
You are right about relativity. You are probably relatively smart on RedOregon. Not on here.