A blogger calls the question

I think it's a little more complicated than this, but only a little (4.00 / 1)

I remember some of the racist crap Ashcroft pulled as Governor of MO.  When pointing it out to someone, I got accused of calling him a racist.  I thought about this for a moment and said "I don't know whether or not he is a racist, and nor do I care.  What I do know is that he has no problem with using racism to his own political advantage."

Many of us know that the teabagging hype is not about any sort of grassroots uprising, but it's about top-down attempts at dragging people into the protests, disguised as grassroots.  The proper term for many of those in attendance is "useful idiots."  

Many of the useful idiots are racist.  Not all are, just as not all of the people attending Palin rallies were racist.  They, however, had no problem with racism.  They were willing to use it to their own advantage.

Similarly, there are many in the GOP who might not give a damn whether or not Obama is black, but think nothing whatsoever of using his blackness against him.  Does that make those GOP members racist?  Who gives a damn?  Whether you are personally racist or willing to support racism as a means by which to grow your agenda (whether for policy or personal purposes), the end result is the same: you give comfort and support to racists.


juliewaters.com

---

by: JulieWaters @ Sun Apr 26, 2009 at 12:15:24 PM CDT

This is the sort of thing I'm thinking (0.00 / 0)

Turkana is onto something, to be sure. But its just not as simple as his analysis. Things involving people rarely are.

undercaffeinated

---

by: odum @ Mon Apr 27, 2009 at 08:08:30 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Yeah, it's true (0.00 / 0)

The Gingrich bunch who support the wealthy and the Corporate Reich have a plan to Take Back Congress in 2010 (oh Gawd!).  This will be presented as a 'revolution' of the working class and middle class to save America from a Socialist conspiracy of equality that will eliminate all the the old style privileges that give a white skin its currency (like, Holy Crap! Now the highway cops are stopping white people driving to work!  What NEXT?!).  It will have a nasty anti-gay, anti-minority spin, along with a whole new bag of Patriotic bullshit--Sodomy, Socialism & Surrender.

The racism of it is simply what already exists, but with a black President the implication is:  "He's going to tax you out of your job, one way or the other--there will be no way to get ahead, nothing to trickle down, and he's going to give your taxes, your jobs, your future to Blacks, Gays, Hispanics, MUSLIMS, the lazy worthless welfare-feeding masses who hate everything America (corporate rich white America) stands for.  Why the dirty &%#!@ bastard!"

Yeah.  And this with a black President who has bent over backwards so far in reigning in his so-called radical agenda.  Wait til Obama DOES something radical.  Oh Boy. Screaming Teakettles, Batman!

Fear & Loathing in 2010.  Democrats better get a spine transplant and the 'socialists' need to come out of the closet.  The Rights of the Rich.  Jesus Fuck!  Next they'll be talking about the Rights of the Assholes (as in ASSHOLE PARTIES).  This is why I'm a coffee drinker.

---

by: PeteySweety @ Sun Apr 26, 2009 at 13:13:35 PM CDT

Tea Party Truth (3.00 / 1)

Hello, my name is Marek Hirsch and I helped organize the Montpelier Tea Party.  I live in Burlington, am educated, as white as they come, yet in college my most active extracurricular involvement was with my campus's Black Student Union.

Yes there are going to be those who see such an event as a vehicle for venting right-wing extremism and come holding Take back Vermont signs, but clearly that has nothing to do with a Tea Party, but clearly I cannot prevent them from coming, no more than you can prevent the ISO from coming to Lefty events.

You have accused me of being an insecure racist, well I shall challenge that you are misinformed and are guilty of using preconceived assumptions to make the claim.  Still not convinced?  well then I invite you to watch this youtube clip of myself and another Tea Party founder/keynote speaker denounce Foxnews, the entity which accoring to you, forced me to create the event.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...

---

by: Marek Hirsch @ Sun Apr 26, 2009 at 22:16:17 PM CDT

Then why? (4.00 / 3)

I'm willing to take you at your word.  I'm also concerned about hight taxes for wasteful spending.  Although, I'd guess my idea of wasteful spending is different from most of the tea baggers, and that's why I wouldn't have been caught dead at one of those rallies - which leads me to the obvious question: If you're not part of the rightwing, racist, gay-bashing, socialist-fearing, pro-corporate government, Faux Nooz-watching rabble rousers, why on earth did you organize an event that was being hyped and promoted by exactly those people?  

-M

---

by: Mike Eldred @ Mon Apr 27, 2009 at 07:33:07 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Questioning (0.00 / 0)

Thanks Odum:  It has been pretty obvious all along that a great part of the right wing vehemence against Obama is because he is black.  The unthinkable has happened in America: a black guy is now running the white man's country. And the bigotry and racism that lie so close to the surface of the American consciousness is running scared that the black guy will do to them what they have done to his ancestors.  It is never openly expressed, but it is there.  

Marek: I was at the so-called tea party, though did not arrive until late due to other committments.  It was interesting.  I am still not sure what these tea parties were about,except for a fear of "socialism," over capitalism, which has gotten us into the grim state that we are in now, though I wondered how many of those tea-partiers benefitted from socialistic-type programs like medicare, Catamoun, social security, FDIC, etc. and also wondered what the tea partiers would do without these programs, since capitalism greats more poverty for the many. What better way to rouse the masses to protect corporate interests than resurrrect the old scare tactics of socialism.  

Smaller government.  Or, rather corporate government.  No one really told me what that meant.  Bush sure never made the government smaller.  The lobbyists ran the government.  Private enterprise. that's why, for instance, the health care system is broken.  But people like Gingrich want to preserve this at all costs because it makes so much money for them, and it would not be so good for them if there were a public health care system. So what better way than have the grass roots speak for them.

Anti-bail-out.  Yes, I agreed on that score. I hate to see AIG get my money for a bail-out from what they did, but it should be remembered that AIG backs up many pension systems and the like.  

I saw your youtube thing. I liked how you denounced Fox News.  But just because you denounce them does not mean that Fox news was not behind these tea parties, in however subtle ways.  Remember who Fox works for.  

When you wake up each morning look around you.  It might be the last time you get to do it.  

---

by: Watercloset @ Mon Apr 27, 2009 at 03:02:37 AM CDT

Reply (0.00 / 0)

Thank you for your response.  In my post I commented as little as possible about what the Tea Party was about because I really didn't want that to be the subject; if I were to have mentioned any buzz words like 'fiscal responsibility' then people would have jumped all over me and missed the point.  You brought it up and very respectfully, which I appreciate and do not disagree with much that you said, but I won't comment specifically because my main message is as follows:

At large, Foxnews did heavy promotion for the tea parties and some states welcomed them more than others, but lets focus on Vermont.  There was no Fox coverage there, we denied the GOP a speaking spot and everyone who organized it was part of the Campaign for Liberty, a movement that evolved from Ron Paul's campaign, the guy who Foxnews desperately tried to tank during the primaries.  All of us organizers hate NeoConservatives, hell I interviewed Charlotte Dennet on my show so she could talk about using the VT Attorney General position to charge George Bush for murder, then got many people to vote for her.  You may also enjoy www.bankstrike.com which my co-host and I have organized and he spoke about at the Tea Party, encouraging people to put their money in Credit Unions instead of Banks.

My point is that Fox had absolutely nothing to do with the VT Tea Parties coming into existence.  Trust me, no one finds it more frustrating than I do when this gets convoluted by things out of my control, but I'm glad I can get on the old GMD and clear it up.
 

---

by: Marek Hirsch @ Mon Apr 27, 2009 at 07:20:23 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Caution to the wind for the Rump Party. (4.00 / 1)

The GOP was more careful about doing their full monty of hate when they were winning .
Cornered,angry and losing ,all the cards are being played until something starts to work  

---

by: BP @ Mon Apr 27, 2009 at 08:43:59 AM CDT

It's So Simple, Really (0.00 / 1)

And, with that, all who dissent are pegged as racists and bigots.  I thought dissent was patriotic.  No more, I see.

---

by: GreenMtBoy @ Mon Apr 27, 2009 at 13:46:56 PM CDT

well, principled dissent is one thing... (4.00 / 1)

temper-tantrums and whining are quite another.

(Roll around on the floor with Fox and Friends and their camp followers, don't be surprised when you're covered with poo and fleas...}

---

by: Undamned Yankee @ Mon Apr 27, 2009 at 15:18:56 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

So, Who's the Arbiter (0.00 / 0)

of what dissent satisfies your quality control standards?  Who makes those decisions when the other party is in control of things?  Was "long-haired commie pinko" an apt descriptor which should have been allowed to stifle dissent?  And, truly, are you saying that citizen protests from the other end of the spectrum have been fine examples of good manners and well-articulated reasoning at all times?

---

by: GreenMtBoy @ Mon Apr 27, 2009 at 15:33:42 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

this is 'murica, I'm the Decider (4.00 / 2)

and, let's face it, you're tea-baggin' with some awful, ugly, mean, stupid, rage and hate-filled folks.  

There is really nothing to arbitrate about that.

If you want to be taken seriously, pick better people to hang out with.

---

by: Undamned Yankee @ Mon Apr 27, 2009 at 18:47:42 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Dissent... (4.00 / 1)

or rather the concept of has nothing to do with patriotism. One can love their country and sit idly by as it commits atrocities (as so many so-called "patriots" have done in the last 8 years), or one can hate their country and attend rallies. "Patriotism", especially the "like a 4-year old loves his mommy" patriotism so prevalent on the right has nothing to do with dissent.

You can read more of JD Ryan at five before chaos. But why would you want to?

---

by: JDRyan @ Fri May 01, 2009 at 13:59:45 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Back to the post... (0.00 / 0)

It's not that he's Black, it's that he's smart and popular.  I watched my liberal colleagues have the same reaction to Reagan's popularity, while never, ever figuring it out.  Reagan was as passionately hated by the left as Obama is by the right...and it got us absolutely nowhere.

They truly are just throwing up on the wall and hoping something sticks.  Everyone is ignoring them except the companies who sell commercials for 24 hour news.  (Notice their ratings are way down too).  We've got too many problems to worry about BS, and 90% of Americans realize the Limbaugh set has nothing more to offer them.

"Liberal" doesn't work anymore; "Socialist" and "Fascist" were tried (and these are the people who complain about our schools?)..."gay-bashing" is losing steam.  They have no ideas, and yet their masters require them to get elected so as to deliver cash to the masters' companies...you could almost feel bad for them if they weren't such awful people.

---

by: Tom C @ Mon Apr 27, 2009 at 15:40:57 PM CDT

Yes, but... (0.00 / 0)

Reagan was popular, not smart.

You can read more of JD Ryan at five before chaos. But why would you want to?

---

by: JDRyan @ Fri May 01, 2009 at 14:00:20 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

tea (0.00 / 0)

It is not so much that Fox had much to do with engendering these so-called tea parties but how, in general, they worked them up and how they are using the tea parties   I knew that Fox had nothing to do with the Vermont bash, and also knew that Fox tried to tank Ron Paul, as the big money was going to and coming from McCain/Palin and Fox always listens to the big money.  Paul was, perhaps, too conservative for them or else he did not preach the correct line as the gop and company wanted.  In any case, Obama is president and Paul never got far with his campaign.  

I was glad that you and the other organizers hate neoconservatives.  I was glad you interviewed Charlotte Dennet on your show.  Bush is a murderer.  Being a socialist:) I am not especially fond of neo-conservatives either and have found it quite difficult to associate neo or conservatism with this thing called freedom, whatever it is, and the tea partiers did not add any change this.  

When you wake up each morning look around you.  It might be the last time you get to do it.  

---

by: Watercloset @ Tue Apr 28, 2009 at 01:43:01 AM CDT

oops (0.00 / 0)

whoops that was "to this."  

When you wake up each morning look around you.  It might be the last time you get to do it.  

---

by: Watercloset @ Tue Apr 28, 2009 at 01:43:43 AM CDT

You have to be kidding me (0.00 / 0)

Who is buying this line of crap.  

I will agree there are racists out there and they hate Obama, but thees jackasses hated him before he was president.  

I dislike Obama because of his political philosophy, not his skin color.  

I also dislike Hilary, so I must be a male chauvinistic pig?

I also dislike Bill Lippert, so I must be homophobic?

Next time you appose anyone who has a different view point than you, you need to be careful because if they are different that you (race, color, creed, sex) you probably have a deep seeded hatred for that persons genetic make up.

Before you blast me, I believe that I need to disclose that I am 1/4 American Indian.  If you disagree with me or my views , you must hate one of the most abused groups of people in the history of this country.  

---

by: grumpyvermonter @ Tue Apr 28, 2009 at 08:28:05 AM CDT

'sokay. (0.00 / 0)

I knew there'd be folks who simply wouldn't be able to engage with Turkana's thesis. As I said, IMO, there's some truth here, and there's some unfair generalizing here as well. People are complicated.

When you lay something out this provocative, its interesting to hear people's opinions - but its equally interesting to see who just flips out and why.

undercaffeinated

---

by: odum @ Tue Apr 28, 2009 at 08:38:30 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Just for the record... (0.00 / 0)

...President Obama is not black. He's bi-racial. Are Krs-one or Professor Griff racists, too, because they don't trust Obama? You can tell a lot about a person by the friends they keep or the people they trust. Obama's cabinet doesn't raise any eyebrows with any of you folks?  

It's interesting that the HuffPo and DailyKos talking points are being used to discredit the Tea Parties. If you have a real problem with the Tea Party let's talk about it on an issue by issue basis. For all of the insightful digging I've seen here it would behoove the readers to engage in a discussion with those of us who saw an opportunity to use the Tea Party to shed some light on larger issues. Issues which should be at the top of everyone's list (no matter what your political ideology) of real threats to the people-- such as the Federal Reserve, a much too powerful federal government which infringes on individual civil liberties and states' rights and true economic competition.

As Marek pointed out we are not neo-conservatives and as such the idea that we are aligned with them because of our involvement in the Tea Party is a very shakily drawn line. In fact, I encourage folks to study the history of neo-conservatism. These folks are not true conservatives, but statist warmongers who have succeeded in muddying the lexicon to discredit real statesmen on either side of the political divide (such as Dennis Kucinich-classical Liberal, and Ron Paul-classical conservative).

Honestly, I wish people would try to find a common ground and work out from there. The name-calling serves no purpose but to further divide us on issues where we could find agreement and really effect a change that would truly benefit the people.  

---

by: Jessica Bernier @ Tue Apr 28, 2009 at 08:54:19 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

yup (1.00 / 1)

You can tell a lot about a person by the friends they keep or the people they trust.

...and your tea-bagger compadres are, by and large, a pretty loathsome lot.

---

by: Undamned Yankee @ Tue Apr 28, 2009 at 15:13:00 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

and seriously (2.50 / 2)

...anyone gullible enough to be taken in by the liars, carnies, hucksters and propagandizers behind the recent tea-bagging traveling circus is not someone I'd want to find common ground with.

---

by: Undamned Yankee @ Tue Apr 28, 2009 at 15:43:12 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

OK (0.00 / 0)

let's talk

what exactly do you mean by "true economic competition"?

---

by: Doug Hoffer @ Tue Apr 28, 2009 at 15:56:53 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

For starters (0.00 / 0)

The govt shouldn't be subsidizing anything.  

---

by: Jessica Bernier @ Wed Apr 29, 2009 at 05:58:50 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

interesting (0.00 / 0)

so would you get rid of the mortgage interest deduction?
what about getting trucks to pay the full cost of using roads & bridges? is it OK to "subsidize" rail the way we do with roads & highways?
how about the "public" airways? would you make the networks pay for use of the spectrum?
and what about technologies & products created from federally funded basic research?
are we not allowed to "subsidize" affordable housing?
what about special property tax rates for farmers who are at risk from sprawl?

would you support changing the ski area leases for public lands? (a real scam)

and what about other types of tax avantages?
is it OK for the gov't. to favor certain types of activities by levying taxes on "bad" stuff?

since there are so many externalities not included in the price at the cash register, how do we force the market to internalize those costs? how are American manufacturers supposed to compete with cheap labor? I do not believe it is necessarily in our best interests to always let "market" forces allocate resources; it is absurdly inefficient to ship "cheap" goods all over the world; and the "market" likes coal but it's killing the planet; and so on

and where do you draw the line on legitimate gov't. activities? is it OK for local or state governments to build and operate telecom networks or must they be private? the line between public & private has moved many times over the last 100 years (roads & water systems used to be private -- and thanks to Reagan & Bush that attitude is back in vogue; do you support that?)

your approach sounds good but the "market" is so screwed up that "true economic competition" is not realistic

and why isn't it OK for VT to use its public funds to buy VT goods & services? the Commerce Clause (supposedly about "true economic competition") says we can't; as a result, our biggest export is cash; must every state (and many countries) be neo-colonies in the service of the "market"?

"true economic competition" is a construct; the economy is not an end but a means to an end; if it doesn't serve the interests of the people, we have a right and an obligation to make rules that ensure a more equitable and healthy outcome

while I agree that many subsidies are inefficient and lead to inequitable outcomes, I'm not prepared to say that communities should give up their right to create better systems; the "market" does some things well but when it fails we have to step in and protect ourselves; recent events are only the latest reminder of that

---

by: Doug Hoffer @ Wed Apr 29, 2009 at 18:32:43 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Ok, (0.00 / 0)

Deductions aren't necessarily subsidies. Funding for services and infrastructure isn't necessarily a subsidy.

The only airwaves that are truly public are the ones used by cb and Ham operators. Playing devil's advocate here, but why shouldn't the networks pay for use of the spectrum? They charge for advertising and in some cases a subscriber's fee. "Public" broadcasting like VPT and VPR aren't really public. Underwriters are still getting advertising time. And now everyone has to have a cable or satellite connection to watch tv. That's not free.

Federally funded "basic research"... Is that like using propanalol on soldiers? Or infecting a specific subset of the population with syphilis? Or playing around with flu viruses? Where in the Constitution does it say that the federal government should be involved in funding basic research?

Subsidizing housing... good question. I'll be vulnerable and honest. I haven't given that much thought. If the govt wasn't subsidizing other things would it be necessary?

What does "farmers at risk from sprawl" mean? Are you getting at the increase in property tax rates due to development? There are already different tax rates for properties depending on their use. I guess the question would be have the increased property taxes become so oppressive that the farm is no longer viable. And then you could also ask how tax rates = subsidies. Not taking in the first place doesn't mean giving.

Again, I'm not an expert by any means so I don't really know what the whole deal is with ski areas on public lands. If you care to give me your take I'm willing to hear it.

It is absolutely not okay for the govt to levy taxes on "bad" things simply because they are "bad" or because they want to encourage an alternative. This was exactly what I was getting at when I posted my comment above.

American companies could compete with cheap labor if the govt didn't encourage businesses to leave this country to seek labor elsewhere. I agree with your sentiment, Doug but this is the way I see it-- an onerous tax system, like a naggy girlfriend, will sometimes cause one to look elsewhere for fulfillment. If Jim can take his "business" elsewhere and not have to deal with cleaning up after himself, he just might. Especially if that girlfriend is constantly asking him for money for clothes and electricity and then spending it on a private investigator to spy on her neighbors. (I know the analogy is a little rough but I think you catch where I'm going.)

At the same time, if the govt subsidizes businesses or technologies it would like to encourage it creates a false price structure which further damages businesses which don't get the subsidy. An oppressive tax structure encourages businesses to look elsewhere to operate. It also reduces the amount of money people have to spend which would naturally stimulate the economy resulting in further economic decline. This puts further pressure on the govt in terms of decreased revenue and increased pressure on state programs which provide services for people who find themselves affected by this cycle.

Ideally the consumers would determine the viability of a business based on a natural cost-benefit analysis. I say ideally because we haven't had anything like that in so long it would take a completely broken economy to make it work. As long as we continue to allow the Federal Reserve to dictate monetary policy and as long as our govt appeases the international financial elite with promises of perpetual debt through bailouts and deficit spending it will never completely break down into a system that forces local exchange. It is not in their best interests for the market to function freely.

Can you link me to where exactly you're finding this information about the Commerce Clause? That's interesting and I want to look into it. Constitutionally the states have more sovereignty and power than the federal govt but they have failed to exert that sovereignty, instead trading it for federal debt-money.

How have we stepped in to protect ourselves when the market has failed? You have to remember that we have not had a truly free market in a very long time. Because of the way we subsidize and guarantee certain industries-- banking for instance-- the market cannot work properly. These types of businesses take advantage of the protections guaranteed them by the taxpayers, engage in risky, criminal behavior and suffer no consequences. Every bailout is like giving the taxpayer a roofie and a condom and sending her back to the frat house.

I think where we differ (and correct me if I'm wrong in this assertion) is that you see the solution being more intervention by the govt to control economic development where I see the opposite. We both want the same thing we just disagree on how to get from point a to point b. Personally I look at the inefficiency and corruption in the govt and the amount of intervention which has already taken place and I'm not encouraged that more government intervention is the answer.

---

by: Jessica Bernier @ Thu Apr 30, 2009 at 10:52:57 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

deductions (0.00 / 0)

aren't subsidies??????

what?
the mortgage interest deduction is currently up to about $150 billion per year
if it's not a subsidy, what is it?

funding for roads isn't a subsidy? when the money goes to one form of transit as opposed to another, that's a choice -- and a subsidy

the airwaves belong to the people; not charging for them is - yes - a subsidy; the networks should pay for them (heck, we don't give water away for free do we? actually, we do give it away for some bottled water companies!)

your examples on basic research miss the point; there is almost nothing of technological consequence that didn't start with publicly funded research (often the military - e.g., computers, internet, biotech, etc.)

subsidizing affordable housing is necessary because of market failures (low wages & the commodification of land)

yes, "There are already different tax rates for properties depending on their use" - those are subsidies; and the problem has nothing to do with "oppressive" property taxes; the "market" has decided that sprawl is more valuable than farms; why shouldn't the community get to make a different choice?

ski areas: their lease payments are based only on lift ticket revenue from the leased parcels; but ski areas make their money from real estate, which wouldn't be nearly as valuable if they area didn't have all those trails; it's a joke

if you don't want to tax "bad" things, how will the "market" ever respond to all those nasty externalities? what is the real cost of all that gasoline? what about a foreign policy based on oil (talk about a subsidy!)? what about global warming? where the hell is the "market"?

exactly how does the gov't. "encourage companies to leave the country"? the companies leave because of cheap labor, not US policy; there is nothing "onerous" about US corp taxes; hell, most of the Fortune 500 pay little or no taxes; that's just a terrible misconception; corp. taxes have declined significantly in recent decades and it hasn't stopped offshoring

what exactly is a "natural cost-benefit analysis"?
once again, you're assuming all costs are included in the price; not a chance; and what of societal benefits? is it better to burn "cheap" coal than to switch to renewables? is it wrong for VT to tax us to pay for efficiency when the utilities wouldn't do it? should we not have zoning and just let the "market" decide?

the states do NOT have more sovereign power than the federal gov't.; the Commere Clause prevents states from doing anything that interferes with interstate commerce; you should like that but I have very mixed feelings about it

moreover, treaties like NAFTA seriously inhibit state sovereignty in the name of "free" trade; that's BS too; it doesn't serve working people; just corporations

yes, I think we need more gov't. control over certain aspects of the economy; the idea of a truly "free market" is based on deeply flawed assumptions (see above re. externalities)

finally, the "market" doesn't give a shit about equitable outcomes; indeed, gross income inequality is an unavoidable result of the market; as I said, we should not be in the service of the "market", the economy should serve us

---

by: Doug Hoffer @ Thu Apr 30, 2009 at 21:58:44 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

No, not necessarily (0.00 / 0)

Ok, lemme see if I'm getting this right. You're saying we shouldn't pay for roads because we don't pay for other forms of transportation? Like Amtrak? Huh? I don't quite understand what you're getting at. There are certain things that govt should fund. Infrastructure is, in my mind, one of those things. I don't consider that a subsidy but a function.

Water is a human right.

Ok, so you don't mind a bloated defense budget for the sake of research. Personally i don't want my tax dollars going to test the effects of depleted uranium on humans. You're not going to get anywhere with me taking the defense route. It's too big and needs to be cut significantly. Our foreign policy needs to take a different shape altogether but that's a conversation for another day.

In some areas housing subsidization may be necessary. But why is it as far as your definitions are concerned acceptable to subsidize low income housing but not give a mortgage interest deduction? Because if people own a house they must be rolling in the money? I think not. There are many homeowners struggling to make ends meet.

Cheap labor is cheap why now? You're saying that our govt doesn't demand employers contribute to certain insurances? I'm not saying it's right or wrong but do Chinese employers have these same requirements?

I'm not a fan of sprawl. I've been here for 13 years and where there were beautiful open spaces there are now ugly, way-too-big houses. I'm an avid organic gardener. I don't have all the answers like you guys seem to and I'm not afraid to admit it. What I know is that there needs to be a balance between affordable housing, a working landscape (that in addition to food farms just may include a factory and a wind farm that's visible from a ski-area).

You're right, though, the market did make a choice in terms of housing v. farmland. But that market was fed by a demand. Where are people going to live?

If all costs aren't factored into the price then there are some sort of subsidies offsetting the cost. Would I rather see renewable energy like wind or solar? Absolutely. I can tell you from first hand experience what the regulatory system and big money interests did to me and my neighbors when we were ready to put wind turbines on our land. The market did decide, the energy was already spoken for but a few people interfered with the market.

I thought you were referring to a Commerce Clause in the VT Constitution. Excuse me. Why should I like it? There are many ways we can keep money in the state. My friend just wrote an excellent piece on nullification and marijuana legalization on the American Socialism for the Rich blog.

I completely agree with you about NAFTA. It's not about free trade at all. Interestingly this was and is something that conservatives have always been opposed to.

Your premise is flawed. A free market economy is an economy which does serve us. Corporatism does not. I think you are confusing the two. And income equality isn't a human right.  

---

by: Jessica Bernier @ Fri May 01, 2009 at 08:34:44 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

jumping to conclusions (0.00 / 0)

and missing the point

I never said we shouldn't pay for roads; the issue was subsidies; if you don't see that auto travel has been deeply subsidized at the expense of alternatives I'm not sure what else to say

I certainly didn't say I supported a bloated defense budget; again, the issue was subsidies (in this case basic research); you ignored the central point; taxpayer money for basic research is responsible for computers, the internet, medical research, etc.; those are all subsidies; the only issue is how best to use the money; you started this by saying we shouldn't have any subsidies

once again, I never said we shouldn't have the mortgage interest deduction; why are you putting words in my mouth? I asked you if it was an acceptable subsidy; you seem to think it is; so you continue to back away from your main argument (no subsidies)

labor is cheap when supply exceeds demand; labor is also cheap(er) when the gov't. doesn't have adequate workplace safety rules or allows children to work; would you prefer we act like China?

farmland vs. housing: you said "where are the people going to live"?
building housing on corn fields is "cheaper" than building in towns & cities (at least until taxpayers have to pay to extend water & wastewater systems, add more police & firefighters; etc.); the "market" doesn't care about sprawl so communities create zoning to manage growth; that is a direct gov't. intervention in the market; so as someone who hates sprawl, do you oppose zoning too?

conservatives oppose NAFTA? evidence please

the "free market economy" serves us?!
you mean like with private health insurance?

"income equality"?
I pointed out that capitalism always results in significant income inequality and you take that as a call for "income equality"
quite a leap
so how much inequality is OK with you?

---

by: Doug Hoffer @ Fri May 01, 2009 at 10:09:37 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Oh, am I? (0.00 / 0)

I didn't mean to. Sorry about that.

I never said the auto industry wasn't subsidized.

You think that innovations in science couldn't occur outside of government subsidized research? It's a question, not an assumption. I'm saying that private research is every bit as productive as govt research.

I guess my statement was too broad. I'll cede that to you. However your definition of subsidies isn't completely accurate when you are counting tax breaks as subsidies. Like I said before giving and not taking aren't the same thing.

I didn't say I'd rather we "act like China". What I'm saying is that there are restrictions and obligations that businesses using American labor are bound by that businesses in other parts of the world are not. That in itself makes labor less expensive. Go back to my analogy of the naggy girlfriend and see what I'm saying. Does it make it right? Absolutely not. But that doesn't mean that we can't come up with a solution. We could impose higher tariffs on foreign made goods. But heavens no, we can't enforce any sort of protectionism. (I'm not implying you think that, I'm pointing out a fault with the current mindset in Washington.)

I'm not a huge fan of zoning but I recognize its value. Because of zoning I can't trade my lawnmower for a sheep. I have a cabin in a town with no zoning. If my neighbor decides to turn his land into a camper graveyard that's his prerogative. Do I like it? No, but that's part of the no-zoning deal, isn't it.

Conservatives against NAFTA
http://citizen.typepad.com/eye...

Liberals for it:
http://dissentingjustice.blogs...

Furthermore, many prominent Democrats supported the measure, including Senators Joe Biden, Tom Daschle, Bill Bradley, Christopher Dodd, Ted Kennedy, John Kerry, and Joe Lieberman; Representatives Nancy Pelosi and Bill Richardson also cast votes in favor of NAFTA. President Clinton also lobbied heavily for the legislation, and according to Obama's campaign brochures and advertisements, Hillary Clinton did so as well. Although a slight majority of Democrats voted against NAFTA, the measure still received support from many Democrats, including some of the party's most powerful and respected figures.

More conservatives against it:
http://www.ontheissues.org/Cel...
and

   "We favor the abolition of the Office of Special Trade Representative, and insist on the withdrawal of these United States from the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT), the World Trade Organization (WTO), and all other agreements wherein agencies other than the Congress of these United States improperly assume responsibility for establishing American trade policies."
   Aug. 11, 2008 Chuck Baldwin

If there was more competition private health insurance would be a more viable option. But I haven't really made up my mind about health care. What I do know is that a handful of decades ago people didn't have the types of insurance that we have now. They could go to a doctor when they were sick and pay for a service. On the one hand I think insurance is a racket. On the other, it's nice to have when you can't pay for a catastrophic situation. A wise man once had this to say about health care: http://www.lewrockwell.com/pau...

Well, what were you getting at by criticizing capitalism for income inequality?  

---

by: Jessica Bernier @ Fri May 01, 2009 at 13:31:09 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

one more time (0.00 / 0)

autos: so do you like auto subsidies? or do you just refuse to admit that 60 years of spending on roads instead of rail represents one of the largest subsidies in US history (and perhaps the most destructive)
remember, you started by saying all subsidies are bad

for the most part, "innovations" are not the same as basic research; some privately funded research has produced important results; but private research is generally not available to other researchers -- and that's a huge difference; when Monsanto pays universities to research ag-related biotech (like BGH at UVM in the `90s), they can refuse to publish, choose not to share embarrassing results, etc.
it's about profit instead of science; and frankly, a lot of private research leads to "innovations" that we don't need (e.g., endless drugs instead of prevention) and some private research that is quite harmful and often wasteful; that people buy the eventual products does not mean they enhance the common welfare; hell, big pharma spends more on marketing than on research
the bottom line is that corporations generally will not spend money without some likelihood of a profit down the road; THAT is why basic research (the foundation) is funded by the gov't. -- and it represents huge subsidies

I really don't understand your failure to understand why tax breaks are subsidies; this is not a question up for debate; frankly, you may be the only person I've ever known who doesn't get this

if VT gives $2m to one company in the form of tax credits or payroll tax refunds (VEPC), that clearly favors one company instead of another (or instead of spending the money in ways that benefit many many businesses)

giving a company a pass on taxes is exactly the same as giving the company free land; both have value

as for NAFTA, I suppose citing Pat Buchanan meets the test, but just barely
I meant elected officials; how many Republicans voted against NAFTA? in fact, 34 Republican Senators voted yes and only 9 voted no (including the ever wacky Strom Thurmond and Gus D-Amato)

I think the train has left the station on the "we only need more competition" in health care; no one seriously believes that anymore; insurance companies have one goal - to make money; that's why they spend so much denying coverage; I'm unclear why you (apparently) think it's OK to siphon off billions for profit and admin. instead of focusing on actual health care; and BTW - most health ins. policies will NOT protect you from a catastrophic event; that's why so many bankruptcies begin with health care

re. income inequality: do you deny that gross income inequality is a natural result of capitalism? if so, how do you explain the staggering amount of poverty in the world (including in countries rich with natural resources)?
and do you think it's OK for the top 10% of Americans to have more wealth than the lowest 80%? if the mass of people had meaningful security an lived with dignity (and without fear), it might not be a problem; but that's not the case; there has been a massive shift in wealth from working families to the rich over the last 25 years; is that OK with you?

you're entitled to your views about the "market" but the evidence is overwhelming that it has not worked to the advantage of the majority of Americans; you say making it "truly free" will make it better; hogwash; it will only make it worse

unless and until you can resolve the problem of externalities, your model will always fail
only the gov't. (or groups of governments) can control / harness capitalism; you need look no farther than global warming to see the result of externalities not included in the price  

---

by: Doug Hoffer @ Fri May 01, 2009 at 15:26:38 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

refreshing (0.00 / 0)

Well, I am glad that Fox news had nothing to do with Vt's little tea party fiesta.  Fox has certainly trumpeted the tea party line, though not in Vermont (I do not have a television, but visit their site a bit to read their version of the news and saw no other mention of Vermont other than that a party was happening here), whether or not they had anything to do with starting them.  

It was also refreshing that you and the other partiers "hate neoconservatives," though I was wondering how neo neo was since the partiers were all out there screaming against liberals and socialists.  As a liberal and a socialist it was rather fun to be the marked one out there, though I could not get there early enough to really get into it.

When you wake up each morning look around you.  It might be the last time you get to do it.  

---

by: Watercloset @ Thu Apr 30, 2009 at 01:34:33 AM CDT

Well, you know (0.00 / 0)

..one person can put an event together but can't control what people bring to it. I suggest that you not judge a whole crowd of people because one person is holding a particularly offensive sign or saying something that makes your ears want to bleed. Us tea partiers agree on a lot but there are a lot of issues where we don't. Personally I try to look beyond that. For me it's about building bridges not blowing them up.

Thanks for your nice comment. It made me smile.

---

by: Jessica Bernier @ Thu Apr 30, 2009 at 19:19:29 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Bridges (0.00 / 0)

Which bridges are you bridging versus which ones are you blowing up:)?

Jessica, I was actually amused at the situation.  I hold my own and then some in good-humored verbal scraps all the time over a few beers with tea partiers, or tea party sympathizers, and neo-conservatives as well.  I am even the sole liberal in some really conservative blogs.  If anyone had said something to make my ears bleed their ears would have bled just as much in return, so I was not worried about it.  Being in the enemie's camp so-to-speak, I would have expected those reactions and signs:) If I had been able to get there earlier it would have been even more fun:)

 

When you wake up each morning look around you.  It might be the last time you get to do it.  

---

by: Watercloset @ Fri May 01, 2009 at 00:26:02 AM CDT

I'm trying to find a common ground (0.00 / 0)

where we can focus on some of the things we agree are a problem and work from there. What you were implying (or maybe what I mistakenly heard you saying) was that everyone at the tea parties was screaming about liberalism. Socialism and liberalism have become handy slogans to rally around but the words have lost meaning.

The spectres of liberalism and conservatism are so skewed now that who can define them anymore? I consider myself a Constitutionalist. There's not a thing on the Populist Party platform I disagree with. When I take the World's Smallest Political Quiz I'm a left libertarian. Out of the two major parties, I'm best aligned with the Republicans.

If you come to the next one (I don't know when or where it will be yet) I organize, please come say hi. I'd love to meet you.

---

by: Jessica Bernier @ Fri May 01, 2009 at 08:50:07 AM CDT

[ Parent ]