| About Us | Contact | Donate | User Blogs | Login |
What Makes the Tea Parties Effective in the Long Term?
Submitted by nedryun on Sat, 04/18/2009 - 09:52
in
One of the drums I've been beating for weeks is that the Tea Parties need to be seen as just the starting point of something long term, not just as one day protests. What I'm trying to do with After the Tea Party is just that: help give legs to make the parties more long term by challenging people to run for local office. I was reading Wesley Pruden's editorial in the Washington Times yesterday, and he was making much the same point I've been making: if we want to maximize the results of the parties, and the hundreds of thousands that attended, if not over a million, we need to channel the passion into getting people to run for city councils and school boards. I applaud the organizers of the Tucson Tea Party for taking the energy from their party and focusing on the city council races this fall.
Think about the 800 or so cities that had tea parties on the 15th. What if those tea parties did the same and decided they were going to focus on taking over their local councils and school boards? Why not? You would have a ready made volunteer base for starters.
And think about the fact that usually half or more of our government spending every year is at the state and local level. I know in 2005 that 53% of government spending was at the state and local level (you can make the argument that federal mandates and some federal money are pushed into state and local to be spent there, but the point is, there is a great deal of government spending that takes place at the local levels). What I'm trying to do is tell people, "Channel the passion, move from protesting to implementing, and thru AftertheTeaParty, American Majority will help empower you to do that." I think it would be great if all 800 cities focused on their local government, all ran on 3-5 of the same basic points: Transperancy, Fiscal Responsibility, and Accountability for starters.
I think if the organizers of the local parties start thinking long term, they can make the parties the beginning point of something very, very good.
(3 votes)
- nedryun's blog
- Login or register to post comments
Promos
Recent blog posts
Skip MacLure
0 comments
In between
0 comments
dean2
0 comments
Skip MacLure
9 comments
Paleo-Skeptic
6 comments
Ironman
0 comments
JMR
0 comments
Warner Todd Huston
0 comments
Skip MacLure
0 comments
Skip MacLure
1 comments
Recent comments
-
4speed
-
classicliberal2
-
4speed
-
In between
-
dean2
Search
Links
The American Scene
Conservablogs
Election Projection
FiveThirtyEight.com
Jonathan Martin
Marc Ambinder
Megan McArdle
Patrick Ruffini
Pollster.com
The Foundry
Government Bytes
Race 4 2008
Real Clear Politics
RedState
Ross Douthat
Soren Dayton
Infrastructure
America's Future Foundation
Americans for Prosperity
Americans for Tax Reform
American Majority
Club for Growth
Election Journal
Heritage Foundation
ATR Blog
Leadership Institute
NewsBusters
Sam Adams Alliance
Republican National Lawyers Association
Republican Liberty Caucus
Washington Watch
National Taxpayers Union
NetRight Nation
Good Lefty Blogs
MyDD
Open Left
Swing State Project
Comments
check out "next step"
Great to read about a thoughtful plan in action. Check out my blog "next step" We in Des Moines IA will be open minded to any and all ideas as to how we keep this momentum going and grow our numbers. Also ways to get the "mainstream" off their butts and out there running for office, getting involved and making the kind of changes we need in America. You can also check out our website www.desmoinesteaparty.com real interactive site giving many options to share ideas. Please help us to network with the rest of the Tea Party supporters and keep this revolution alive!!
I don't see the relevance....
...to city councils and school boards.
While I agree, the ballot box is where we must go to effect less government, less taxes and more liberty, our main political focus must be on building up our numbers. Once we have the political numbers needed to successfully effect change, we can effect change anywhere, the local school board, the state governorship, your Congressional delegation, even the presidency. It all boils down to numbers.
Lastly, it actually doesn't do any good to get involved here with wedge issues. They will only weaken the movement at this stage. Our first and only political task before us is to grow in numbers who fully intend to kick all those who supported TARP, the Stimulus package and Obama's budget out of office as soon as possible. I can assure you, once people see we are serious and determined to get this job done, dedicated and talented public office seekers will step forward in numbers that will truly astonish all and be a welcome breath of fresh air to the election process as a whole.
ex animo
davidfarrar
Why not do both?
People who are fed up with the current options can try to grow their numbers and start looking for people to run for local office at the same time. They're not mutually exclusive.
And despite your assurances to the contrary, I don't see capable politicians spontaneously appearing to run at each level of government. They need to start preparing themselves now, and start laying the foundation. When you elect people at a local level, you start developing a farm team that can not only provide (or deny) support for higher-level officials, but they can start working their own way up. They can be used as a primary threat against the bad apples in their party and to fill open seats.
And as Ned pointed out, they can start having an actual effect on how much is spent by various governments in this country.
Bryan, been there. Done that
Of course we can do both. But allow me to transport you back a few years to when Reagan first came on to the political scene espousing less government, less taxes, more liberty. I dare say, there were more than a few of us, "fiscal conservatives," who said, "Great. What we need to do now is elect other political leaders from the local school boards to Congress who espouse less government, less taxes, more liberty and all will be well." It didn't work out that way. The forces of more government growth, more taxes and less liberty were simply too powerful at every turn, at every level.
Knowing what we now know, the challenge before us is to first recognize the fact that we need to adopt a different political course of action than we did in the past. A different political course of action that will successfully confront the systemic nature of unrestrained government growth, paid for by increased deficits and the irresponsible printing of money, resulting in far, far less liberty.
As luck would have it, we now have in our hands a new, powerful political tool, if used correctly, can empower We, the People, in a way that was never dreamed of in Reagen's time. The Internet, and mass people-to-people networking.
As Newt Gingrich recently pointed out at the GOP Tech Summit -- well, here; I'll let you listen to him. I think the section I am eluding to starts at 7:22
Our challeng now is to use this new tool to empower We, the People, in our democracy. We need to give We, the People, in our democracy a stronger voice, stronger than the special interests and the federal and state employees' unions. We, the People, need to be allowed to speak, and most importantly of all, We, the People, need to be heard.
In order for that voice to be strong enough to be heard, we must all come together for one purpose. I propose We, the People, speak now as one voice and declare all members of Congress who supported TARP, the Stimulus Package and Obama's budget "personae non gratae" and work to have them removed from office.
ex animo
davidfarrar
Do you really think Newt means what he says?
David, I watch the vid from 7:22 onwards, and I have to ask - do you REALLY think that Newt means what he says? He talks about 2-way communication and enabling true self government. Have faith in the American people, listen to the American people, learn from the American people.
Well, check out the Polster.com average of the right track/wrong polls. The "right track" response was flirting with SINGLE DIGITS last fall; it is now in 40's.
What is that if not the American people saying to Newt, teaching Newt, that they have growing confidence in the current situation?
But of course, there is no way that Newt can accept that message, becasue it means that his party has no where to go but even further down. So if he does in fact hear it, he is just going to go back to his lair and come up with a scheme to try to somehow turn it on his head.
Newt is the epitome of one-way, top-down messager.
He's being paid a lot of money right now by the insurance industry to lobby against health for reform. I'm pretty certain that the American people did not tell him that is what they want.
NextRightNando...
...I don't know whether Newt means what he says or not. I am not even sure it matters. Go back and listen to the tape and take Newt out of the picture and put in anyone you would like. Try Obama, try Capt. Kangaroo, it doesn't matter who says: "The internet is a vastly powerful, 2-way communicative devise that will allow us for the first time in history to contempt true self-government. And that the key to this endeavor is to first have faith in the American people, listen to the American people, learn from the American people"...
What part of that don't you agree with?
Look, no one is right all of the time and no one is wrong all the time, with the possible exception of my mother-in-law. But just because you think someone isn't worthy of your adulation, doesn't mean s/he can't be right some of the time. I happen to think Newt is wrong about Card-Check, but I think he hit the nail on the head with this particular point of view.
ex animo
davidfarrar
I do agree with it.
I just don't think Newt does. And any effort that he gets involved in is going to turn out to be pure astroturf.
Well, hell's-bells, man!
That was my only point. All we need is 10,000 websites scattered throughout the country, all dedicated to throwing the rascals out, and whether you are a Republican or Democrat public office-seeker next time around, the message will be heard.
ex animo
davidfarrar
fly in ointment.
how do you stop your movement from being taken over by liberals or other factions?
Also, yeah, we know that the bailouts were bullshit. They also were necessary to prevent wholescale destruction of our economy. Kicking out people for acting on their principles seems to be a bad expression of political will.
But our movement is ...
...made up of all political persuasions: conservatives, liberals, independents. All see the steadly increasing power of the state as a clear and present danger to their individual liberty.
ex animo
davidfarrar
Missing Step Two
Look, I do think that in many cases, tossing out politicians who misbehave is a good thing. But the problems with the government are mostly systemic -- the bad incentives in place will act on anyone who takes those offices. So tapping the energy of this movement to throw out one crop of bums is not going to fix the system.
You need to elect people who understand the need for systemic change, and punishing those who went astray in the last year or so isn't going to ensure that they'll be succeeded by good leaders.
In short, I'm asking for the second step in this progression:
Bryan, the second step in the process...
...as well as the third and the forth, will be to throw the bums out who support bigger government, more taxes and less liberty.
I don't think anybody is suggesting that the grassroot believers in less government, less taxes and more liberty should just dry up and blow away after they have thrown out the bums who voted for the bailouts and the stimulus. I would like to believe that many now see the political need to do something more, something different than what we have tried in the past, which is what you are suggesting we do.
I would like to believe a whole new voice is presently being created within our political system that isn't a part of the political class itself but remains separate and aloof from partisan politics. I would like to believe what we are creating here with the Tea Party movement is an independent "We, the People's Voice," constantly there, constantly screaming out for less government, less taxes, more liberty. It is to the creation of this new "We, the People's Voice," empowered by the Internet, that will be the new element in American politics, and thus work to fulfil Frederis Bastiat's political prophesy: "For when people's true political aspirations are accurately reflected by their political parties, all will seek the common good."
ex animo
davidfarrar
No, really, is there a second step?
I share Bryan's concern. "Throw the bums out" is a notable idea, but there has to be something concrete there to replace bad governance for it to lead to good governance. As much as some people might like Shakespeare's rebel's call to "kill all the lawyers," in Cambodia that didn't work so well when Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge replaced the lawyers and business leaders that they killed. Not that we would have that extreme of a situation here, but if we don't have something good to replace "the bums," we'll just be trading Democrat bums for Republican bums. That might be enough for Gingrich, but, as an independent who actually cares about fiscal responsibility, I need more than that.
Saying that "throwing the bums out" is the first, second, third, and fourth step of the process doesn't answer Bryan's very pertinent concern: what do we propose instead? If we're calling for fiscal responsibility, how do we make sure that we actually ensure that new representatives actually are fiscally responsible? Before this election I thought that greater transparency would help a lot; that hasn't seemed to do the trick with this administration, though. What else can we offer?
Take it further
Take it one step further - what IS fiscal responsibility in the current economic crisis? Hoover thought he was being fiscally responsible in 1929, with the result that by the time FDR replaced him GDP had declined 25%.
But Hoover wasn't being fically conservative.
That's the joke of this whole matter. Pres. Bush when asked why on earth did he supprt TARP? He stated he didn't want to be another Hoover. But the record clearly showes Hoover was every bit the big deficit spender that FDR was in an attemp to halt the depresstion. All FDR managed to accomplish by his deficit spending was to turn a depression into the Great Depression.
ex animo
davidfarrar
Setting the facts straight (again) on Hoover and FDR.
The United States budget was in surplus in 1929 and 1930. In 1931 (Hoover's last full year) it did turn to deficit, but not becasue of "deficit spending" as you mean it - it turned to deficit because the onset of the Great Depression caused Federal tax receipts to drop by nearly a quarter. In contrast, spending from 1930 to 1931 rose by just 7.5%.
Hoover tried to stop a relatively light depression...
...by vastly increasing government spending on programs that were only just getting started when he left office. FDC, being the good democrat that he was, took up this practice and expanded it, thereby turning a general, once every-few-years, normal economic depression into the Great Depression.
ex animo
davidfarrar
Why is it that whenever a conservative president screws up
Why is it that whenever a conservative president screws up the response from the right is "well, you see, he wasn't conservative ENOUGH". AKA "no true Scotsman".
Under Hoover 20% of the banks failed, and unemployment went up to 25% and GDP contracted by about 25%.
I'd like to see you cite some facts about this late and stealthy intervention of his, but hey - lets assume it is true. The fact that he did too little too late does nothing to burnish the claim that his original, fiscally conservative response was the correct one - afterall, it is what generated the hideous stats in the previous paragraph.
Facts don't matter
Nando, facts don't matter.
The fact that our longest period of fiscal growth occured when the top marginal tax rate was far higher than it is now. The fact that after WWII we had far more debt than we have now, which was paid down and kept below 40% of GDP until Reagan got in office.
The fact that were one of the least taxed developed countries.
The fact that Reagan and W ran up debt during economic growth, instead of cutting back on spending.
The fact that cutting taxes is basically spending money.
What can I say, except that...
...some of your facts are not ture and those that are, we fiscal conservatives addressed them at the ballot box in 2006 and 2008.
ex animo
davidfarrar
BWell...
If We, the people, can come together in sufficient numbers to throw the bums out, We, the people, can certainly come together to elect their replacements.
As I mentioned earlier, during the Reagen years it was almost universally accepted that all we had to do to achieve less government, less taxes and more liberty in government was to find leaders who believed in these political ideals and elect them to public office. It didn't work out that way. It will not be enough to simply elect fiscal concervatives from either party to public office. We need something more.
I think you should really go down and read JackinMichigan's post, entitled: "Ned - Try turning this around" for a wider view on this subject. He adds a really thought-provoking statement by Milton Friedman that is directly on point.
Milton Friedman
We, the people, must first obtain a voice before it can be heard.
ex animo
davidfarrar
The Friedman quote
The climate of opinion is being established already. But what should people who subscribe to those opinions do to achieve results? I don't see why they shouldn't be encouraged to become active and in many cases even run for office.
Without people operating within the machinery of the party and the government at some point in the near future, we're just relying on a vote every 2-6 years to toss out anyone who's misbehaved in the meantime. Given the meager results of previous "toss out the bums" elections, I don't expect that to bring about positive systemic change, particularly if we can't discriminate between the situations where we make progress by tossing out a bum, and the situations where the alternative is even worse.
Please, listen to what I am saying
Sure, we must support candidates who profess to support our Constitution. But as I have said, we have followed your suggestion during the Reagan years and it has proven to be insufficient. It has proven to be insufficient largely because we incorrectly assumed our party, the Republican Party, would also be committed to the political ideals of less government, less taxes and more liberty. As it turns out, such has not been the case. The Republican Party has long been taken over by its corporate wing, which has no intention of pursuing less government, less taxes, more liberty at the expense of its own political agenda.
As a political consequence of this fact, Bryan, it is not enough to simply elect like-minded politicians to public office. We must empower the voice of We, the people (using the Internet), within our political system to act as a counter-weight against all those special interests, including the corporate wing of the Republican Party, calling for more government, more taxes, less liberty.
ex animo
davidfarrar
Message received (I think)
I think I see what you're getting at, David, and where I have been misunderstanding you. I absolutely agree that we need a check on the Republican party, and I thought that you were advocating "throwing all the (Democrat) bums out" and replacing them with Republicans, not throwing the (bums of any party) out and replacing them with (decent candidates from any party).
My next question is, what metric do you propose to evaluate whether candidates are pro-liberty, anti-tax, and pro-freedom? Unfortunately we live in a world where real libertarian candidates are ignored and faux-conservatives who preside over welfare states and request enormous sums of federal taxpayer money for their states are held up as the new face of the party. The myth of Palin is so pervasive that I would imagine several on this board still think she's an ideal conservative candidate (I realize that I'll probably get flak from someone for this comment, so bring it and I'll be happy to answer back). Any ideas on how we make sure that we actually get what we're bargaining for, and not someone who is going to turn right around once they get to Washington and govern just like the last fifty years of politicians have?
Thank you, BWall for your kind patience..
...in working with my admittedly fledgling prose.
To answer your question: There was a time in American politics if an elected official didn't measure up to his/er constituency, s/he would pay at the ballot box the next time around. Now days, politics is no long controlled by the voter at the ballot box, but by the moneyed interests. Any one We, the people, manage to put into public office, will almost certainly be quickly overwhelmed by the moneyed interest. In short, there is no absolute way to insure responsible leadership from our elected officials once elected to public office. Seeking term limits will only increase the power of the special interests by empowering the non-elected state bureaucracies themselves. This is largely the reason why you hear "No taxation without representation " cries at these Tea Parties.
I address this very point and take a stab at solving it at my own web/blog at the National Online Party, if you would like to go there for more details. But I am in the process of changing my view away from creating a few very, very big (party) websites that would give its membership a voice, to a much smaller approach, involving vastly more numerous websites, perhaps 10,000 nation-wide, that would act to give We, the people, its voice. In such a case, diversity itself would be a very strength, rather than a structural weakness against exploitation by the moneyed interests. But the most important thing here is to come together by any means, by any measure, to re-empower the voice of the people within our political system, apart from the election process itself.
As luck would have it, we now have this wonderful new tool at our disposal to do just that, it's called the Internet. All we have to do is use it to give We, the people, its voice. Allow it to speak and it will be heard, even above the special interests.
ex animo
davidfarrar
The ballot box works just fine
In the 2006 Congressional elections 28 incumbents were defeated - 22 in the House, 6 in the Senate. In 2008, 31 House members retired rather than face the electorate; of those that stuck around, 4 were defeated in primaries and another 19 were defeated in the general. 4 incumbent Senators were also defeated, and that will rise to 5 when Norm Coleman finally confronts reality.
Seems to me the ballot box is working just fine.
Of course it would, to you!
To date, it has been the liberal left who has been the main beneficiaries of the fiscal conservatives registering this objection to deficit spending at the ballot box, both in 2006 and 2008. But generally speaking, the incumbent has the advantage, and that advantage has largely been paid for by special interests.
I suppose now you are going to tell us since Obama has done away with special interests and created Organize for America (or some such thing), there is no futher need to create an independent voice of the people to act as a check on our elected public officials?
ex animo
davidfarrar
Did you weep tears for Tom Daschle in 2004?
Can you point me to all the conservatives who concluded after the 2004 election that the ballot box just doesn't work any more?
I weep tears for Tom Daschle..
...every time I heard him speak...tears of laughter.
ex animo
davidfarrar
You have a tell
I have noticed that your gif content goes up as your argument strength goes down.
Not really.
But I do try and marry the gif to the subject matter as much as I can. But there are some post that are just so off-the-wall, it is virtually impossible to get the right gif.
ex animo
davidfarrar
Thanks back to you, David
I think your idea of multiple websites rather than a few party-sponsored websites is a great one. Personally, I also like the idea of bucking the two-party system with the establishment of multiple parties. Both the Republican and the Democratic party are sufficiently fractured to make this a reality, and electing representatives who feel responsible to their local constituents instead of a national monolithic party sounds like a better system to me.
Well, not quite.
I was suggesting the creation of the third leg of the political stool of our present partisan system as that being the voice of the people, collectively, as a whole, acting in an exo-political fashion.
As I see it, the problem facing our political system isn't so much caused by having only two major political parties as it is by neither of the two major political party's leadership represent the true political aspirations of their members. As an example, The National Online Party would not act as an actual political entity. To be politically effective, it wouldn't have to be. All it would have to do is represent the voices of ten to twenty million voters (1,000 to 2,000 voters at each of the 10,000 websites) to be politically effective.
I think your announcement of the death of the two-party system is a bit premature.
ex animo
davidfarrar
Probably premature, but a guy can dream, right?
I guess one thing that strikes me as a bit unworkable in your scheme is the idea of "the voice of the people, collectively, as a whole, acting in an exo-political fashion." That sounds a bit more monolithic to me than is realistic, since we are a nation of individuals. I would suspect that 10,000 websites would probably reveal at least 10,000 different viewpoints, and would begin to address the divisions that make our current party formations so awkward. To me it seems like a system like the one you are mentioning (which I like very much, please don't get me wrong here) would naturally lead to a decentralization of party power as exemplified in a multi-party system. We might not be ready for that yet, but hopefully soon.
Yes, you are correct...
...it does sound implausible to many who aren't necessarily up on good online deliberative groupware. But check out this remarkable website: DeepDebate. This is only one of many that can, in fact, take10,000 websites, each consisting of between 1,000 to 2,000 members, allow each member to speak, to be accurately heard and still arrive at one voice -- the wisdom of the crowds. Such is the power of the Internet.
My message is simple -- as Newt Gingrich rightfully pointed out -- for the first time in history, we have a tool that will actually allow the direct voice of the people to play a significant and meaningful role in our democracy. All we have to do is use it.
ex animo
davidfarrar
none of this will prevent blackmail
nor bribery of elected officials.
Ned - Try turning this around
Ned -
Try turning this around and see how it looks: The most important thing about an election is not who gets elected, but who gets defeated. If you get one or a few good legislators or congress members elected that doesn't change the dynamics and incentives within the system. But if one or a bunch of political establishment hacks get "taken out and shot," so to speak, that does change incentives, and behavior.
"I do not believe that the solution to our problem is simply to elect the right people. The important thing is to establish a political climate of opinion which will make it politically profitable for the wrong people to do the right thing. Unless it is politically profitable for the wrong people to do the right thing, the right people will not do the right thing either, or if they try, they will shortly be out of office."
Milton Friedman
I agree...
...JackinMichigan.
The first thing we need to do as We, the People, is raise our voice. If we could have 10,000 websites scattered throughout the country, all politically engaged and dedicated to stopping short the political careers of any member of Congress who supported TARP, the Stimulus and Obama's budget, we will change the political course of this country.
ex animo
davidfarrar
Next step Tea Parties
Having been to a Feb. tea Party, followed by an April 15th Tea Party, I think there was a "progression" that Grew, and will keep progressing, and Growing.
VOTE in the Next Election is a given for most attendees. The very subject of "Whats Next ?" was brought up at the Tea Party, and E-mail follow ups are also being sent around in that vein.
The 2nd Tea Party was a Family affair, lots of kids, families un-loading SUVs with kids, strollers, as Parents who work cannot attend without bringing the Family.
Each attendee talks about it, shows pictures of it, and then realizes at home, that the MSM isn't covering it.
Angry people being made more angry by the Media. Some Firends of attendees when told of the "Party" express Surprise, they didn't know there was one. This is the formerly "un-reachable non-voter" but also a BHO supporter in abstencia, being dragged along by friend of the Tea Party...-OR- having not attended they are thinking they missed something, and saying they wanna go next time.
Grass roots....AstroTurf...sea to shining sea....is bulding without the MSM participation...Cell phone Photos from the Tea Parties was THE MOST VISIBLE MEDIA event at the Tea Parties. Everyone was doing it.
Cell Phones, the NEW MSM REPLACEMENT.
TWITTER me This.......I was too busy to watch TV.
Govt. can only Grow, with Increased Taxes...Dufus
American Families don't grow easily with Taxes going up, and GOVT getting raises while the Economy is Shrinking along with JOBS. If your Dad ever came home and Said "I just lost my Job"....followed by "But we gonna Spend our way out of this, Lets Max out the Credit Cards and Buy a new car"......would that work.
Tea Parties are about the $ 3.5 Trillion Fed. Budget coming up in our near Future, and Americans are smart enough to know that TAXES have to go UP to pay for this. WAY UP.....Unstoppable UP....Next 10 Years UP, followed by Un-employment going UP
Don't Believe me....Look at California....A Model for a Failed State. NY is Next.
Get your head out of people who make $ 250,000 a in year New York.......There is a whole 'nother country there in fly over USA.
About California
California is an example of intransigent and incompetent Republican governance. The California Republicans have the gall to complain about governance when they are the problem in governing. The only 'problem' is Republican politicians.
Just curious, how did this happen????
My bet is that most people who are "tea baggers" make less then a $100k and pay little to no Federal income tax. Just an example if you are a family of four and make 250K you pay aprox 19% in federal income tax---your company pays for your health care tax free, you get tax free income from your muni bond investments. Now if you are a fund manager and get paid $10 million dollars in carried interest, you only pay 15% Fed income tax---lol---got to love America when you can fool the little guys into going out and protecting the rich people!!!!!!
I agree. It is a lot of hype.
I agree. It is a lot of hype. It is just one issue when we have a multitude of problems. But simplicity seems to move people.
I got ya surrounded .......above post goes here..
American Families don't grow easily with Taxes going up, and GOVT getting raises while the Economy is Shrinking along with JOBS. If your Dad ever came home and Said "I just lost my Job"....followed by "But we gonna Spend our way out of this, Lets Max out the Credit Cards and Buy a new car"......would that work.
Tea Parties are about the $ 3.5 Trillion Fed. Budget coming up in our near Future, and Americans are smart enough to know that TAXES have to go UP to pay for this. WAY UP.....Unstoppable UP....Next 10 Years UP, followed by Un-employment going UP
Don't Believe me....Look at California....A Model for a Failed State. NY is Next.
Get your head out of people who make $ 250,000 a in year New York.......There is a whole 'nother country there in fly over USA.
4speed
So your bitch is with the states not the federal government? Also where were you when The republicans were piling on to the national debt almost 5 trillion dollars under Bush---lol---you must be with the "hope you fail party" how sad for you!!!!
Gunthestops -
Here's a Clue for the Clueless....The Deficit in Pictures...
http://blog.heritage.org/2009/03/24/bush-deficit-vs-obama-deficit-in-pic...
I was using the States of California and New York, to model what is going to happen on the Federal Level if BHOle and Company follow the Yellow Brick Tax and Spend Road. I don't live in Califonia or New York, so I don't have a "Bitch" with the States.
Taxed
Enough
Already
Our economy is contracting.
Our economy is contracting. What is your solution?
Solution to the economy is "History" and what has worked
Cut Taxes. Look at what works Historically for Recessions, and what JAPAN did that did NOT work. DRILL your way out of it.....CHEAP ENERGY is the Answer to a Thriving Economy. vs. the alternative coming our way soon .......CARBON TAX you back to the Stone Age.
Bankrupt GM and Chrysler, before giving them BAILOUT BILLIONS, not Bankrupt them after firing the CEO and appointing a CZAR who is under Criminal Inverstigation.
Have BHO talk to someone smarter than he is on the Economy.....A FIFTH GRADER.
Yes, by all means lets talk about history and what has worked.
The things you mention are not solutions to the problem of a contracting economy with weakening demand and rising unemployment. We've been in this situation before. Look the following GDP data:
Year GDP % Change
As a reminder:
It's no secret you can increase GDP...
...by pumping in billions of deficit dollars into a depressed economy. But that doesn't mean you have successfully addressed the economic conditions that cause the depression in the first place.
We have covered this point numerous times before, the era of the Great Depression wasn't truly erased until well after WWII when the United States found itself the only major industrialized country left standing and the economy expanded to fill the gap.
I am sure you would agree, the U.S. isn't in that same situation today.
ex animo
davidfarrar