Ted Stevens: His Time is Done.
Former Sen. Ted Stevens of Alaska died this morning in an airplane crash. He lived a full life, and many will say he did much to expand the economy of Alaska through the use of federal dollars. For many Alaskans, Ted Stevens was a heroic political figure. All this true and said, Ted Stevens’ way of governing, seemingly appropriate for his time in the Senate, is now one of America’s greatest liabilities and challenges to overcome. May Ted Stevens and his way of governing rest in peace. The time for fundamental change is well passed due.
With every Congress person competing for federal dollars for their State or local district, is it any wonder our federal government is going broke faster than a bullet train in Japan? When Ted Stevens garnered support for federal dollars to be spent in Alaska, that money was to come from the pockets of every tax paying American of all 50 States, or, if deficit dollars were used, from the next generation's pockets in the form of higher taxes. Ted Stevens was a Republican. Ted Stevens was a conservative. If Republicans and conservatives follow Ted Stevens' legacy, there simply is no governing Party standing and fighting for fiscal responsibility, contrary to all the lies and campaign rhetoric to the contrary.
Over the decades, millions of bridges to nowhere with various names like 'invading Iraq', subsidies to religious charitable organizations, and 100's of billions of tax payer dollars paid to corporations like Haliburton for literally nothing of benefit to America or Americans in the name of national security, have put America's financial health into the Emergency Room. The steady growth of national debt combined with the steady erosion of real wages since the 1970's has brought America down to its economic knees. And from this position, America has to fight at every level of the public sector to pass legislation that will halt deficits and this lethal growth of national debt.
Yet, that is not how our representatives in State and federal governments view their position as political representatives. The vast majority of our representatives are still in Ted Stevens mode. They continue to place their political aspirations and goals, and the demands of their local constituents, ahead of the demands of our nation's economic health and well being, going forward. This is akin to taking aspirin to treat brain cancer. The headache may go away in the short term, but the cancer will grow unabated, and kill you. The State and local governments along with all who live under them, cannot survive a failed national government or, a failed national economy, unless they are very wealthy and have their passports intact to move to another stable country when America fails.
The political parties that promote their candidate's election and reelection are beholding to some very wealthy special interest contributors who pay for the campaign expenses. The politicians themselves are also beholding to other wealthy special interests who underwrite their election or reelection campaign expenses. These politicians are not going to voluntarily bite the hands that pay their election campaign expenses. This means our politicians are going to continue to rob from our nation's future to repay the special interest contributors whose agenda is focused on what gains them in the short run, between elections. This is Ted Stevens style governance, though, to be sure, this modality of governing has been shared by all but a rare few politicians, for decades.
Not since the first Constitutional Convention, the War of 1812, the Civil War, and the Great Depression, has America been in this position which demands that its elected leaders put immediate and political concerns aside, in order to address the potential failure of the nation standing before them. Unlike these previous milestones in American history, our current political system prevents our elected leaders from doing what they need to do to overcome the threat facing us all.
The political parties and politicians are going to spend more than a billion dollars buying your and my vote with deceptions, distortions, and manipulations, along with touting how they have, or will, bring federal dollars home to their local voters (raising our national debt even more, feeding the cancer.). Both Parties and their candidates will attempt to convince us that their opponents will kill America's future. Both Parties will lie about this. The simple truth is, both Parties are responsible for making the defeat of their political opponents the higher priority to saving this nation from ruin. And as long as they are fighting each other for power, they won't be rescuing our nation. They can't. To save our nation's future, they must work together on common ground for solutions which they will all stand by and defend now, and into the future. Working together in this manner stands in total and complete contradiction to each party's first priority of defeating their political opponents and blaming the other party for the nation's decline.
If America is to be saved from crippling national debt as well as crippling losses of basic government services like education, police, fire and emergency medical services, libraries, safe roads, water, and sewage treatment, and public health protection, it is the voters who will save it. The politicians haven't the political motivation to work together to save our future. When, however, if it is not too late, enough voters reject the reelection of incumbents from both parties, in effect rejecting both parties themselves outright, then, and only then, will the political parties and their politicians have the motivation to put their differences and political fights aside, and earn those anti-incumbent voter's confidence back, by addressing and standing by the solutions they create to save our future. It is only when the voters reject the politicians and prevent their reelection, that the politicians that do get elected will again work to represent the common demand of the people to save this nation in the long term.
The time for politicians manipulating the voters is over. Ted Stevens is dead. The time for voters to manipulate the politicians into doing what they should have all along, has come. The more voters reject the sitting politicians on Election Day, the more the politicians will embrace this common demand of the voters to save this nation's future.
(This article was previously published at Vote Out Incumbents for Democracy)
Posted by David R. Remer at August 10, 2010 04:00 PMThank you for that good article, David. 100% here. The voter is the only non-violent path out of this Corpocracy. I am hopeful, and the vibes I’m getting tend to bear out, that this midterm there will be a strong anti-incumbent vote. If we can remove 20-25% of incumbents in November that would be a good shot across the bow. If we could repeat that again in 2012 that would probably be sufficient to win the war. A long term process that will require voters stay engaged for the long haul.
ALSO, in parallel we should be constructing a new 3rd party designed for the 21st century. A unique party, founded in a few rules that will prevent the party from being co-opted by the money influence. A unique party in that it would provide for members to perform an oversight function for those members elected/appointed to official positions. This oversight will allow for elected/appointed members to be rejected from the party, under certain rules and situations, which gives the membership a way to keep their representatives focused on the party agenda. No John McCain moments allowed, UNLESS, that rep could sell party membership on his/her idea (communications).
I broach these questions in regard to long term anti-incumbency: how long can the electorate stay up for a strong anti-incumbency movement? Continuous and prolong anti-incumbency could possibly lead to a serious drain on skilled bureaucrats to manage the store properly. And, how long do we think it would take the Corpocracy to wrap their tentacles around the Capitol once the anti-incumbency weakens? Take a look at what Glenn Beck and Ms. Sarah is doing with the TEA Party as we blog.
We will need a unique 3rd party where Rep’s and Senators OF THAT PARTY can be rejected if they fail to carry out the Party agenda. No co-option please.
The Republic Sentry Party presents as such a unique party with ONE mission – abolish Corporate Personhood. That one mission allows for support from a broad political spectrum. IMO, no REAL legislation, use the HC bill as an example, can be accomplished so long as the Corpocracy exist and is running the show. Our priorities should be anti-incumbency first, followed by a unique 3rd party with a different political attitude – ‘they work for us’.
Otherwise, we have the Corpocracy we deserve.
David,
While I agree with your analysis of the problem, I’m not sure what you are advocating as a solution.
The problem with VOID is both in it’s message and name. It is a negative message. It offers seemingly oblivion as a solution. Nothingness. A void. Vote anti, no matter what.
That isn’t a solution. You seem to be saying the era of a federation of special interests is over. That only a nationalistic agenda can save us from ourselves. That is just as easily a message of tyranny, in my opinion.
Obama has the right message. “Yes, we can” is a positive message. It’s a winning message.
While the deficit and long term debts must be dealt with and nutty “defense and homeland security”, as well as double dealing politicians who’s goal is to get theirs must be exposed and the public educated about a national economic and fiscal agenda, a simplistic void message does nothing to advance that.
I worry we are making the same stupid mistakes of the thirties. This piece in the op-eds of the NYT is a good example of this. While I disagree with his analysis of unemployment which ignores structural unemployment that has always existed, his point is well made.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/10/opinion/10herbert.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=the%20horror&st=Search
The goal is serving the population, not accounting magic.
While VOID is an interesting idea that has some appeal to Tea Partiers and their ilk, I don’t think it has the right message to capture the hearts and souls of Americans. “We have nothing to fear, but fear itself”, or “Yes, we can”, is more along the lines of a campaign to change the American culture.
Posted by: gergle at August 11, 2010 01:54 AMgergle, thank you for the partisan spin. But, its bullshit.
Your comments are directed at a solution that will have negative consequences for your party. That is partisan. Your comments about Obama IGNORE his signing legislation after legislation full of pork spending, wasteful spending, and deficit spending. And he has been in office only 19 months. The man is following the Ted Stevens model of repaying political supporters at the expense of the nation and our future.
Spin your partisan bullshit somewhere else. It ain’t spinning this writer away from the truth and reality of the situation.
Also, if you are not clever enough to figure out that voting out an incumbent means voting FOR a challenger, I can’t help you there. If you can’t figure from all that has been written about VOID’s strategy and objectives, that getting more responsible governance from our politicians is the goal, then I can’t help you. After all, it was spelled out clearly in the article, which either you didn’t read, or literacy level didn’t comprehend. I know it was a complex sentence, but, not that hard to follow:
When, however, if it is not too late, enough voters reject the reelection of incumbents from both parties, in effect rejecting both parties themselves outright, then, and only then, will the political parties and their politicians have the motivation to put their differences and political fights aside, and earn those anti-incumbent voter’s confidence back, by addressing and standing by the solutions they create to save our future.Posted by: David R. Remer at August 11, 2010 08:41 AM
Roy, there is no question in my mind that a successful anti-incumbent movement will help open the door to a viable third party development. It will be up to that Party however, to appeal to the anti-incumbent voter’s common concerns and objectives. And that will be no small feat. Somehow, that third party will have to muster the disenchanted voter’s energies and contributions to force the Duopoly to revise laws and regulatory hurdles that were put in place to discourage and insure against the rise of a viable third party competitor.
The sneaky truth is, Democrats and Republicans used the public’s cries for campaign finance reform to erect enormous barriers to startup PAC’s and third party grass roots activism. The FEC and IRS have put together a bank breaking set of laws and regulations that make compliance nearly impossible for start up organizations relying on small dollar contributors to pay attorney fees to keep them in compliance and out of court.
Posted by: David R. Remer at August 11, 2010 08:51 AMDavid,
What’s curious is why you call my response partisan. I have no party affiliation. Nor was I even approaching the subject of real politik. Obama would not have gotten the legislation through Congress without pork. Nor would any other candidate. That’s a fact of the political system we have always lived in from the inception of this country. This has been true from George Washington forward.
The only electable opponent to Obama was John McCain and a continuation of the Bush policies which would have put us in a much more dire situation than we are today. Maybe you thought Ron Paul was the man?(sarcasm)
You rail against Obama. Who is the opposition candidate I should have or should vote for?
If you cannot understand the criticism of a negative message, then it may explain why you are not a politician.
Naivete won’t solve our problems either. I admire your attempts at educating people about politics, but I don’t find VOID about that. It’s simply cynicism run amok. It will encourage the already cynical, “they’re all crooks” attitude that currently discourages people to vote.
Posted by: gergle at August 11, 2010 09:25 AMgergle said: “Obama would not have gotten the legislation through Congress without pork.”
More partisan spin and bullcrap. The fact is, he didn’t even threaten veto, let alone actually veto, and await a less pork ridden version to come forth from his Party. In other words, HE DID NOT HAVE DEFICITS AND DEBT on his priority list, and neither did the Democrats in Congress. Those are just plain simple self-evident facts, Gergle.
To excuse such behavior on an assumption that is neither tested nor proven, reveals partisan bias. You don’t know that the legislation would not have been passed in a more deficit neutral fashion if first vetoed. You CAN’T know that. And history says, your assumption would have been proven wrong, and such legislation would have been more deficit neutral if Obama had vetoed the first versions on deficit grounds.
Bringing up McCain is irrelevant. Obama is president. His performance as president is what is relevant NOW! I voted for Obama. Doesn’t mean I have to approve of his irresponsible behavior toward my nation and its future. But, I am curious, why do you feel you need to? Only answer I can think of is partisan bias. And your reply reveals it, as you continue to make your assessments along partisan lines, McCain or Obama, when clearly, McCain is no longer relevant, and Obama is not even up for reelection in November.
There is nothing naive about holding incumbents responsible for the destructive government they provide while in office. That is what VOID is about. Holding them accountable for bad governance. Partisans are not capable of this, cognitive dissonance gets in the way. They feel they need to justify their vote by lying to themselves about the performance of those they voted for. Rather immature response to Democracy which absolutely requires maturity in holding representatives accountable for the government they provide.
May I also remind you of that most elementary lesson of democracy. The Vote is not required to keep kings on the throne. The vote IS required to remove kings from office. Our founders understood this when creating the House of Representatives directly elected by the eligible voters. Fearing mob rule of an immature electorate, they chose not to grant that vote to the people for the Senate or President.
Our parents and grandparents achieved universal suffrage without achieving the requisite education insurance required of democracy where universal suffrage has been erected. The reason for the vote is to hold them accountable by REMOVING them from office for poor governance and government results.
The electorate held Republicans responsible for doubling the national debt in 8 years, and here Democrats are about to double it again in the next 8 years. How you can hold the Republicans responsible and not the Democrats for the very same action, is immature beyond credibility, IMO, and supports my oft made arguments that universal suffrage without adequate civics education is a very dangerous prospect for a nation. Democracy is built around the idea of removing politicians from office. They will keep themselves in office if the people don’t have the vote. So, the vote is not required to keep them in office, its purpose is to remove them from office when their performance disappoints. Democracy 101 lesson ends here. Hope it helps.
Posted by: David R. Remer at August 11, 2010 10:09 AMDavid,
While I know you are not naive, this stand does indeed, seem very naive to me.
This approaches nihilism. Vote ‘em out until you elect an automaton or Superman that satisfies your every whim. Unlike you, I don’t believe deficits and debt is a priority today. This is the same mistake Roosevelt made in his first term.
What you, perhaps unintentionally, are advocating is populism. Obama has not done what you want, perhaps wisely. If you truly believe that a veto was wise in a time of crisis, then you lack wisdom, in my opinion.
Scuttling his presidency for the sake of achieving something that was counter productive, and by scuttling his presidency would not be enacted anyway, would be the act of an idiot.
There is a razor thin difference between your position on Obama and Sarah Palin’s. If you wish to campaign for her, good luck. I think you’ve become married to an idea that while it sounds good at first glance, is simply playing to the same nuttiness of the Tea Party.
Posted by: gergle at August 11, 2010 11:28 AMEasy to understand why voters wanted to elect the Senators rather than have them appointed by the ‘Corpocracy’. Many voters want to repeal the 17th amendment. But, thinking on it, we should not repeal the 17th UNTIL abolishment of Corporate Personhood law is achieved.
As I’ve oft posted, nothing good can/will come of government until the Corpocracy is removed by abolishing corporate personhood law.
A strong VOID action can impede the corpocracy, giving some time for one or more 3rd parties to advance, IMO.
Posted by: Roy Ellis at August 11, 2010 11:32 AMTo add to this, at least the Tea Party sort of claims to be a party of ideas.
If you want to usurp the current party system, you need to come up with a party that satisfies more voters than they do, or become active within a party and change it’s ideas. This will require compromise.
The Tea Party will be absorbed into the Republican Party.
A nihilistic vote no, will not achieve anything and will attract fewer and fewer people as the idea fails to achieve it’s stated goal.
Becoming a reliable education source or candidate endorsement agency seems more likely to succeed.
Posted by: gergle at August 11, 2010 11:37 AMWell gergle, you couldn’t BE MORE WRONG! To play host to the notion that our nation can survive a 20 Trillion dollar national debt at the end of this decade is what is NAIVE!
And Obama and Democrats have porked it up as if that reality DID NOT EXIST!
And you support and defend their actions. That is what makes America’s demise so incredible, that folks as intelligent as yourself will defend such irresponsible action bringing about our nation’s demise. But, it was thus in Germany in the 1930’s, and Russia in the latter part of the 20th century, and Great Britain, now not so great, in the 19th and early 20th century, and it was thus with the Greeks over the last 20 years of deficits and debt and tax evasion which has now crippled their economy and their citizens for at least another decade, and very likely several.
When intelligent people suspend their intelligence to subscribe to a team fan mentality in politics, bad things can, and will happen to that democratic nation. America had enormous growth potential following the Great Depression which it enabled for WWII. Such growth potential DOES NOT EXIST lie before America today. Waste, fraud, and abuse of tax dollars could be paid for in the 1950’s and 1960’s with a rapidly expanding economy and middle class. That is not the case today.
Why people refuse to acknowledge these facts today, speaks to the potency of political team sport mentality in democracies today, with the advent of mass communication controlled by very wealthy special interests. VOIDing incumbents is the answer and solution. Whether enough intelligent voters will acknowledge that in time, is the 64 tillion dollar question.
Posted by: David R. Remer at August 11, 2010 11:42 AMRoy said: “A strong VOID action can impede the corpocracy, giving some time for one or more 3rd parties to advance, IMO.”
A strong VOIDing incumbents grass roots action will also force the existing Parties to act more responsibly as the means to getting their votes back, again. That is the real pearl in this VOID oyster. We don’t have a decade or more to await the arrival of 1/3 of Congress being populated by a third party, before our national debt crisis implodes upon us. The existing parties have to begin acting responsibly on this debt crisis ASAP. Waiting for the Medicare deficits to grow the debt to 20 trillion or more by the end of this decade is national economic suicide.
Posted by: David R. Remer at August 11, 2010 11:48 AMgergle, apparently you believed Dick Cheney in the last decade when he said debt and deficits didn’t matter. Why are you not defending such Republicans today, since you utter the very same nonsense?
Posted by: David R. Remer at August 11, 2010 11:50 AMgergle said: “Becoming a reliable education source or candidate endorsement agency seems more likely to succeed.”
That is just more of the same status quo that has brought our country to its economic knees for the death blow with Medicare deficits over the next 9 years. Your comment ignores who is in control of the educational medium for voters, the Duopoly Party that is warring over politics instead of the debt crisis underway.
Posted by: David R. Remer at August 11, 2010 11:53 AMDavid,
Please park that straw horse in the barn. I said it wasn’t a priority today in the same sense you stated McCain didn’t matter today.
I never said deficits and debt don’t matter at all, and we had a recent exchange where I stated Obama’s intent to repair the economy as the first and most important step to dealing with debt.
I agree a strong VOID action would be effective. We’ll see how strong it becomes. My guess, not at all.
There was nothing partisan in my comments or any surrendering of my intelligence. I’m not always the sharpest knife, nor stupid enough to believe I am, but neither am I naive enough to believe there’s anything more than a partisan rise in the Tea Party from Republican malcontents like Dick Army behind most of the criticism going on in the electorate today.
The fact that the Democrats and Republicans have changed places in the South testifies as to how political machines use tactics to get elected.
Posted by: gergle at August 11, 2010 11:59 AMDavid,
Technically, in Keynsian economics, deficits don’t matter. I wasn’t among those that criticized Cheney for that comment.
Posted by: gergle at August 11, 2010 12:02 PMDavid,
Sadly, the generation of the Depression is gone. Their children and grandchildren, our parents and us live on. We have returned to the false Gods of get rich quick, and the Hooverites talking about balanced budgets in an economic whirlpool.
You are a source of education with this website, as many other bloggers are. While I don’t see this as advocacy of status quo, Radio wasn’t a strong source of education in the 30’s.
It is grassroot discussions that ultimately shape politics. TV is just the dumb cousin repeating it. Telling the truth, exposing the lies is the only way to educate people I know of. It’s impact is not immediate and often is only listened to after pain is experienced. We will have more lessons ahead, I am sure. Painful one’s. That is the reality of life.
Posted by: gergle at August 11, 2010 12:12 PMgergle said: “Technically, in Keynsian economics, deficits don’t matter.”
Except for the ‘minor’ FACT that they grow the national debt. Not a small oversight in these times of doubling national debt in less than 10 years. And it is currently on track for doubling again in less than the next 10 years. YES, DEFICITS MATTER. IF Keynes made such a blanket statement as deficits don’t matter, he is a fool. The fact is, however, Keynes never made such and unqualified argument.
gergle said: “I never said deficits and debt don’t matter at all…”
gergle previously commented: “Unlike you, I don’t believe deficits and debt is a priority today.”
Methinks thou dost reverse thyself.
Posted by: David R. Remer at August 11, 2010 01:27 PMgergle said: “It is grassroot discussions that ultimately shape politics.”
Ahh, at last we agree. And the polls reflect some general sentiments of the people which are germane to coming elections, such as the abysmal approval rate of Congress, and the loss of registered voters from both of the major Parties, and the approval rating of both of those parties regarding how our country is being governed.
There is a dynamic tension between the growth of anti-incumbent intent amongst voters and the persuasive 100’s of millions of dollars being spent on media advertising to convince those same voters to vote partisan instead. If the incumbent reelection rate in November falls to 80% or below, it will be the clearest evidence yet of a grass roots anti-incumbent movement afoot and growing.
Posted by: David R. Remer at August 11, 2010 01:33 PMMr. Remer is correct when he wrote; “America has to fight at every level of the public sector to pass legislation that will halt deficits and this lethal growth of national debt.”
It is difficult to write this, as a conservative, but we have no choice but to increase taxes. How this can be accomplished in a congress that is so enthralled with their own power bases is beyond my pay-grade. Any tax increase must be supported by both parties and be considered “fair” by those upon whom new taxes are levied. Obviously, tax increases must occur on those who have the most to be taxed. It does little good to increase taxes on the poor or lower middle class. While the burden of increased taxes will fall primarily on those with the most wealth; even the poor and lower middle class must do their part as well. Welfare and entitlements must be reduced, or at least, not continue to grow. I am not advocating that anyone be forced to starve or go homeless, but most reasonable folks will admit that there is much waste that can be pared back.
While what I wrote may sound like heresy to my fellow conservatives I would hasten to add how those additional taxes be spent. The only way on earth that congress can get bipartisan support for tax increases is to couple them with reduced spending. I have ideas of where those reductions could be found in addition to eliminating so-called “pork”.
Reasonable tax increases combined with reduced spending targeted directly at reducing our national debt could be sold to the American public. Yes, there will be pain and sacrifice involved, more by some and less by others. But unless we can find the political willpower to do this I see no salvation of our country as we know it.
Perhaps the November election will bring in a bunch of new folks who will regard the national good above the party or their personal ambition. One can hope so and frankly, I don’t care what, if any, party label they have behind their name. When I enter the voting booth in Nov. I will have done my homework and my ballot will go to the man or woman who most closely advocates getting our national house back in financial order.
Posted by: Royal Flush at August 11, 2010 02:50 PMDavid,
Not to stray away from Uncle Ted, but what Cheney said was, unfortuately, very accurate:
“You know, Paul, Reagan proved deficits don’t matter,” he said, according to excerpts. Cheney continued: “We won the midterms (congressional elections). This is our due.”
Cheney was clearly speaking of the political impact of deficit spending and not the economic impact. And until the voting public exacts a penalty for deficit spending (maybe this year?) Cheney’s statement still holds.
Posted by: George at August 11, 2010 03:10 PMRoyal Flush, I tip my hat. Your comment reflects some extremely accurate and savvy insight to how the problem has to be solved.
You could not have been more correct or succinct in writing: “The only way on earth that congress can get bipartisan support for tax increases is to couple them with reduced spending.”
Absolutely doddam right.
I will go a step further and reiterate that the only way either Party is going to be forced to this kind of compromising solution on both their parts, is with the voters rejecting the incumbents of both parties in increasing numbers. The Parties’ internal polling is showing them that the public disapproval fuel across the liberal-conservative spectrum is both job security and the growth of the debt via deficit spending. They know what they have to do. They only lack the punishment at the polls to motivate them to do it.
It is entirely possible to both improve the current economy and bring down the deficits. It requires, as you rightfully point out, raising taxes where they can be without hurting the economy, and cutting dramatically current spending on items which won’t impact economic growth in the short term, while addressing the reversing the growth in Medicare/Medicaid costs. These 3 things are of the highest priority by any informed and logical assessment and they can be dealt with simultaneously, if the political will to do so exists.
The political will is up to voters to force. The parties and politicians of them won’t of their own accord, despite their knowing it is the right thing to do.
Posted by: David R. Remer at August 11, 2010 04:07 PMGeorge, your logic doesn’t exist. The Reagan, Clinton, Bush/Cheney deficits all brought us to here, with a growing 12 trillion dollars of national debt. All these presidents and their congresses had other priorities than managing the fiscal health of the future of this nation and tax payers. That is precisely how we got here, facing crippling debt growth.
Reagan was no exception, which makes him as much a participant in the problem as the others that followed him. National debt more than tripled from 900 billion dollars to 2.8 trillion dollars during Reagan’s tenure. One can reasonably argue that Reagan set the template for the president’s and Congresses to follow the example of. That debt doubled again under Bush and Clinton to 5.65 Trillion. Then it nearly doubled again under Bush II and Cheney to 11 Trillion. And it is on track to double again under Obama.
Sorry, George, but your comment rejects the facts and reality.
Sorry David, I’ll try to type slower in order to help you with your comprehension deficiency.
While deficits DO matter in economic space, in political space they DO NOT. Or at least to date there has not been a political penalty paid by our fine elected leaders. Hence Cheney’s omitted statement, “we won the midterms.”
CBS News/NYT Poll
What do you think is the most important problem facing this country today?
Economy/Jobs: 40
Oil Spill in Gulf: 13
Health Care: 5
Budget Deficit/Nat’l Debt: 5
War/Iraq/Afghanistan: 3
Immigration: 3
Moral Values/Family Values: 2
Misc. Foreign Affairs: 2
Misc. Government Issues: 2
Politicians/Government: 2
Other: 20
DK/NA: 3
Unless deficits and debt become a political issue they don’t matter to, you guessed it, politicians. That makes the choice between deficit spending and Uncle Ted’s bridge to nowhere an easy one to the ones that get to make those choices.
On another note to your story on Sen. Stevens, I just saw where Dan Rostenkowski past away today. Another old school porker.
gergle, if the economy/jobs is the top issue for voters come November, why are the dems polling so poorly? Certainly they have spent huge sums, well reported, on both?
Posted by: Royal Flush at August 11, 2010 06:05 PMDavid,
If I write TODAY in bigger letters, will you understand that I used it in the same manner as you?
You’re making the moronic argument if we don’t balance the budget by Friday the 13th, the US will go down the toilet. Sounds great, but it’s not so filling.
Methinks you read modern English like Shakespeare to make a phony argument.
I guess we will have to discuss this after the next election when VOID has failed to resolve the budget issues, and instead brought us to another stalemate Congress that can’t get anything passed, so that we must wait another election cycle to get any resolution. And then another. And then one more. If this is your idea of political solutions, no thanks.
Meanwhile those of us in the real world are looking at the parties and how they approach the problem and look at the mainstream candidates that CAN get elected, and loudly and with resolve move them to political positions that will resolve the issues. We then make a calculated gamble and pull the lever.
People are superstitious. They believe in all sorts of magic in the world. If I vote for a redneck like me, that I could drink a beer with, everything will be alright. If I run the Mexicans out of town, we’ll all have jobs. If my pastor says to vote a certain way, he’s a smart and godly man, and he must be right. If a News man gets rich on appealing to rednecks and NASCAR regardless of how the economy tumbles out of control, he’s right and I’ll back him and blame those college professor libruls.
Until the majority of Americans eschew that political stupidity, the same candidates with different names and labels will keep appearing no matter how many times you play musical chairs.
I have friend who just told me he missed a house payment. Yet he is still paying notes on two trucks, cable TV, and just bought a new computer he can barely use. He’s alcoholic, so I know he buys his beer and cigarettes first. He had become dependent on overtime pay. It’s not so easy to find these days. Nothing I can say will save him. He will have to experience the pain of loss to change his thinking.
Sadly, this is true for most Americans.
I think VOID has merit as a political idea, but not as a politics changing paradigm. I think it needs a facelift to make it a more positive message. Those are my criticisms. I’m not a highly paid political consultant, so take them for whatever they are worth, at the price I charge.
Royal Flush,
Obviously they haven’t spent enough. The Fed has just committed to spending much more. We’ll see how it goes. It’s not what people want to hear, but then sometimes life just isn’t about placating the masses. Leadership involves doing the right thing inspite of how badly it may be perceived.
George Bush did this in Iraq. I personally think it was a dumb move, but I’m sure he believes to this day he did the right thing.
Posted by: gergle at August 11, 2010 06:34 PMNo gergle, sometimes life isn’t about placating the masses and certainly isn’t a quality of leadership. However, the masses are hurting badly and if the leadership doesn’t turn this sinking ship around I believe we will see folks in the thousands descending upon Washington with pitchforks, tar and feathers. And, they won’t care about political party or anyone’s speaking eloquence.
Political folly is somewhat tolerated when folks have jobs and a little money in the bank. Millions today don’t have either and they are mad as hell. They have wittnessed the spending of trillions with no letup in their own individual pain.
Hell, even the entitleitis crowd, the anti-war crowd, the MMGW crowd, the green crowd and more are all fighting mad. They relied on the campaign mantra of “change” and just ain’t seen what they believed was being promised.
I too now agree, with the clear eyes of hindsight, that the war in Iraq was stupid and has only helped Iran. Can anyone tell me why we’re still in Afghanistan? Make me president for a week and all our military around the world would be withdrawn. Since we no longer fight wars for noble reasons, spend blood and treasure with no intention of winning, and protect some of the worst tyrants on the planet, let’s use our dwindling resources at home.
A clear message from the president and congress that we will take a new tack, and sail with the wind, specifically, modest tax increases and modest reductions in spending, will send a clear message to our nation’s employers and those with money to invest that the country has finally decided to return to a sense of sanity. With bipartisan support, and the support of the president, we can instill some confidence in those who create the jobs, do the research and developement, invest in the new plants, and in general are the ones who can bring us back from the brink of financial destruction.
Posted by: Royal Flush at August 11, 2010 07:17 PMGeorge said ridiculously: “While deficits DO matter in economic space, in political space they DO NOT.”
Watch the November election outcome. That should be proof enough that deficits and debt DO matter to voters (read: politically), as if the Tea Party’s central theme weren’t sufficient to drive that point home for the more illogical commentaries such as yours.
Posted by: David R. Remer at August 11, 2010 09:16 PMgergle, you defensiveness is showing through by your now creating commentary to respond to that never existed: to whit: “You’re making the moronic argument if we don’t balance the budget by Friday the 13th, the US will go down the toilet.”
Those were not my words at all. I specifically address the 20 trillion dollar national debt by the end of this decade as becoming untenable for our government and economy. If you care to respond to what I wrote, instead of your imaginings of what was writ, I will be happy to debate some more.
No more straw men or red herrings, though, please.
Posted by: David R. Remer at August 11, 2010 09:19 PMgergle has more hallucinations writing: “I guess we will have to discuss this after the next election when VOID has failed to resolve the budget issues”
VOID is not a political party, nor does VOID proffer any specific policy on how to end the deficits and debt. For a very simple and logical reason, too! VOID does not control government spending. Our Constitution is quite specific on this detail stipulating that ONLY CONGRESS can set the spending and taxing agenda for that national government.
VOID is about voters holding their Congress and politicians responsible for failed government and management of our nation. As if that wasn’t emphatically clear everywhere VOID is mentioned on the internet.
Drop some more purple haze, and call me in the morning when the hallucinations have subsided. We can attempt a more rational discussion on your part, then.
Posted by: David R. Remer at August 11, 2010 09:24 PMgergle, one post script. VOID received over $10,000 in individual contributions last month. That is evidence enough for me that VOID’s message, strategy, and mission are positive enough, just as they are. Offering hope for voters getting control of their Congress instead of the other way around, is a pretty positive message. At least our contributors think so.
Posted by: David R. Remer at August 11, 2010 09:27 PMRoyal Flush said: “Millions today don’t have either and they are mad as hell. They have witnessed the spending of trillions with no letup in their own individual pain.”
There is the lynch pin to understanding November’s election outcomes. According to historical record and statistics, Democrats should lose at least one House of Congress, being the majority party in an off year election with a Democratic president. But, I don’t think that is going to happen, because the anti-incumbent crowd is not going to be kinder to Republicans than they are to Democrats. Democrats will lose seats, but, they are likely to hold both houses due to the bi-partisan anti-incumbent movement.
If the reelection rate drops from 90 to 80% as I think it may, Democrats will lose seats in greater numbers than Republicans, but, Republican incumbents are going to lose too. The Tea Party is all but guaranteeing that by drawing GOP incumbents to their support the Tea Party, as moderate and centrist Republicans become increasingly reviled by those same incumbents. Polls on the Tea Party show more Americans disfavor their actions and candidates than support them.
If that is the way it plays out, then the anti-incumbent movement will grow even larger for the 2012 elections. This will have the effect VOID seeks in forcing BOTH parties to address the common issues shared by those anti-incumbent voters, debt and deficits being chief among the few that bind them together as an otherwise, very disparate group of voters. Jobs and job security will remain a big concern in 2012 and wages will come on the stage as another issue binding anti-incumbent voters by 2012, as more get employed, but at lower wages than before the Great Recession.
Posted by: David R. Remer at August 11, 2010 09:46 PMDavid,
While you and Jimi, might be kissing the sky, if you cannot follow the logic of the straw horse you keep throwing at me is the same one you now call my delusion. I was stating that deficits T-O-D-A-Y do not matter. What matters TODAY is getting the economy going again. Of course, to make your argument you apparently intentionally ignore that modifier, which leads me to believe, logically, you must be in a panic to balance the budget by Friday the 13th. Following simple logic seems to have been lost on you when you get up in arms over what you apparently see as an attack on your political child. Perhaps it’s just a football game or debate you simply want to win, regardless of the economic effects. The same childish/partisan attacks based on intentional misreadings.
As I stated your focus is entirely wrong, not unlike Sarah Palin. Feeding into the Republican led anti incumbancy, you now claim as your own, and attach to the Tea Party, you have lost any economic sensible root and are simply shouting balance the budget with the rest of the Hooverites. How about a cheer for tax cuts!!!
You want congratulations when you turn the Great Recession into the Great Depression II? Not from me!
Claiming like the Tea Partiers that you are not a party and without agenda, is simply a statement of blind ambition. A revolutionary without a plan. Trow da bums out!!! Sadly, when one makes this a goal, usually bigger bums and charlatans roll in. Don’t forget to vote for Sarah!
Castro and Daniel Ortega were great revolutionaries. They sucked at government.
I will remember the 80 percenter. We’ll see.
Posted by: gergle at August 11, 2010 10:31 PMGergle said: “What matters TODAY is getting the economy going again.”
Yeah, yeah, that is the Democrats argument. And the Republicans argument is that the debt crisis will destroy it all and therefore it is more important.
Which puts your arguments in the partisan camp.
The centrist and independent argument is that there is NO REASON BOTH cannot be accomplished worked on at the same time. And that is the only rational and defensible argument, which offers a political way forward for both priorities, if the political will existed to cooperate between the parties.
There is enough lower priority spending going on to pay for stimulating this economy, while raising taxes on the wealthiest and cutting lower priority spending like the Foreign Aid of 23 million to Pakistan flood crisis, or 10’s of billions in unnecessary and unwarranted military spending, especially in R&D and new weaponry for the next couple years. We can work on both the current economy and cutting eliminating the deficit spending and growth of debt, by establishing priorities that accomplish both. Entirely doable. Only the will and motive is lacking.
Whence comes the need for the anti-incumbent grass roots movement to force the politicians to take up the will and motive in order to earn back those votes and better insure their reelection.
Posted by: David R. Remer at August 12, 2010 12:14 AMGergle, Love your analogizing me and VOID to Sarah Palin. Just goes to show that Democrat defenders can be as illogical and unreasonable as Republican defenders. When you try to make zebras into giraffes rhetorically, you’ve lost the debate immediately. Palin is a partisan for Republicans. I am an independent for anti-incumbency of both parties. Trying to equate the two is just more partisan hallucination. Thank you for the demonstrating that so clearly, however.
Posted by: David R. Remer at August 12, 2010 12:17 AMDavid,
The belief that there is a large contingent of voters that believe in the cuts you propose and the taxes and stimulus you propose is the illogical premise, and thus the comparison to Sarah Palin.
I’m well aware of the differences in your stances and hers, and used it to make you uncomfortable with your very similar rhetoric.
You are an intelligent person with nuanced political stances. Sarah and the general public aren’t. Be careful how you align yourself.
Posted by: gergle at August 12, 2010 12:25 AMgergle said: “The belief that there is a large contingent of voters that believe in the cuts you propose and the taxes and stimulus you propose is the illogical premise, and thus the comparison to Sarah Palin. “
Don’t follow the polls do you? Obviously. The polls are the best evidence of what the people believe. What I want or you want as individuals is meaningless unless what we want is in line with what the majority of voters want. And the majority of voters DO want spending cut. And the majority of voters DO want the taxes raised on the wealthiest if it will help reduce the deficit along with spending cuts.
Get informed, gergle. Your comparison was stupid!
Posted by: David R. Remer at August 12, 2010 01:27 AMDavid,
Ummm, again, you ignore key words in what I said. Can’t come up with arguments unless you misquote, ignore, or mischaracterize what I said? That sort of sounds exactly like a Sarah Palin tactic. Being popular isn’t all that hard if you say what people want to hear. You forgot to add all the Mexicans are taking their jobs.
Yes, David. The Hooverites are very good at screaming about budget cuts, and raising taxes for those other than themselves. They have little comprehension of the state of the economy.
Posted by: gergle at August 12, 2010 08:41 AMgergle, your retort is pathetic. I can’t ignore key words when quoting you verbatim, and responding to your quotation. Your debate skills are that of a 12 year old. Try sticking to factual information, respond to what is said, not what you wish it meant, and avoid reflexive emotive responses which aren’t backed up by facts and logical interpretation of those facts. New WSJ/NBC poll is out this morning. It has some serious limitations in its design, but, confirms the trends across polls, which is more reliable. Spend some time with the polls, they are a must better gauge of public opinion than your personal guesses or wishes.
Since the polls back up what I say, your response about what the people believe is demonstrably wrong. To be mature, you would have to confirm the mistake admit it, and move on. That is not apparently what you wish to do. Which is why you lost this debate, very early on.
Posted by: David R. Remer at August 12, 2010 09:27 AMWhere did you respond to this?
and stimulus you propose
The answer of course is you didn’t.
Your debate skills are that of a 6 year old. Gee, that was relevant. It’s not me getting irrational over my pet project.
You ignore the contingent that is all anti-tax and anti stimulus to forward your stupid and misleading point. This is a Republican led feeding frenzy that you bought into. I can find a poll that says anything for a limited, segmented question. You know that. Try it on someone less gullible.
Try this poll analysis on for size:
Just curious, what is your position on the bill to fund teacher jobs?
BTW, erected any mission accomplished signs lately? I know let’s declare victory, if we can’t actually win it. Dumbest debate tactic….ever.
BTW, Void is not going to change politics or debate tactics.
Back in the eighties, it was called the Perot effect.
I fell for it then. Not this time.
Posted by: gergle at August 12, 2010 11:24 AMgergle wrote; “The Hooverites are very good at screaming about budget cuts, and raising taxes for those other than themselves.”
Really, then explain this please…
http://fee.org/articles/great-myths-of-the-great-depression/
“The greatest spending administration in all of history”
Did Hoover really subscribe to a “hands-off-the-economy,” free-market philosophy? His opponent in the 1932 election, Franklin Roosevelt, didn’t think so. During the campaign, Roosevelt blasted Hoover for spending and taxing too much, boosting the national debt, choking off trade, and putting millions on the dole. He accused the president of “reckless and extravagant” spending, of thinking “that we ought to center control of everything in Washington as rapidly as possible,” and of presiding over “the greatest spending administration in peacetime in all of history.”Roosevelt blasted Hoover for spending and taxing too much, boosting the national debt, choking off trade, and putting millions on the dole. He accused the president of “reckless and extravagant” spending, of thinking “that we ought to center control of everything in Washington as rapidly as possible,” and of presiding over “the greatest spending administration in peacetime in all of history.”
gergle said: “Where did you respond to this?
and stimulus you propose
The answer of course is you didn’t. “
Why, would I respond to something I never proposed? Your are in more serious need of a logic 101 book than a snail. You appear now to be inventing arguments out of thin air to create avenues to vent juvenile frustrations with your own inadequacies at debate.
I am not a policy maker, ergo, I never propose specific stimulus policy. That is what I vote for representatives to Congress to do. A person has to know their limitations, and know their role in the scheme of things to assure they remain within the bounds of their capacity and proficiencies.
Posted by: David R. Remer at August 12, 2010 04:33 PMRoyal Flush, I am not questioning the veracity of your quotes, but, I would like to see the context from which they were pulled. Care to provide a source for those quotes? Thanks.
Posted by: David R. Remer at August 12, 2010 04:38 PMGergle, did you even read the poll cited in your link? It makes my argument.
51% in favor of reducing the budget deficit. 40% rate cutting taxes higher than reducing deficit.
And I quote from your link: “For example, far from demanding that the government reinforce its efforts so as to help neglected middle and lower-income groups, a majority of the public views cutting the federal budget deficit as more important than stimulating the economy.”
Thank you for that link. My point exactly about the public’s shared common objective and the deficit and debt being among their top priorities. Although, I hasten to add, that a single polling question from a single poll in time is not very reliable nor valid. When such responses appear over time across a number of polls treating the question in pretty much the same manner, you then get reliable and valid and useful information regarding public opinion polling on that topic.
David,
Thanks for another straw argument. Where did I state you were a policy maker, again?
So you believe the stimulus bill was a mistake then? You think the most important action to take TODAY is to reduce the deficit and debt?
Whatever tactics you wish to take to avoid answering for reediting by responding only to portions of what I say, I suppose you will take.
How about instead of playing nonsense debate ploys, you respond in an honest and forth right manner?
The contingent of voters you are crowing about believe it was a mistake, or are simply confused about it. Which contingent are you claiming is responding to VOID, the confused or idiots?
This is the farce of this thread. The only increase in interest in VOID is those ignorant of economics, those following a Republican based Tea Party rabble, or those simply disgusted with all politicians and politics, looking for magic answers. A pretty cynical and less than appetizing group.
This will fizzle out. The politics of the last 200 years will continue with attacks on character and spurious issues to distract voters. The elites will continue to run national politics and the powerful will use their power to gain wealth. The only difference is that voters must become educated to pick the viable candidates with the most plausible and reasonable records that align with their interests. We can either add to that information or divert away from it with pipe dreams.
Like Perot, the Tea Partiers and VOID will simply draw away from the majority party, possibly resulting in much worse government.
Posted by: gergle at August 12, 2010 05:05 PMDavid,
If the confused and ignorant are your argument for VOID, then I simply have to smile and shake my head and say, “Wow”. That’s some confession.
Posted by: gergle at August 12, 2010 05:08 PMgergle, absent mindedly asked: “Where did I state you were a policy maker, again?”
You referenced my stimulus proposal. I never proposed a stimulus plan. Ergo, my response, that I am not a policy maker, and didn’t propose a stimulus policy which you alluded to my having done.
Stimulus bill was Classic FDR, too little, too spread out, and too late to be effective. WWII size stimulus infusion is what brought America out of the triple dip recessions of the 1930’s. Obama and Democrats did fail, IN FACT, to resurrect this economy to the levels they had attempted to achieve, and Obama himself has admitted this in public.
gergle said: “How about instead of playing nonsense debate ploys, you respond in an honest and forth right manner?”
All my replies have been honest and forthright, and correct and evidenced. Whereas yours have wanted for substance, evidence, and sometimes logic.
When you make IDIOTIC and entirely UNSUBSTANTIATED comments like: “The only increase in interest in VOID is those ignorant of economics”, you only demonstrate for all to see the ignorance is that operating behind your keyboard. On what research and poll of VOID supporters and contributors do you base such a claim? Stupid, gergle.
Thanks for conceding this debate so readily.
Posted by: David R. Remer at August 12, 2010 05:15 PMRoyal Flush,
And Obama has discussed balancing the budget, as well.
This is why I used the term Hooverite. What Lawrence Reed is quoting is political rhetoric during the 1932 campaign. It worked. Roosevelt not only appealed to the poor and down and out, but the business community.
We are repeating patterns of the Great Depression. With hindsight, however, we know these ideas were deeply mistaken. Why repeat them? That is my criticism of David’s focus on budget issues rather than stimulus. It is natural for people to look at government waste when they can’t pay their bills, and scream bloody murder. However, that is not sensible economics.
Hoover did small things post the crash, as did Roosevelt in his first term. He did, however, focus on relief rather than volunteerism like Hoover. People felt government was responding to their plight. It wasn’t until the build up for war, however, when Roosevelt actually began to spend in large enough quantities to have an effect on the economy. There was also a distraction towards defending the nation which helped the mass psychology of America, which is a big part of economics as well.
One of the biggest mistakes was Smoot Halley, an attempt to “buy American” which killed trade. It can be heard in David’s argument about reigning in monies to Pakistan, and other worldwide expenditures. Without passing judgment on the validity of this argument, one can see the natural response to panic over a weak economy.
Lawrence Reed has attempted to rewrite history, by using out of place snippets to tell his fantasy story in 1981. Republicans have repeated his myths since that time. They still aren’t accepted by economists.
Posted by: gergle at August 12, 2010 05:39 PMDavid,
When you make IDIOTIC and entirely UNSUBSTANTIATED comments like: “The only increase in interest in VOID is those ignorant of economics”, you only demonstrate for all to see the ignorance is that operating behind your keyboard. On what research and poll of VOID supporters and contributors do you base such a claim? Stupid, gergle.
And yet you thanked me for a poll which demonstrates ignorance and confusion over economic issues and cited it as substantiating your argument. Wow. that’s quite a flip in a matter of one or two posts.
I wonder how many of your VOID members agree with your PROPOSAL or stance, if you prefer, of a larger stimulus? Got any data to substantiate that?
Your economic understanding is likely far different from the supporters of VOID, which again, I believe is fueled by the Republican lead of Dick Armey and his ilk.
I get this idea from this thread and you. You have cited diconnected economic ideas as a reason to believe that interest in VOID is increasing. I agree. The difference is I think this is dangerous and a promotion of ignorance over substance.
Again, while I think VOID is a valid idea and should be part of a tool in educating those that feel disenfranchised, it isn’t a game changer. It may change things, in connection with the Republican led Tea Party, in a way that moves you further from the economic goals you currently seem to have. It that sense, I think you are making a mistake in the way you present the idea and the way you have promoted it in this thread.
Oh, and I didn’t resort to calling you stupid, even if I did reflect your venom back at you a couple of times.
Gergle, the people are smart enough to know they are getting shafted. I guess if they understood supply side economics, they would know why they were getting shafted.
They are smart enough to understand that economics is ringing the death toll for perhaps half the middle class. They are smart enough to understand cheap labor.
Dick Army is saying the same thing you are, only according to him, it is Obama and the Democratic Congress that doesn’t understand economics.
The next election will not be decided by Dick Armey and the Republican tea party. It will be decided by the Democratic base and the independents. They are sick and tired of hearing that they just don’t understand.
I think the days of Democrats telling the base that it is us or the Republicans is coming to an end. Why bother coming out to elect Democrats if they are to the right of Richard Nixon and some farther right than Ronald Reagan.
I think the people will have to replace parties every two years until those in government who understand economics understand.
Posted by: jlw at August 12, 2010 08:22 PMBeck is going to cover the era of Calvin Coolidge either today or Friday. Claims that Cal recovered the country from a depression in the 20’s that mostly goes un-noticed.
Posted by: Roy Ellis at August 12, 2010 08:39 PM
Oh goodie, another laissez-faire lesson from Beck.
David R. Remer wrote: gergle, thank you for the partisan spin. But, its bullshit.Yes, it is bull$#!+, because anyone who thinks the same thing that VOID supports is hopeless, does not know their history.
In years 1929, 1931, and 1933, the majority of unhappy voters ousted hundreds of incumbent politicians from Congress (206 of 531 in year 1933).
There have been other occurrences in the past 200+ years.
The sooner the better, because these abuses aren’t gettin’ any better.
Or, continue to do the same thing over and over and over, continue to lazily and blindly pull the party-lever, continue to fuel and wallow in the blind, circular partisan-warfare, while expecting a different result.
At any rate, the majority of voters have the government that they elect, and re-elect, and re-elect, and re-elect, at least possibly, until repeatedly rewarding failure, repeatedly rewarding the duopoly, and repeatedly rewarding FOR-SALE, incompetent, arrogant, greedy, and corrupt incumbent politicians in Do-Nothing Congress with 85%-to-90% re-election rates finally becomes too painful.
Jlw,
If what you predict is true, then we ARE doomed. We don’t have time to play musical chairs for the next decade or two to resolve the economic issues we face.
As to Dick Armey and I saying the same thing but in opposite directions. That is only true in the most superficial way. Armey is stirring up ignorance. I am advocating education.
d.a.n.,
So you are saying we have to experience a Great Depression for VOID to work? Greeeaaat!!!! That’s certainly a positive message.
because anyone who thinks the same thing that VOID supports is hopeless, does not know their history.Posted by: gergle at August 12, 2010 10:43 PMI have no idea what that sentence means. English please.
Or, continue to do the same thing over and over and over, continue to lazily and blindly pull the party-lever, continue to fuel and wallow in the blind, circular partisan-warfare, while expecting a different result.I frankly don’t see VOID having a significant impact. Time will tell who is full of the bull. We’ll pick up the “big impact” assessment after November. I’m not sure where you get the idea that I’m a party lever puller. I’ve voted for both parties. I also voted for Perot (mistake). I voted for Kinky Friedman here in Texas.
What’s loony to me is advocating anti incumbency regardless of issue or stance. It advocates blind lever pulling, in my opinion. Armey is a very sly politician. He has tuned into dissatisfaction and will turn it into Republican/ anti incumbent support. While I know you guys aren’t from that political bit of slight of hand, you’ve swallowed the bait, hook, line, and sinker when David goes about citing this as an increased level of support.
The best you’ll ever get with that strategy is stalemate.
Sorry for the dropped quoteblock formatting disaster.
Posted by: gergle at August 12, 2010 11:03 PMgergle, your understanding of things of which you speak is extremely shallow. Example: VOID is not the the whole of the anti-incumbent movement. There are many partisan factions out there promoting anti-incumbent voting, like the Tea Party, and even some left wing organizations calling for anti-incumbent voting. VOID is unique in that it is the only truly non-partisan, anti-incumbent PAC registered with the FEC/IRS to raise money for the express purpose of expanding the anti-incumbent campaign amongst voters. This doesn’t mean VOID is the only organization advocating anti-incumbent voting.
So, you are right when asserting that VOID alone is not a game changer, at least not yet. VOID has, however, been copied in its advocacy, many times over, since its founding in 2006, and that is precisely one of the objectives of the VOID organization: to promote a grass roots movement amongst voters toward ant-incumbent voting. VOID is finally getting the funding to expand its reach and campaigning even further.
You appear to be reading much more into comments that exists. I am not VOID. VOID is not me. You need to be aware of that and stop projecting what I write here as representative of VOID, unless I specifically address what VOID stands for. And, what VOID seeks, is not necessarily reflective of my own personal thoughts and positions. VOID takes no stand on any debatable political issue, other than anti-incumbent voting and that our government is failing the demands of the nation. I obviously, take many more political stands on a far larger array of issues.
You also need to pay more attention to the English language. If I were calling you Stupid, there would not have been a comma between the word, stupid, and your name. The word ‘stupid’ referenced the preceding two sentences. Commas and other punctuation are extremely important to understanding the English language as written. I suggest you brush up on it.
Again, your comprehension of the English language fails, since you completely ignored my comment elaborating how one question on one poll is not valid or reliable, but, when the same statistic appears across time and many polls, it becomes valid and reliable if the polling is designed to be as well. I referenced the quotations in your cited poll because it is validated across many other polls. And it was not the poll that was confused. The interpreters of the poll were making the point that the public is confused on the issues. Which does not negate their opinions at a given moment in time or across time as revealed by the polls.
People may be confused about the logic of economics, but, that does not stop them from forming an opinion about the economy and how to fix it. And their opinions were what were measured in the poll, and to the extent those opinions are validated by other polling data, they can be relied upon as being accurate within their margins of error.
Posted by: David R. Remer at August 13, 2010 09:27 AMgergle wrote: d.a.n., So you are saying we have to experience a Great Depression for VOID to work? Greeeaaat!!!! That’s certainly a positive message.No, we don’t “have to experience a Great Depression” for VOID to work.
However, the message of VOID will grow louder and louder as more and more voters become enlightened to the idiocy of fueling and wallowing in the blind, circular partisan-warfare, and repeatedly rewarding FOR-SALE, incompetent, greedy, arrogant, and corrupt incumbent politicians with 90% re-election rates.
In the Great Depression, in years 1929, 1931, and 1933, the majority of unhappy voters started ousting incumbent politicians by the hundreds (206 of 531 in year 1933).
So, sadly, there’s a bit of circular truth in your statement, but its often sort of the “chicken and the egg” conundrum, because pain and misery often provides the motivation to finally examine actions more closely, and how they are contributing to the pain and misery.
If you doubt this, then you most likely still have a ways to go before you get your Education. Hopefully, the majority of voters will understand this soon, even if you don’t.
Sadly, things often don’t get better until they’ve already deteriorated significantly. That’s part of human nature, and it is rooted in too much short-term selfishness, and too little long-term, enlightened self-interest.
And that truth should be seriously heeded, lest you and others who ignore it want a repeat of the Great Depression (or worse).
If you question that truth, then you are not alone.
There is no shortage of delusional
You and others may ignore it at your own peril.
gergle wrote: That’s certainly a positive message.Whether it is positive or negative is irrelavent, and ignoring it will only help things get worse and worse. Many also said the Titanic was unsinkable.
The truth is often painful, but ignoring the truth will almost certainly lead to more pain and misery. It’s your choice. The majority of voters have a choice, and they will reap what they sow. That potential built-in self-correction mechanism is fortunate. If it were not often for painful consequences, we would perhaps never learn anything.
But keep right on ignoring the truth, keep right on underestimating VOID, keep right on trying to paint a rosy-picture (as the IN-PARTY so predictably always does), keep right on fueling and wallowing in the blind, circular, partisan-warfare, and see where it gets you, and this nation.
At any rate, the majority of voters have the government that they elect, and re-elect, and re-elect, and re-elect, at least possibly, until repeatedly rewarding failure, repeatedly rewarding the duopoly, and repeatedly rewarding FOR-SALE, incompetent, arrogant, greedy, and corrupt incumbent politicians in Do-Nothing Congress with 85%-to-90% re-election rates finally becomes too painful.
Posted by: d.a.n at August 13, 2010 09:32 AMd.a.n. ,
I’m a strong believer in pitchforks and torches, but I’m still not convinced VOID is widely saleable.
My dad used to say that the Black Panthers did as much to move forward civil rights legislation as did Martin Luther. I tend to think they worked in unison or tandem.
What worked in America,in the late 1700’s, didn’t turn out so well for the French, though both eventually led to better societies.
David,
In a very round about way, we are agreeing. I worry about advocacy for simply throwing the bums out for the same reasons that I preferred the US revolution to the French revolution.
A system being effective and being a desired path may not be one and the same. I happen to believe what is being called anti incumbency in the media and cited in polls is not just a grass roots movement, but a very slick political strategy being promoted by Dick Armey, Fox News and others.
This is why I feel that while VOID may be gaining some support, that support is hardly non-partisan in nature.
Perhaps I’m not always the best at expressing ideas, but that hardly makes it an acid trip.
Posted by: gergle at August 13, 2010 02:54 PMgergle, to be sure, what separates VOID from the Tea Party or MoveOn.org is that VOID is truly non-partisan, taking no sides on any of the policy issues of the day left or right. VOID does take the position that our government’s spending and tax revenues are structured to bankrupt the government (people) of America over the next decade. VOID does take the position that the economy has been damaged partly as a result of government representatives failing their obligations under law and our politicians have not yet corrected this. VOID does take the position that the two parties in government place a higher priority on their political warfare than upon solving these challenges threatening our nation’s future.
Other than these obvious and general positions, VOID takes no position on policy debate issues. VOID is unique in this way, focusing like a laser on the source of bad governance, the incumbent reelection rate regardless of how bad government gets. The vote was always conceived and designed in this country to remove politicians from office who fail in their obligation to make the government work for the best interests of the nation and its people.
The vote was a response to King George of England having no obligation to the people and the people having no recourse regarding his remaining in power. Democracy is intrinsically built upon the concept of the people’s ability and capacity to remove politicians from office when they fail to provide the people the government the people pay for and give up some liberty for.
Personally, I am pleased to see the Tea Party, Common Cause, and other right-left leaning organizations promote the concept of voting out incumbents as recourse to perceived bad governance. It strengthens the anti-incumbent movement and growth, and hastens the day when the political parties and politicians will be forced to acknowledge that wealthy campaign donors no longer hold the keys to reelection, but, the anti-incumbent voters do. Then, and only then, will our politicians address the concerns of the voters instead of their wealthy special interest contributors.
One of the major differences between the agenda of wealthy special interest donors and the American public in general, is that the wealthy special interest donors are myopic in seeking favorable legislation and administration toward their short term financial and regulatory gain objectives, whereas, the public is far more concerned about the long term quality of life in America for them and the future of their children. The anti-incumbent movement can force the politicians to shift their priorities from those of the wealthy special interests to those of the American public in common: better education, more and better paying jobs, savings security, national security, and taxes which pay for national necessities, not wealthy special interest gains.
These objectives are common amongst anti-incumbent voters, independent, left, and right leaning. Potentially, this makes the anti-incumbent voting block very powerful in forcing government results which most people in America would approve of. The Tea Party and The Coffee Party can pursue their left and right leaning perspectives on specific policies. That’s fine with VOID, as long as they are ALSO promoting the use of the vote for challengers instead of incumbents as the method for the American people wresting back control of politicians from the wealthy special interests who now buy the government that serves their ends even to the destruction of America herself.
In the end, these organizations are promoting Democracy as it was intended to be, government of, by, and for the people, not the politicians or their wealthy campaign contributor puppeteers. Enormous improvements and gains for America, her political system and our government lie ahead if the anti-incumbent grass roots movement is capable of reducing the incumbent reelection rate from 90% on average toward 50% or less. No politician wants to be a one term representative, and they will work very hard to meet public expectations if their reelection depends upon it. That is what VOID is about. It is sound, it is timely, and its concept of reinstating real democracy is growing.
One last observation. The Tea Party is having a profound effect upon the GOP, forcing them to reconsider their strategy and tactics. Whether one agrees with their considered options or not, the anti-incumbent pressure from the Tea Party is forcing incumbent politicians on the Right to question their priorities. That is a beginning of change within the GOP. Something similar is likely to happen with the Democratic Party as a result of the Coffee Party’s efforts. If the anti-incumbent movement takes root amongst centrist independents, as well as the left and right wing voters, I am convinced very positive results will be realized over the coming elections for the nation, our people, and our future.
Posted by: David R. Remer at August 14, 2010 01:45 PMDavid touches on one important fact.
The Democrats may not being do so well, but the Republicans have no plan whatsoever.
So, why reward either with 90% re-election rates?
At any rate, the majority of voters have the government that they elect, and re-elect, and re-elect, at least, possibly, until repeatedly rewarding failure, repeatedly rewarding the duopoly, and repeatedly rewarding FOR-SALE, incompetent, arrogant, and corrupt incumbent politicians in Do-Nothing Congress with 85%-to-90% re-election rates finally becomes too painful.
Posted by: d.a.n at August 14, 2010 06:11 PMThe Repub’s need only sit back and watch the Dem’s destroy themselves. Same thing the Dem’s did with the Repub’s in the Bush years. Remember Status Quo? Do - Nothing Congress, of the Bush years?
When the 2012 debates kick in the Repub’s will come alive with ideas. One, IMO, will be the ‘fair tax’. They want to get ahead of any voter enthusiasm for a ‘flat tax’ being adopted across Europe and the Far East. Even if forced to a flat tax the Corpocracy will work to twist it into something less than a flat tax, something they can manipulate for political gain, voter/economy control, etc.
To any reader I would like to say: any frustration you may have with the political system you will have a chance to hold your representatives accountable in this coming November election. I hope you will do the responsble thing and VOTE OUT INCUMBENTS.
Otherwise, we have the Corpocracy we deserve.
Posted by: Roy Ellis at August 14, 2010 08:21 PMPoliticians will NEVER change the tax code. They will talk about it, but never do anything. You ask why? Because it is their means to power and control. Follow the money???
Posted by: Beretta9 at August 14, 2010 08:41 PMBaretta9, the money controls election outcomes. The day it doesn’t, the money ceases to have the political power its holder’s now enjoy. That is the point of VOID and the anti-incumbent movement - to replace monied interests controlling election outcomes to voters controlling those elections by refusing to listen to all that campaign crap the money buys, and voting out incumbents on the general principle that the voter doesn’t have the government they wish they had and the incumbents are responsible for that. Simple, powerful, and potentially, effective.
Posted by: David R. Remer at August 15, 2010 01:57 AMWhen I was teaching myself to become an effective manager, I had to quickly learn about time management. I was swamped with so many tasks in a day, I had to focus my time and delegate.
I began by writing down what I was doing every 15 minutes.
I then began to be able to organize and structure my time to be more effective. Focusing on goals was crucial to this. To get something done, one has to have a goal.
I was reading this article on teaching and evaluating teachers. It very much reminded me of the discussion here about VOID.
The question arises, “what is an effective politician?” What is the metric to justify voting out an incumbent? Is it, “I’m unhappy”? Is that really the best goal? Isn’t that why subjective politics is so effective at distracting voters? It has always seemed to me that the biggest hindrance to effective government was a lack of information on what was actually happening and how that relates to what are the best goals.
My difficulty with VOID, is that it avoids this kind of metric.
Posted by: gergle at August 15, 2010 11:58 AMgergle wrote: d.a.n., I’m a strong believer in pitchforks and torches, but I’m still not convinced VOID is widely saleable.Peaceful solutions exist, and should be attempted first.
Eventually, the majority of voters will most likely repeat what the majority of voter did in years 1929, 1931, and 1933, when they voted-out members of Congress by the hundreds (206 of 531 in year 1933).
VOID’s message is solid and logical.
So, the sooner more voters appreciate the simple message of VOID, the better.
The goal and message of VOID will most likely grow proportionally as the majority of voters’ pain and misery grows, because pain and misery is the built-in motivation.
The message is very simple:
- Stop Repeat Offenders.
- Don’t Re-Elect Them.
- Repeatedly Rewarding FOR-SALE, incompetent, and Corrupt Incumbent Politicians with 85%-to-90% Re-Election Rates is Illogical, Because It Will Almost Certainly Lead to More Pain and Misery.
If the logic of VOID has no appeal, then why worry?
Again, civil war and revolution are not required, because there is a peaceful way to reduce corruption, waste, and oppression. Simply:
- Stop Repeat Offenders.
- Don’t Re-Elect Them.
- Repeatedly Rewarding FOR-SALE, incompetent, and Corrupt Incumbent Politicians with 85%-to-90% Re-Election Rates is Illogical, Because It Will Almost Certainly Lead to More Pain and Misery.
- Simply Do What the Majority of Voters Did in Years 1929, 1931, and 1933; Vote Out FOR-SALE, Incompetent, and Corrupt Incumbent Politicians.
And if the new politicians fail to get the message, and prove to be as FOR-SALE, Incompetent, and Corrupt as their predecessors, then vote them out too.
That quite simply is what the majority of voters were supposed to be doing all along; the one simple thing right under their very own noses.
The majority voters are culpable too.
Also, it voting out only the most corrupt incumbent politicians does NOT have to be random.
Who can name 10, 20, 50, 100, 200, or even 268 (half of 535) in Congress that are responsible and accountable, and deserve to be re-elected?
If you think about it, the way many voters vote today is somewhat ALREADY random, because:
- too many voters already lazily and blindly pull the party-lever, without even knowing all of the candidates on the ballot, much less their voting records.
- About 45% of all 200 million eligible voters don’t even bother to vote at all.
- Too many voters do not know who their senators and representatives are, much less those incumbent politicians’ voting records.
- Too many voters are unaware that 99.7% of all 200 million eligible voters are vastly out-spent by a tiny 0.3% of the wealthiest voters who make a whopping 83% of all federal campaign donations of $200 or more.
- 90% of all elections are won by the candidate (usually the incumbent politicians) that spends the most money.
- Too many voters prefer to lazily engage in the blame game, and wallow in the blind, circular, divisive, distracting partisan-warfare, rather than admit that there is no important difference between the IN-Party and the OUT-Party, who sabotage each other merely for political gains, instead of what is best for the nation.
- Too many voters are delusional, and lazily believe that THEIR incumbent politician and THEIR political party is better than the OTHER party, when the only differences are unimportant.
- Too many voters think the problem is only with the OTHER party and fail to see the disturbing problems within THEIR own party.
- It’s easier to blame the OTHER party, rather than admit-to and fix problems in one’s OWN party.
- Too many voters whine and complain, and give Congress dismally low approval ratings (as low as 11%), but repeatedly re-elect and reward THEIR incumbent politicians in THEIR party with 85%-to-90% re-election rates.
- Too few voters (if any) can name 10, 20, 50, 100, 200, or even 268 (half of 535) in Congress that are responsible and accountable, but the majority of voters continue to reward incumbent politicians in Congress with 85%-to-90% re-election rates.
- Too many voters fail to see the insanity of doing the same thing over and over and over and over, while expecting a different result. Too many voters fail to understand that rewarding failure and corruption merely creates more failure and corruption, which creates more pain and misery for the majority of voters.
- Too many voters are too easily bribed with their own tax dollars. Too many voters have fallen for the myth that we can somehow all live at the expense of everyone else. Too many voters want to be coddled and cared for from cradle-to-grave.
- Too many voters simply don’t care … at least, until (possibly) some day, the consequences of the majority of voters’ own negligence and short-term selfishness finally becomes too painful.
gergle wrote: What worked in America,in the late 1700’s, didn’t turn out so well for the French, though both eventually led to better societies.War, civil war, and revolution is not necessary.
There is a peaceful solution right under the voters very own noses. Simply:
- Stop Repeat Offenders.
- Don’t Re-Elect Them.
- Repeatedly Rewarding FOR-SALE, incompetent, and Corrupt Incumbent Politicians with 85%-to-90% Re-Election Rates is Illogical, Because It Will Almost Certainly Lead to More Pain and Misery.
- Simply Do What the Majority of Voters Did in Years 1929, 1931, and 1933; Vote Out FOR-SALE, Incompetent, and Corrupt Incumbent Politicians.
Americans aren’t likely to tolerate oppression for very long.
They are eventually quite likely to do the very same thing the majority of unhappy voters did in years 1929, 1931, and 1933, when enough of the voters are jobless, bankrupt, homeless, and hungry.
gergle wrote: David, In a very round about way, we are agreeing. I worry about advocacy for simply throwing the bums out for the same reasons that I preferred the US revolution to the French revolution.But civil war and revolution are not necessary.
The voters have a peaceful, logical, no-brainer solution right under their very own noses. Simply:
- Stop Repeat Offenders.
- Don’t Re-Elect Them.
- Repeatedly Rewarding FOR-SALE, incompetent, and Corrupt Incumbent Politicians with 85%-to-90% Re-Election Rates is Illogical, Because It Will Almost Certainly Lead to More Pain and Misery.
- Simply Do What the Majority of Voters Did in Years 1929, 1931, and 1933; Vote Out FOR-SALE, Incompetent, and Corrupt Incumbent Politicians (206 of 531 Congress persons were voted out in year 1933).
But if oppression is allowed to grow out of control, you may indeed get a civil war or revolution.
gergle wrote: I happen to believe what is being called anti incumbency in the media and cited in polls is not just a grass roots movement, but a very slick political strategy being promoted by Dick Armey, Fox News and others.Not likely. Very few people in the Main Stream Media (MSM) advocate anti-incumbency.
The growing anti-incumbency sentiment is being fueled by pain and misery, due to 10% unemployment, record level foreclosures, falling median wages, imported cheap labor, and these other major abuses, which have never been worse in many decades.
gergle wrote: This is why I feel that while VOID may be gaining some support, that support is hardly non-partisan in nature.No doubt that many love to fuel and wallow in the partisan-warfare, but now you’re saying it’s Dick Armey’s (a Republican) and FAUX News’ fault? That doesn’t make much sense? The FAUX News network definitely leans conservative, so how is voting out incumbents going to only help Republicans, when incumbent Republicans are also vulnerable? It’s most likely that a growing number of voters are not too happy with either Republicans and Democrat incumbent politicians. For your conspiracy theory to make sense, it would have to show that the conspiracy is only an anti-DEMOCRAT-incumbent scheme. The only supportive logic is that the IN-PARTY is being blamed for the continued deterioration of the economy (which BOTH Democrats and Republicans caused, with the majority of voters approval based on 87% re-election rates in the last election of 2008).
gergle wrote: Perhaps I’m not always the best at expressing ideas, but that hardly makes it an acid trip.Well, your conspiracy theory is not very convincing.
I don’t think it’s that complicated.
A growing number of voters are angry, and it is being fueled by:
- growing pain and misery;
- high unemployment;
- record-level foreclosures and bankruptcies;
- failing retirement pension systems;
- trillions in losses in investments (which amounted to massive fraud) and total incompetence of the SEC;
- massive debt of nightmare proportions;
- the federal government’s dismal failure to enforce immigration laws and suing Arizona instead of genuinely helping Arizona;
- the federal government despicably pitting American citizens and illegal aliens and cheap imported labor (via rampant H1B Visa abuse) against each other for votes and profits from cheap labor;
- the federal government’s refusal to prosecute the greedy illegal employers of illegal aliens; H1B visa abuses; law firms (e.g. Cohen & Grigsby) that teach corporations how to avoid hiring Americans;
- unfair and regressive taxation; falling median incomes, lies about GDP, unemployment, inflation, debt, money supply, etc.;
- the falling U.S. dollar (One-Simple-Idea.com/USD_Falling.htm), which also robs most Americans who receive a diminishing wage;
- the high cost of healthcare, 195,000 killed by medical mistakes annually, and excessively high costs largely caused by rampant greed and the state and federal governments incessant meddling, and too many people gaming the system;
- constitutional violations; 6 new cases of imminent-domain abuse, and a perversion of the laws to do the very thing they were originally supposed to prevent;
Just maybe, perhaps those issues have more to do with a growing anti-incumbency sentiment?
Also, the voters memory is possibly good enough to remember that BOTH parties have had a recent turn at being the IN-PARTY, and it doesn’t seem to make much difference, since the deterioration of so many things continues to get worse and few (if any) of the major abuses still have yet to be addressed.
Roy Ellis wrote: The Repub’s need only sit back and watch the Dem’s destroy themselves. Same thing the Dem’s did with the Repub’s in the Bush years. Remember Status Quo? Do - Nothing Congress, of the Bush years?We’re ALL culpable, and the majority of ALL Americans are doing a pretty damn good job of destroying this nation.
BOTH Republican and Democrat politicians play stupid games, play the blame game, sabotage each other for political gain, and incessantly fuel and wallow in blind, circular partisan warfare, while the country suffers.
So politicians in BOTH parties are culpable, and so are the majority of voters who repeatedly reward the same FOR-SALE, incompetent, and corrupt incumbent politicians with 85%-to-90% re-election rates.
Roy Ellis wrote: When the 2012 debates kick in the Repub’s will come alive with ideas. One, IMO, will be the ‘fair tax’.Polls show that the majority of voters don’t like the “Fair Tax” (a 30% sales tax; or 23% inclusive tax; i.e. $30 tax on $100 item is: $30/100=30% or $30/$130=23%)).
But, if the majority of voters want think that they want that, then they will have to learn the hard and painful way again, because ALL sales taxes are regressive. And a puny prebate does not change that fact (One-Simple-Idea.com/FairTaxFraud1.htm ; One-Simple-Idea.com/FairTaxFraud2.htm). So, if the Republicans try to advocate the un-“Fair Tax”, they will cook their own goose.
In year 2007, here are the supporters of the un-“Fair Tax” (all but 5 are Republicans):
Senator John McCain AZ-REPUBLICAN ; For (John McCain later changed his mind to Against)
Senator Saxby Chambliss GA-REPUBLICAN ; For - Sponsor
Senator Johnny Isakson GA-REPUBLICAN (former); For - Cosponsor
Senator Richard Lugar IN-REPUBLICAN ; For
Senator David Vitter LA-REPUBLICAN ; For
Senator John Ensign NV-REPUBLICAN ; For
Senator Tom Coburn OK-REPUBLICAN ; For - Cosponsor
Senator James Inhofe OK-REPUBLICAN ; For - Cosponsor
Senator Jim DeMint SC-REPUBLICAN ; For
Senator John Cornyn TX-REPUBLICAN ; For - Cosponsor
Representative Don Young AK At Large-REPUBLICAN ; For - Cosponsor
Representative Spencer Bachus AL 6-REPUBLICAN ; For - Cosponsor
Representative Jo Bonner AL 1-REPUBLICAN ; For - Cosponsor
Representative John Boozman AR 3-REPUBLICAN ; For - Cosponsor
Representative Jeff Flake AZ 6-REPUBLICAN ; For - Cosponsor
Representative Trent Franks AZ 2-REPUBLICAN ; For - Cosponsor
Representative John Shadegg AZ 3-REPUBLICAN ; For
Representative Brian Bilbray CA 50-REPUBLICAN (former); For - Cosponsor
Representative John Doolittle CA 4-REPUBLICAN ; For
Representative Duncan Hunter CA 52-REPUBLICAN ; For - Cosponsor
Representative Darrell Issa CA 49-REPUBLICAN ; For - Cosponsor
Representative Jerry Lewis CA 41-REPUBLICAN ; For - Cosponsor
Representative Gary Miller CA 42-REPUBLICAN ; For - Cosponsor
Representative Doug Lamborn CO 5-REPUBLICAN ; For - Cosponsor
Representative Thomas Tancredo CO 6-REPUBLICAN ; For - Cosponsor
Representative Gus Bilirakis FL 9-REPUBLICAN ; For - Cosponsor
Representative Virginia Brown-Waite FL 5-REPUBLICAN ; For - Cosponsor
Representative Ander Crenshaw FL 4-REPUBLICAN ; For - Cosponsor
Representative Tom Feeney FL 24-REPUBLICAN ; For - Cosponsor
Representative Ric Keller FL 8-REPUBLICAN ; For - Cosponsor
Representative John Mica FL 7-REPUBLICAN ; For - Cosponsor
Representative Jeff Miller FL 1-REPUBLICAN ; For - Cosponsor
Representative Cliff Stearns FL 6-REPUBLICAN ; For - Cosponsor
Representative Dave Weldon FL 15-REPUBLICAN ; For - Cosponsor
Representative Paul C. Broun GA 10-REPUBLICAN ; For
Representative Nathan Deal GA 9-REPUBLICAN ; For - Cosponsor
Representative Phil Gingrey GA 11-REPUBLICAN ; For - Cosponsor
Representative Jack Kingston GA 1-REPUBLICAN ; For - Cosponsor
Representative John Linder GA 7-REPUBLICAN ; For - Sponsor
Representative Tom Price GA 6-REPUBLICAN ; For - Cosponsor
Representative David Scott GA 13 DEMOCRAT For ’
Representative Lynn Westmoreland GA 3-REPUBLICAN ; For - Cosponsor
Representative Steve King IA 5-REPUBLICAN ; For - Cosponsor
Representative Dennis Hastert IL 14-REPUBLICAN ; For - Cosponsor
Representative Dan Burton IN 5-REPUBLICAN ; For - Cosponsor
Representative Mike Pence IN 6-REPUBLICAN ; For - Cosponsor
Representative Jerry Moran KS 1-REPUBLICAN ; For - Cosponsor
Representative Todd Tiahrt KS 4-REPUBLICAN ; For - Cosponsor
Representative Geoff Davis KY 4-REPUBLICAN ; For
Representative Ed Whitfield KY 1-REPUBLICAN ; For - Cosponsor
Representative Rodney Alexander LA 5 DEMOCRAT For - Cosponsor
Representative Richard Baker LA 6-REPUBLICAN ; For - Cosponsor
Representative Charles Boustany, Jr. LA 7-REPUBLICAN ; For
Representative Roscoe Bartlett MD 6-REPUBLICAN ; For - Cosponsor
Representative Wayne Gilchrest MD 1-REPUBLICAN ; For - Cosponsor
Representative Pete Hoekstra MI 2-REPUBLICAN ; For - Cosponsor
Representative Candice Miller MI 10-REPUBLICAN ; For
Representative Timothy Walberg MI 7-REPUBLICAN ; For - Cosponsor
Representative Collin Peterson MN 7 DEMOCRAT For
Representative Timothy Walz MN 1 DEMOCRAT For
Representative Todd Akin MO 2-REPUBLICAN ; For - Cosponsor
Representative Sam Graves MO 6-REPUBLICAN ; For
Representative Sue Myrick NC 9-REPUBLICAN ; For - Cosponsor
Representative Steve Pearce NM 2-REPUBLICAN ; For - Cosponsor
Representative Patrick Tiberi OH 12-REPUBLICAN ; For
Representative Dan Boren OK 2 DEMOCRAT For - Cosponsor
Representative Mary Fallin OK 5-REPUBLICAN ; For - Cosponsor
Representative Frank Lucas OK 3-REPUBLICAN ; For - Cosponsor
Representative John Sullivan OK 1-REPUBLICAN ; For - Cosponsor
Representative Tim Murphy PA 18-REPUBLICAN ; For
Representative Henry E. Brown, Jr. SC 1-REPUBLICAN ; For - Cosponsor
Representative Joe Wilson SC 2-REPUBLICAN ; For
Representative David Davis TN 1-REPUBLICAN ; For - Cosponsor
Representative Jimmy Duncan TN 2-REPUBLICAN ; For - Cosponsor
Representative Zach Wamp TN 3-REPUBLICAN ; For - Cosponsor
Representative Kevin Brady TX 8-REPUBLICAN ; For - Cosponsor
Representative John Carter TX 31-REPUBLICAN ; For - Cosponsor
Representative Mike Conaway TX 11-REPUBLICAN ; For - Cosponsor
Representative John Culberson TX 7-REPUBLICAN ; For - Cosponsor
Representative Kay Granger TX 12-REPUBLICAN ; For - Cosponsor
Representative Ralph Hall TX 4-REPUBLICAN ; For - Cosponsor
Representative Jeb Hensarling TX 5-REPUBLICAN ; For - Cosponsor
Representative Michael McCaul TX 10-REPUBLICAN ; For - Cosponsor
Representative Randy Neugebauer TX 19-REPUBLICAN ; For - Cosponsor
Representative Ted Poe TX 2-REPUBLICAN ; For - Cosponsor
Representative Pete Sessions TX 32-REPUBLICAN ; For
Representative Mac Thornberry TX 13-REPUBLICAN ; For - Cosponsor
Representative Rob Bishop UT 1-REPUBLICAN ; For - Cosponsor
Representative Jo Ann Davis VA 1-REPUBLICAN ;
Representative Thelma Drake VA 2-REPUBLICAN ; For - Cosponsor
Representative Virgil Goode VA 5-REPUBLICAN ; For - Cosponsor
Representative Barbara Cubin WY 1-REPUBLICAN ; For - Cosponsor
That does not necessarily make Democrat politicians better than Republican politicians.
It only means on this issue, that Republicans that support a regressive sales tax are revealing their adherence to one of their extremes, which is wallowing in yet another manifestation of unchecked greed.
But make no mistake, BOTH Democrat and Republicans go to equally destructive extremes, to the extent that there are no longer any important differences between the two:
- Extreme #1: One extreme wants regressive taxation, unfettered capitalism and freedom to explore and wallow in every manifestation of unchecked greed (which we have seen plenty of lately).
- Extreme #2: The other extreme wants a nanny-state with citizens increasingly dependent on the government; with massive cradle-to-grave government programs (which are usually severely mismanaged, abused, and pilfered) that nurture a sense of entitlement and dependency on government; wants to grow government ever larger (despite the already current nightmare proportions); rewards failure and laziness; and perpetuates the myth that we can somehow all live at the expense of everyone else.
Roy Ellis wrote: They want to get ahead of any voter enthusiasm for a ‘flat tax’ being adopted across Europe and the Far East.Are you talking about a flat income tax or a flat sales tax.
There’s a big difference.
I’m OK with a flat income tax on all types of income, but ALL sales taxes are regressive.
And what we’re very likely to end up with in the end is BOTH (the existing regressive income tax system, and a new regressive 30% sales tax).
Are the majority of voters are stupid enough to fall for it?
Not likely, when they understand the fraud behind the “Fair Tax”.
Roy Ellis wrote: Even if forced to a flat tax the Corpocracy will work to twist it into something less than a flat tax, something they can manipulate for political gain, voter/economy control, etc.Probably. Never under-estimate human greed, anywhere there is too little Virtue , Education , Transparency , and Accountability.
- Responsibility = Power + Virtue + Education + Transparency + Accountability
- Corruption = Power - Virtue - Education - Transparency - Accountability
Roy Ellis wrote:To any reader I would like to say: any frustration you may have with the political system you will have a chance to hold your representatives accountable in this coming November election. I hope you will do the responsible thing and VOTE OUT INCUMBENTS. Otherwise, we have the Corpocracy we deserve.
That’s right. Plus every subsequent election!
The voters are culpable too.
gergle wrote: The question arises, “what is an effective politician?” What is the metric to justify voting out an incumbent? Is it, “I’m unhappy”? Is that really the best goal? Isn’t that why subjective politics is so effective at distracting voters? It has always seemed to me that the biggest hindrance to effective government was a lack of information on what was actually happening and how that relates to what are the best goals. My difficulty with VOID, is that it avoids this kind of metric.That is because you are trying to over-complicate the issue.
Obfuscation is a very common tactic to cloud and obscure the issues.
It’s not that complicated.
Too many abuses lead to pain and misery.
Pain and misery is the motivation that causes people to become unhappy.
Unhappiness causes people to examine the reasons and abuses that are making them unhappy.
The voters then examine the reasons and abuses more closely.
Pain and misery is a very effective motivation for becoming educated about the reasons for the pain and misery.
The metrics you fail to recognize are the abuses that are causing wide-spread pain and misery.
Remember the saying (and I’m not saying you’re stupid), “It’s the economy, stupid”.
Three very important facts that voters must face, whether they like it or not, is that:
- The majority of voters are culpable too.
- The majority of voters will get their Education, one way or another.
- Repeatedly rewarding FOR-SALE, incompetent, arrogant, greedy, and corrupt incumbent politicians with 90% re-election rates, despite dismal 11% approval ratings for Congress doesn’t make much sense does it? In fact, there is a close correlation between the majority of voters’ pain and misery and their voting habits.
So, the metric exists: Pain and misery.
And history also supports the effectiveness of that metric to provide the motivation for voters to do the very thing VOID recommends.
Quite simply:
- Stop Repeat Offenders.
- Don’t Re-Elect Them.
- Repeatedly Rewarding FOR-SALE, incompetent, and Corrupt Incumbent Politicians with 85%-to-90% Re-Election Rates is Illogical, Because It Will Almost Certainly Lead to More Pain and Misery.
- Simply Do What the Majority of Voters Did in Years 1929, 1931, and 1933; Vote Out FOR-SALE, Incompetent, and Corrupt Incumbent Politicians.
What’s so complicated about that?
Why does it have to be over-complicated?
These voting guidelines are really NOT at all that complicated: One-Simple-Idea.com/ProsCons.htm
At any rate, the majority of voters have the government that they elect, and re-elect, and re-elect, at least, possibly, until repeatedly rewarding failure, repeatedly rewarding the duopoly, and repeatedly rewarding FOR-SALE, incompetent, arrogant, and corrupt incumbent politicians in Do-Nothing Congress with 85%-to-90% re-election rates finally becomes too painful.
The U.S. has suffer a devastating attack by a determined enemy of the people. One far greater than 911. That attack has caused tremendous damage and could, if not countered, threaten our position in the world and might even threaten our existence as a nation.
Our government was a co-conspirator in the attack, authorizing the weapons that were used, indebting our children to bail out the high hierarchy of finance, cover up the attack, and insure that the weapons used would be available for further attacks on the people.
Now it is distraction time, right wing vs left wing.
Posted by: jlw at August 15, 2010 03:40 PMI have enjoyed the discussion about VOID and all that d.a.n. has written. When I consider that nearly 50% of Americans are receiving some sort of entitlement benefit from government it makes me wonder why they would want to vote out incumbents. Why would they bite the hand that feeds them? Then, we have unions who depend upon these politicians for favorable legislation and many other special interest groups who owe their livelihood and continued existance upon government run by these same politicians.
And, lest we forget, there are the corporations who depend upon government for their continued well being, nearly half of our state governments, teachers, police, firemen and a host of others.
It seems to me that VOID is attempting to attract the remaining five people left in this country that don’t have a vested interest in government as usual.
Posted by: Royal Flush at August 15, 2010 03:47 PMd.a.n. My man! My man!
d.a.n. My man! My man! Fastest fangers in the West, no doubt. And daidly too. Yeah, the Repub’s see the ‘flat tax’ coming and they want to get in front of it with a ‘fair tax’. Google ‘flat tax’ and you will see that much of Europe, Russia and the Far East is/has adopted the flat tax and liking it. But, if the Repub’s can’t shoe horn the ‘fair tax’ in they will try to sell us some version of a flat tax with the usual corporate welfare intact. The middle column will be ready for em!!
Royal Flush, five is a start, let’s get with it. If I could find one or two people who would support me I’d do less blogging and get on the street in my local towns, waving flats for anti=incumbency, abolishment of corporate personhood, etc. But, by myself I can’t bring myself to it somehow.
Royal Flush, a few of your assumptions need correcting. First, it is not 50% of the people dependent upon government. It is 100%. We are ALL dependent upon an ordered society which is ordered by government. We are all dependent in time of need on police, fire departments, and emergency services. Live long enough, and every person will have dire need of those services. I am only 60 and I recall calling the police on many occasions, once to find my missing 4 year old daughter, which they did, safe and sound several blocks away with a group of older kids.
From the wealthiest to the poorest, we all depend upon government services for everything from safe foods and medicines to national security when attacked, not to mention natural disasters. The wealthiest depend upon the FDIC and SEC, and host of other regulatory agencies and enforcement authorities to safeguard their wealth. No one is exempt from dependency upon our government. So, let’s dispense with the notion that some are takers and others are not. We all derive enormous benefit from government, as opposed to anarchy.
VOID is reaching out to those who are disappointed on the return of for their tax dollars, offering them a way to unite with other disappointed voters who share common disappointments and effect a change for the better through the peaceful and constitutional means provided them by the Amendments which brought universal suffrage and election of our presidents and senators.
VOID has a vast potential audience of subscribers and uniters. What VOID has lacked is the resources to reach that audience through expensive communication systems, but, that situation is improving rapidly.
Posted by: David R. Remer at August 15, 2010 11:07 PMFew would argue that there should not be safety nets for the REAL poor. Beyond that, leave the taxpayers to spend their money as they choose.
‘Give an inch and they take a mile, or several thousands of miles’ when it comes to pissing away the taxpayers money. And, this rush to globalize over the last 25 years has been somewhere between criminal and treason in giving it away. Greatest xfer of wealth in history and all that.
A Wash Post article in yesterday’s paper relates. Some gist from an article wrote by a reporter who covered ‘uncle Ted’ through much of his career. ‘I asked for a total dollar figure for the projects he’d funded that season. Never, he said. “My opponents would make good use of that.” After a big spending bill he would summon Alaska’s four Wash Correspondents to his offices where he’d bombard us with laundry lists of projects and figures, some of which you would have been able to find in the legislation only with a special decoder ring.
He had his aids comb newspapers on the lookout for credible causes to throw money at. Once I asked about a $500k earmark, a twig in the forest. A Stephens aide told me that she’d read a story in my paper about a small group of volunteers and thought that would be a good idea. The group had never asked for anything. “I’ll let you break the news to them - - - it’s really fun” the aide told me. It was fun. For five minutes I felt like Bob Barker giving away cadillacs.
‘The $400M Bridge To Nowhere’ wasn’t Ted’s idea. When Don Young served in gov’t he said he wanted to rival Ted in the pork business so he proposed the bridge project. Ted, liking competition, mounted his own bridge to nowhere project, putting Young in his place.’ End gist.
Ted’s penchant for pork is exactly the way gov’t is being run, IMO. Few cared during the good ole days, prior to Regan. Now we are in debt to some not so nice gov’ts, up to our eyeballs. You would think Congress would slow down, but with the rush to globalize they, Bush and Obama admins/congress have ramped it up, greatest xfer and all that. And, they are sucking the straw from both ends. While the universities build their ‘bridges to nowhere’ go back and look at the cost of a college education 25 years ago and try to explain the difference. I refer to it as ‘breaking down the middle class’. Not enough funds to train 40k nursing applicants yearly so, we will just import them and that will surely help with breaking the back of the middle class.
Now, I might get off their back if they can enlighten the taxpayers as to the benies of globalization or even One World gov’t. How ‘prosperous and well being’ will the middle class be with $4/hr wages? What ‘rights’ will we have under a One World gov’t? If they can tell me we will be as well off under globalization and One World as we are today I might throw in with them, maybe start pissing my piggy bank funds away to speed up the process.
Until we get some answers that make sense, I’ll continue to treat their actions as criminal, treasonous, and highly STUPID, IMO.
Come on November 8 - -
Otherwise, we have the Corpocracy we deserve.
jlw, trying to catch Link 9410 per the schedule you posted. There is an interesting documentary on genetically modified food/drink products going on now. Says five U.S. monopolies control all GM work with Monsanto controlling 95% of that effort. Says our milk products are being GM’d with no labelling as to GM content. Britain passed a law forcing labelling of their GM products.
A war we could fight here but - - - -
Sticking with the big picture, makes no sense to fight against GM foods or work to prevent this legislation or that until - - - UNTIL - - - the Corpocracy is removed from gov’t- - - 3rd party - - - abolishing Corporate Personhood and all that. Then we can start worrying about the noise in the system. IMO.
Otherwise we have the Corpocracy we DESERVE.
Posted by: Roy Ellis at August 16, 2010 10:20 AMMr. Remer, let me post my comment here as you apparently misread what I wrote…
“When I consider that nearly 50% of Americans are receiving some sort of entitlement benefit from government it makes me wonder why they would want to vote out incumbents. Why would they bite the hand that feeds them.”
Posted by: Royal Flush at August 16, 2010 11:29 AMI don’t want somebody telling me what to eat/drink. I want to decide for myself. If there is a grain of anything foreign produced in my food/drink/medicine, etc I demand to know that. Not labelling as to source is also criminal, treasonous, IMO.
What do we have a shortage of? Certainly not milk. Not wheat, corn, medicines. Quite the contrary, we don’t need to produce more, we need to concentrate on population growth around the world.
Other than corporations, I know of no one who is better served by increasing the world population, IMO.
Posted by: Roy Ellis at August 16, 2010 12:02 PM
The government may tell we what I should or should no eat or drink. As a matter of fact, I want my government to do this or I would be at the mercy of corporate advertising, unless some progressive watchdog group was looking out for my interests. I belong to the few group. Few use products that I grow an affinity for so those products disappear from the store shelves. The corporations are not fond of having the government or advocacy groups doing consumer safety. Have you noticed how the government has been falling down on the job and the watchdogs have had to pick up the slack?
The corporations bought the politicians so that their advertising no longer has to tell you where the product comes from or under what conditions they were processed.
Roy, other than corporations and religions.
Roy, did you notice how those who expose the workings of the corpocracy are dependent on private donations while the talking heads that support it have access to the media wealth and present the propaganda to the people 24/7.
Royal Flush
“nearly 50% of Americans are receiving some sort of entitlement benefit from the government”
And, a lot of them don’t even bother to vote. The silent minority.
Posted by: jlw at August 16, 2010 01:43 PMRoyal Flush, reread my response, which is directed to directly to your quoted reply. We all are entitled to various benefits of our government. How could you possibly miss that in my response? You couldn’t. Ergo, reiterating your statement constitutes no logical reply at all.
Posted by: David R. Remer at August 16, 2010 02:55 PM
Many poor working class people, especially minorities bought inflation priced homes with VIRM’s during the housing bubble; only to loose them when the bubble burst. Many of them bought their homes with the assistance of the Bush faith based alliance between churches and banks.
jlw said: “The corporations are not fond of having the government or advocacy groups doing consumer safety.”
Well, there are exceptions, I think. If I am not mistaken, the snack industry is for legalizing marijuana, or at least decriminalizing it. That’s one example of corporations opposing the government telling us what we can and can’t consume. (Tongue in cheek.)
Posted by: David R. Remer at August 16, 2010 02:59 PMRoy, given all the salmonella and E.Coli recalls over the last decade, I have to side with JLW on this one. Those recalls would NEVER have taken place and more consumers would have died as a result, many children, were it not for Government acting as WatchDog over our food industry.
I will however, readily concede the point, that there will always be people opposed to ANY regulation no matter what the regulation may contain. Therefore, one has to measure such regulations on their net benefit versus their net harm.
Clearly, vastly more lives are saved than liberties lost with the government overseeing food and drug safety regulations, especially, with our enormous food imports from vastly less sanitary growing nations. The CDC and Agriculture departments monitor outbreaks in export countries and informs the public and American distributors when imports from those countries may be harmful to the American public. The net gain, clearly outweighs the net loss of freedom of choice, of which Americans suffer no shortage of in the area of food.
Now, marijuana is another crop of a different color, where the net loss in treasure, wasted manpower, and liberty far outweigh the net gains of preventing a small increase in highway and job related accidents as a result of marijuana usage by adults.
Like everything in our enormously diverse America, its not as simple an issue as it first appears. America is complicated, and there will always be protesters of any act of our government, since there will always be a faction of our population who will perceive themselves as harmed by any government policy or regulation, regardless of net merit. This is universally true for all intents and purposes and must not be lost sight of when deciding net benefit, net harm ratios regarding government policy and regulation.
National debt growth is a perfect example of maximizing short term benefits at the expense of the demise of our nation in the longer term. Some ratios are very clearly evaluated. Others will exist in a highly debatable gray areas. But, all will find proponents and opponents, regardless of clarity or gray area of benefit.
Posted by: David R. Remer at August 16, 2010 03:15 PMMr. Remer wrote; “Royal Flush, reread my response, which is directed to directly to your quoted reply. We all are entitled to various benefits of our government.”
OK…I’ll ask again…Why would all those receiving entitlements bite the hand that feeds them.”
Posted by: Royal Flush at August 17, 2010 11:52 AMjlw & David, have ye not herd the news?? Chinamen are raising fish in mudholes and delivering it, thru Wally World, right to your breakfast table. Whoops, the British that is - - - delivering it right to your dinner table.
Recall the Chinese Herapin thing? Recall the more recent tomato salmonila incident which turned out not to be tomatoes? Recall, during the Bush admin where he posted Czars at each agency head to make sure those agencies toe’d the ‘fair trade’ line, ‘ask no questions, just move it on.’ FDA, Consumer Affairs, even the NASA had a Czar. The taxpayer is forced to spend billions on these agencies that are controlled by the Corpocracy. According to the ‘LINK’ article on GM’d foods the FDA is just letting it ride, see what will happen downstream.
Agree, corporations need regulation by government but
not regulation by Corpocracy.
Otherwise, we have the Corpocracy we deserve.
Populist/centrist Republic Sentry Party - - check it out - - www.republicsentry.com
Posted by: Roy Ellis at August 17, 2010 03:54 PMForgot to mention that the agenda of the Republic Sentry Party calls for building a merchant marine fleet of hi-tech modern ships which would float over to China, bring home a load of veggies and have onboard labs to check out the bugs in route. A good plan since the Chinese won’t let FDA on their soil for anything more than a handshake.
Posted by: Roy Ellis at August 17, 2010 03:57 PMRoyal Flush wrote: OK … I’ll ask again … Why would all those receiving entitlements bite the hand that feeds them.They won’t, UNTIL their selfishness and the systems they have so thoroughly abused finally fail, since:
- Responsibility = Power + Virtue + Education + Transparency + Accountability
- Corruption, Pain, and Misery = Power - Virtue - Education - Transparency - Accountability
So, it may take a while, but it’s safe to say that many tens of millions of voters are beginning to get their Education?
And it may take a while, but it’s safe to say that the majority of voters will get their Education one way or another.
Roy Ellis wrote: Yeah, the Repub’s see the ‘flat tax’ coming and they want to get in front of it with a ‘Fair Tax’. Google ‘flat tax’ and you will see that much of Europe, Russia and the Far East is/has adopted the flat tax and liking it. But, if the Repub’s can’t shoe horn the ‘Fair Tax’ in they will try to sell us some version of a flat tax with the usual corporate welfare intact. The middle column will be ready for em!!Yep.
The un-“FairTax” is a sales tax, and all sales taxes are regressive (despite any pre-bates).
The “Flat Tax” is preferrable, as long as it taxes all income an equal percentage.
The current tax system is regressive, because some income (capital gains) is taxed at a much lower rate than wages.
The nation could save a LOT of time and money, and eliminate millions of pages of ridiculously complex tax laws, if only the income tax rate were set to a single flat rate percentage on ALL types of income (e.g. a flat 17% income tax), with a poverty-level exemption (similar or equivalent to what deducations that already exists, and what other tax systems also advocate in the form of deductions or prebates).
People who think that a regressive sales tax is a good idea, would be wise to do some of their own calculations on several likely scenarios.
The un-“FairTax” proposes what it calls a “prebate”, which would send people money, which would still result in a regressive tax system.
The un-“FairTax” is actually flat 30% Sales Tax.
It raises taxes from spending, instead of income.
All sales taxes are REGRESSIVE (meaning: as income decreases, tax as a percentage of income increases.
The 30% Sales Tax proponents will try to tell you it is not REGRESSIVE due to a prebate, but it is still REGRESSIVE.
The prebate is merely what amounts to a deduction that everyone gets.
As with any deduction, it merely shifts the starting point at which income starts to get taxed.
That is, your first $8K of income (for a single person due to a $2400 prebate) or $19.7K (for a family of 4 due to a $5902 prebate) would effectively not be taxed. That still does not remove the REGRESSIVE nature of any flat sales tax. Most people consider REGRESSIVE taxes unfair (and rightfully so). Also, the 23% FairTax.org plan is actually a 30% Sales Tax. The 23% FairTax.org plan calculates the 23% from a percentage of the tax plus the sale prices (e.g. 23% = [TAX / (TAX + PRICE)]). For example, under the FairTax.org plan, the tax on a $100 dollar purchase is $30 which is 30% of the $100 price. The 23% is derived from $30/$130. This is a bit misleading, and it fools people. People are used to calculating a sales tax as a percentage of the price. So the FairTax.org plan is actually a whopping 30% sales tax.
Fortunately, many polls show that the majority of people polled prefer a flat income tax.
So, if some politicians want to advocate the un-“FairTax”, then have at it, since polls tend to show that most voters don’t like it, nor the smoke and mirrors and other nebulous, obfuscated, circular arguments the un-“FairTax” proponents use to try to prove that their 30% sales tax is not regressive.
Also, while Democrats and Republicans BOTH go to destructive extremes, this issue is a perfect example of an extreme that many Republican’s go to (i.e. wallowing in one manifestation of unchecked greed), since in year 2007, there were 91 supporters of the un-“FairTax”, and 86 were Republicans.
- Extreme # 1: One extreme wants regressive taxation, unfettered capitalism and freedom to explore and wallow in every manifestation of unchecked greed (which we have seen plenty of lately).
- Extreme #2: The other extreme wants a nanny-state with citizens increasingly dependent on the government; with massive cradle-to-grave government programs (which are usually severely mismanaged, abused, and pilfered) that nurture a sense of entitlement and dependency on government; wants to grow government ever larger (despite the already current nightmare proportions); rewards failure and laziness; and perpetuates the myth that we can somehow all live at the expense of everyone else.
However, today, there are now only two Congress persons listed (both Republicans from Georgia) on the un-“FairTax.org” web-site in support of the “FairTax.org” tax system (HR 25, S 1025):
- Sponsors and Cosponsors of The The FairTax Act of 2009
- Representative John Linder, (R)Georgia
- Senator Saxby Chambliss, (R)Georgia
That’s an amazing turn of events!?!
The Thomas Library of Congress shows only 58 cosponsers of H.R. 25 in year 2005: thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d109:HR00025:@@@P
So, fortunately, it appears that the un-“FairTax” plan isn’t on the radar screen for now.
But who knows. Perhaps Republican Congress persons may try to resurrect it when they get their next turn at being the IN-PARTY again?
Also, to be fair, it should be noted that many Democrats also voted for the tax breaks (as low as 5%-to-15%) on capital gains, while wages were still subject to 15.3% Social Security taxes + federal income taxes, which led to the situation in which Warren Buffet paid 17.7% in total federal taxes on $46 million in income in year 2006, while his secretary (and many other American tax payers) paid 30% in total federal taxes on about $60K of income (source: One-Simple-Idea.com/Abuses.htm#Taxes).
At any rate, the majority of voters have the government that they elect, and re-elect, and re-elect, at least, possibly, until repeatedly rewarding failure, repeatedly rewarding the duopoly, and repeatedly rewarding FOR-SALE, incompetent, arrogant, and corrupt incumbent politicians in Do-Nothing Congress with 85%-to-90% re-election rates finally becomes too painful.
A worker is required to make it in 6.135 seconds. The worker receives 8 cents for making it. What is it? A Nike tee shirt. Workers receive 58 cents for making a jacket that sells retail for $189. It doesn’t get better than this for corporations and their shareholders. Slavery would be far more expensive. Globalization.
d.a.n. I see an ad frequently run on TV about signing a petition for a ‘fair’ tax system. The ad notes that Neut Gingrich is all for a fair tax. The Repubs aren’t spending ad money for nothing. They must be thinking of adding a fair tax to their tool box for 2012 elections, IMO.
jlw, Some 13 Chinese workers have committed suicide recently and workers are striking for higher wages and better working conditions. One fellow said he had lived in a dorm for two years and didn’t know the names of people living next to him in the same workers dorm. No talking, etc. Also, some high skilled workers are leaving China and coming to the USA for better pay and better working conditions.
Well, we can talk about it forever, there’s lots of Chinese and Indians to work through before wages rise much. Seems a better use of our time to start up a 3rd party with a different political attitude - - - -
Otherwise, we have the Corpocracy we deserve.
Posted by: Roy Ellis at August 18, 2010 08:19 PMRoy, I think I may have seen one of those TV ads, but it was some time ago.
Republicans will shoot themselves in the foot if they try to resurrect the un-“FairTax.org” tax plan. It has been debated at great length on TV and the internet, and it appears to fail to convince a majority, and that is most likely because they know all sales taxes are regressive, despite any bass-akwards [p]rebate. Regardless of the [p]rebate, once it runs out, everything after that is regressive (as all sales taxes are).
Also, if the 30% sales tax is not regressive, and amounts to about the same thing as a non-regressive or non-progressive tax, flat income tax on all types of income and elimination of all deductions and tax loop-holes, then why bother?
What’s the advantage?
Who do you think will love a 30% sales tax, and why?
Who would love a tax system most in which the effective tax percentage on total income declines as income increases?!?
I think many of the supports of the un-“FairTax.org” plan have not really done the calcutions themselves, and/or they don’t believe there’s anything wrong with regressive taxation.
But, if enough voters think it’s something they want, then they should have it, and they will learn another hard lesson.
The thing is, the current tax system could be simplified greatly, but Congress won’t fix it because the current tax system is regressive and Congress persons and their wealthy puppeteers like it that way. Simplifying the tax system to eliminate tax loop-holes, tax all income above the poverty-level by an equal percentage would make the tax system more fair and that’s not what Congress and their wealthy puppeteers want.
At any rate, the majority of voters have the government that they elect, and re-elect, and re-elect, at least, possibly, until repeatedly rewarding failure, repeatedly rewarding the duopoly, and repeatedly rewarding FOR-SALE, incompetent, arrogant, and corrupt incumbent politicians in Do-Nothing Congress with 85%-to-90% re-election rates finally becomes too painful.
d.a.n The fair tax ad is being run several times a day on FOX channel. The tax code must be the control lever with the greatest effect that congress has in their tool bag. By making winners and losers they can change society at will. BP paid no taxes in either 07 or 09, forget which. You, the taxpayer, pays to relocate businesses overseas, pays for their foreign advertising for their products, etc. Most can show a loss after taking their ‘legal’ deductions, etc.
I assume we are talking about a flat tax with no deductions for workers and businesses. Certainly should be that way since businesses are human too.
Posted by: Roy Ellis at August 19, 2010 10:27 AMThe economy is so bad Exxon Mobil laid off 25 Congressmen.
http://climateprogress.org/2010/04/06/exxon-mobil-paid-no-federal-income-tax-in-2009/
Roy, seems to me, in a flat tax system, there should be no taxes on business. After all, business taxes only inflate prices for consumers as pass downs. Invoking a flat tax on income with an the only exception being those with incomes of 1.5 to 2.5 times the poverty level, would be capable of funding government adequately with no loopholes for the wealthy. Removing the tax from business gives American business a competitive level playing field with foreign business at least, and competitive advantage in many cases, allowing more jobs to remain here, and be brought back to American shores.
The way to address corporate abuses is through fines, stiff and steep, insuring such regulatory requirements and fines are made public knowledge to shareholders at corporate expense. Shareholders will then have the power to hold their boards and execs accountable and even empower them to structure compensation packages to suit compliance with regulatory requirements. In effect, making shareholders, in part, regulatory enforcers. A fair trade off for providing shareholder earning increases due to the elimination of corporate taxation.
Posted by: David R. Remer at August 19, 2010 02:27 PM
Roy, another enemy of America progressive website telling lies about a great corporation like ExxonMobil?
The figures I quoted aren’t 100% accurate, they are from memory. I believe these workers are Latin American.
CORPORATION is the next film you might want to check out on Link TV.
Dan said:
Extreme #2: The other side wants a nanny-state with citizens increasingly dependent on the government.
That is not true! The other side wants fair wages, fair working conditions, full employment and safe products. They want the government increasingly dependent on the people.
The investors are the driving force of the corpocracy and rule by wealth, what do investors want?
Posted by: jlw at August 19, 2010 02:43 PMAgree David, corporate taxes should be abolished but strong anti-trust laws should be kept at the ready. From Republic Sentry’s Mission statement: “Adopt a 17% flat tax based on income above the poverty level, including inheritance income, and excluding tax-derived benefits such as Social Security and Medicare. All income to be taxed at the same tax percentage, including: inheritance, gifts, wages, prizes, lotteries, gambling and all money that exchanges ownership that is not derived from taxes. Eliminate corporate taxes.”
jlw wrote:jlw, I’m not sure what you mean, or whether you are serious, or kidding?d.a.n said: Extreme #2: The other side wants a nanny-state with citizens increasingly dependent on the government.That is not true! The other side wants fair wages, fair working conditions, full employment and safe products. They want the government increasingly dependent on the people.
However, seriously, I don’t see any important differences between either the IN-PARTY or OUT-PARTY, beyond their equally destructive extremes.
Both Republicans and Democrats have had ample opportunity in the last 30 years to make things better instead of worse.
And Democrats have had the vast majority in Congress for all but 12 of the last 78 years (since 1933).
So what happened?
Whose responsible for:
- the massive federal debt ($13.4 Trillion; the largest federal per-capita debt ever);
- the total per-capita federal debt is 705% larger today than it was in the Great Depression (in 2008 inflation adjusted U.S. Dollars);
- massive nation-wide debt ($57 Trillion; the largest per-capita nation-wide debt ever);
- total per-capita nation-wide debt is 400% larger today than it was in year 1956 (in 2008 inflation adjusted U.S. Dollars);
- Total per-capita Federal debt is 80% larger today than it was in after World War II (in 2008 inflation adjusted U.S. Dollars);
- increasingly expensive, but poor quality education; and increasingly unaffordable college education;
- unemployment of 9.5% (or upto 22% by some estimates);
- incessant inflation of 2% (or as high as 8% by some estimates);
- the wealthiest 1% own over 40% of all wealth today, which has never been that bad since the Great Depression; a trend that started many decades ago;
- low GDP of 3%, but more likely -1.5% by some estimates);
- the declining falling U.S. Dollar;
- an estimated $70-to-$327 billion in net losses due to illegal immigration;
- regressive taxation;
- declining median income;
- election fraud;
- wars (some most likely unnecessary);
- constitutional violations (e.g. Article V); 6 new cases per day of eminent domain abuse; and perversion of laws to do legalize what used to be illegal;
- and too many voters who repeatedly reward FOR-SALE, incompetent, arrogant, greedy, and corrupt incumbent politicians with 85%-to-90% re-election rates, despite dismally low 11% approval ratings for Congress;
Democrat and Republicans BOTH caused it, with the voters’ assistance and rewards in the form of repeated 90% re-election rates for Congress.
So it appears, the majority of Americans have what they want, since they continue to repeatedly reward Congress with 90% re-election rates? ! ? If not, what’s going on?
Is it possible that the majority of people want and expect to be dominated, used, and abused? If not, then why do so many people tolerate oppression for so long?
At any rate, the majority of voters have the government that they elect, and re-elect, and re-elect, at least, possibly, until repeatedly rewarding failure, repeatedly rewarding the duopoly, and repeatedly rewarding FOR-SALE, incompetent, arrogant, and corrupt incumbent politicians in Do-Nothing Congress with 85%-to-90% re-election rates finally becomes too painful.
Dan, there is a major difference between the before and after Reagan Democratic Party.
Before Reagan, The Democratic Party was quite larger than now and there were very few independents. The Party swung to the right. That swing became official with the establishment of the DNC. Since then, the Democrats have joined forces with Republicans to form the duopoly and represent the corporations for corporate perks. No progressive legislation has been passed and workers have been giving more of their wealth away to the wealthy since the since the establishment of the DNC, and the party has been bleeding constituents every since. The Democrats feed the progressives a line of crap and when they don’t deliver, they blame the Republicans. The Republican Party has been doing the same to the conservatives.
Many Republicans blame the Republicans, but still vote for them. Many on the left blame the Democrats but still vote for them.
I took me quite a while, to long, to realize that the Democrats no longer represented me. It is taking others even longer.
Posted by: jlw at August 19, 2010 11:19 PMjlw,
Thanks.
I agree.
And it took me too long too.
We’re not stupid.
But we are all culpable, and we’re going to get our Education one way or another, regardless of what is fair or not.
Some will never get it, nor ever admit being wrong.
Some would rather suffer the consequences than ever admit to being wrong.
Some will take too long to get it.
And too many of those that get it, may be too few to ever influence a majority to also get it.
But, there’s some hope (sort of), since pain and misery is also a very effective Educator and motivator.
Also, our problems in this nation are not only strictly the corporations. It’s selfishness at many levels. Corporations are merely a facade, or tool used by some of the most wealthy who abuse their wealth for self-gain.
Not all corporations are bad, just as not all wealthy people are bad.
More accurately, there are far too many of the wealthy, who own and control some corporations, who use their vast wealth to influence and control government, as evidenced by 99.7% of all 200 million eligible voters being vastly and thoroughly out-spent by a very tiny 0.3% of the wealthiest voters who make 83% of all federal campaign donations of $200 or more.
So, I think perhaps there is too much focus on corporations, and too little focus on who owns and controls those corporations.
But, in some cases, similar to the voters of this nation, the shareholders and employees within the corporations are also culpable.
So, the greed and corruption is wide-spread, but the worst offenders are the people who have most direct control of the corporations who will stoop to almost any level for their own self-gain.
And the citizens of the nation (or world) could boycott those greedy corporations, who exploit some people in terrible ways, for profits and self-gain.
Again, the citizens of the nation are culpable, similar to the voters who repeatedly reward FOR-SALE, incompetent, greedy, arrogant, and corrupt incumbent politicians with 90% re-election rates.
The wealthiest 1% now own over 40% of all wealth, up from 20% in year 1976, and never worse since the Great Depression.
It’s many (not all) of the very wealthy that abuse vast wealth who make up the kleptocratic, plutocratic corpocracy that are behind these 10+ despicable practices and abuses for self-gain at almost any cost, regardless of who they have to walk all over to increase their own wealth.
Never under-estimate human greed, when and where there is insufficient Virtue + Education + Transparency + Accountability, which leads to more Corruption, Pain, and Misery:
- Responsibility = Power + Virtue + Education + Transparency + Accountability
- Corruption, Pain, and Misery = Power - Virtue - Education - Transparency - Accountability
At any rate, the majority of voters have the government that they elect, and re-elect, and re-elect, at least, possibly, until repeatedly rewarding failure, repeatedly rewarding the duopoly, and repeatedly rewarding FOR-SALE, incompetent, arrogant, and corrupt incumbent politicians in Do-Nothing Congress with 85%-to-90% re-election rates finally becomes too painful.
A writer/reporter with ‘Rolling Stone’ was on cspan this morning. He followed the legislative process and congress as they worked on the new financial reform bill. As expected, reported the bill is a bucket of worms. He reports that hundreds of lobbyist dropped millions in campaign funds on congresspersons. How committie chairpersons herded the process, thwarting many good proposals. Also, related how smoothly the D’s and R’s worked together to deliver the goods for the Corpocracy.
Little change to CDO and derivative trading. The proposal to run banking and derivatives as two separate entities was shot down. Nothing changed with the rating agencies where junk mortgage packages can be passed along as AAA rated investments.
About the only ‘reform’ is the creation of a new Consumer Financial Protection Agency’ or something like that. We had regulators before so why do we need yet another set of regulators?
Ron Paul asked for a total audit of the FED but was given a partial, from 2007 until the time the audit bill was passed. And, only certain aspects of the FED RSV can be audited.
Matt Taibbi, the Rollin Stone reporter noted that it was standing room only in the legislator’s offices where lobbyist were plying their trade to influence the bill.
He has a new book out on his findings.
We can hang in here and cite tautology for anuther hunert yers or we can start a new 3rd party with a different political attitude. A party designed to remove the money influence from government, abolish corporate personhood law and implement REAL campaign finance reform.
Otherwise, we will continue to have the Corpocracy we deserve.
The only thing standing between the American people’s democracy and good governance, are the political parties. After our Constitution was ratified and our first president and Congress’ elected by the people, their rose the political parties to take from the people, the role of power broker over government. The ties between business and political parties date back to their rise during the riff between Jefferson and Hamilton.
Our politics in America have always been corrupting of democracy and its basic principles, but, it is only in the last decade that the corruption has finally outrun the limitations of this nation’s resources. Economic demise is underway with the advent of the Medicare/Medicaid deficits and a broken political system unable to address them.
Voters will either reclaim democracy and take power from the political parties into their own hands through a broad and sweeping anti-incumbent movement, or the political parties/and business lobbyists will permanently wreck America’s future for decades to come.
Posted by: David R. Remer at August 20, 2010 11:23 AMSeems easy for most to agree on our problems but few to none can agree on a solution. Lemme try agin.
I think we can agree the Founder’s put together the best form of government every devised for a large population. I agree political parties are a major problem and have been since inception. I agree that we have a largely corrupt governing system, the best government money can buy, etc. I am torqued that the government won’t enforce it’s own immigration laws while Pelosi wants to determine the source for the noise against building the mosque.
While most can agree with the tautology spewed forth as to our problems I am dismayed by the lack or inability of people to debate for solutions. If one suggest that holding or reducing the US population by removing tax code incentives for expanding families one gets a response that ‘bombing babies’ would solve the problem. Like there is no middle ground solution possible. You either must hand out fertility drugs at McDonalds or bomb the babes where they can be found grouped up in hospitals. You choose.
So, IMO, the goal is to work for a centrist/middle ground solution. I believe an anti-incumbent movement would serve to weaken the Corpocracy, removing some rotten wood, impede by removing some experienced folks from congress, etc. And, it might work to focus the incumbents attention on their constituency.
But, IMO, I know of only one non-violent solution. For a short term goal we need our representatives to focus more on their constituency. For a long term goal we need to remove the money influence from government and politics. How best can those two goals be accomplished?
There is no other viable way, IMO, for the public to interact with government than the political party. Thus, we must fight fire with fire. We need a 3rd party with a different political attitude. A centrist/populist reform party designed to remove the Corpocracy from gov’t and keep it that way. Such a party would be founded in rules that would prevent the moneyed interest from co-opting the party over time. Rules that are hard to impossible to circumvent, requiring a two-thirds vote by national party membership to make a change.
Party rules would authorize party members to serve an oversight function for elected and appointed state/federal officials of their party. If the incumbent fails to work toward carrying out the party agenda the incumbent may be required to stand for a vote, a national vote for US congresspersons/appointees/ambassadors, and a state wide party vote for governors and other state officials. If the incumbent fails to garner 65% favorable vote he/she is rejected from the party, left to serve out their term of office but serving outside the party and with no further party support. This gives the taxpayer/voter a way of weighing in on the political process but tightening the reins on those who would campaign on supporting the party agenda and, when elected, act to work against the party agenda. Now, in the age of the Internet the incumbent who wants to act on some issue that doesn’t conform to the party agenda may communicate such to their party and gain the confidence of party members to proceed with their plans. But clearly, this process gives the voter/taxpayer a way to weigh in on setting the party agenda and focusing the politician on the party agenda and their constituency, year over year. It ensures the incumbent politician will feel the urge to stay well connected with their constituency and communicate like hell if they want to go off on their own political tangent.
Toward the long term goal, the mission of the party would be to remove the Corpocracy from gov’t by abolishing corporate personhood law. Once that is accomplished the party would want to focus on REAL campaign finance reform, running donations from the individual through the IRS and Federal Elections Commission for accountability and disbursement of election funds. Donated monies would be bundled, cutting the audit trail and divided among competing parties. Donors could give as much and as often as they choose.
Fight fire with fire. Give more control of the agenda to the voter and focus the politician/incumbent on the party agenda and voter/taxpayer. A SOLUTION for the 21st century, IMO.
Be way interested in hearing other solutions.
Otherwise, we will continue to have the Corpocracy we deserve.
Roy said: “For a long term goal we need to remove the money influence from government and politics.”
The only way that is going to happen is if the anti-incumbent movement shares that objective as a condition of incumbents winning back their vote. First Amendment excuses will be the political party’s armor on yielding to that demand of dramatically reducing money influence on legislation, elections, and enforcement policies.
Any third party, in order to contend with the duopoly and win enough seats to make a difference, will have to raise comparable sums of money as the duopoly does, to compete for media air time and print space. In raising that much money, that third party will have to allow itself to be corrupted by the same money that now corrupts the duopoly. I see no way around this Third Party Catch-22.
Posted by: David R. Remer at August 20, 2010 06:17 PMDavid, we are talking about a 3rd party with a DIFFERENT political attitude. Goes something like this: donations would be primarily from small donations from the public, including those bearing anti-incumbent sentiment. Yes, hopefully Independents would support. Also, a good many D’s and R’s are on the fence right now and perhaps we could pick up a number of normally non-interested voters who might care to donate for the cause. But, the party must have broad appeal and if we can achieve that the donations will come. So, the party needs to be ‘out there’ as much as possible in the interim so people know they have a safe harbor when/if things get worse yet, which is a given, IMO. Certainly, you have to be a unique party that can easily be recognized as different and offer a path to REAL reform of gov’t as opposed to ‘hope and change’ BS.
This party would work to hold cost to a bare minimum. Volunteerism would be the order of the day. We would look to retiring ‘boomers’ to offer volunteer support. Initially, most of the funds would go to website development, setting up a streaming video capability so that candidates could get their message out in video, audio and text. As funds permit the website(s) would support mini-cspan like channels to support dialog/communications between voters and politicians. I believe the US is full of people who would like to volunteer for a good cause and work to make the party a success.
The idea is to promote Internet technology through one or multiple websites as necessary and in accordance with funding to provide all types of communications between party officials, politicians and the voting public. I’ve never been to a ‘town meeting’ but I do believe I could click on the Internet if Jim Webb was going to give a speech on the Dem website. I haven’t seen hide nor hair of that guy in over a year.
Also, going to need volunteers, in addition to the party membership at large, to keep tabs on politicians as to whether they are ethical hazards or are not supporting the party agenda. I would think eight or so volunteers per state would be sufficient for that task.
Also needed is Internet capability to manage voter generated complaints against an incumbent. If an incumbent receives complaints from 20% of voters, state or national party, as the case may be, then an automated call for a mandatory up/down vote on that incumbent is generated and viewable by the public. The mandatory vote will also be managed by an automated web based utility.
Then, there is the normal bookkeeping, primarily databasing, that would be required by the Fed, the FEC and etc.
In brief, it’s volunteerism, heavy reliance on the Internet, op=eds/opinions in newspapers, etc. We would not be trying to buy votes or support from big media. The first few elections we would have to fight fire with fire for funding. We simply have to be seen as a party with a different political attitude with a very well spelled out ‘cause’ that would attract voters/donations, IMO.
If we can do all that we will have set a pretty high bar for competing parties.
Otherwise, we have the Corpocracy we deserve.
Roy, attitude has nothing to do with it. As d.a.n states:
More accurately, there are far too many of the wealthy, who own and control some corporations, who use their vast wealth to influence and control government, as evidenced by 99.7% of all 200 million eligible voters being vastly and thoroughly out-spent by a very tiny 0.3% of the wealthiest voters who make 83% of all federal campaign donations of $200 or more.
Any third party is going to have to compete for that money. Speech is free. Mass communication is Enormously Expensive. And that money corrupts. To change law in D.C., that third party would have to hold 1/4 of Congressional seats, and act as power broker compromising legislation in trade offs with the duopoly in order to get anything of their agenda passed. These are realities, Roy, that can’t be ignored by a third party. They have to be addressed, realistically.
As difficult as you want to make it David, isn’t it true that you have to start from somewhere? A person can’t become an astronaut until he/she completes the first grade and goes forward from there, etc.
If a 3rd party acted as you suggest that party would be no better than the duopoly. People has to recognize the new party as offering something different and presenting an agenda with broad appeal. Just that simple.
Posted by: Roy Ellis at August 21, 2010 04:06 PMRoy said: “If a 3rd party acted as you suggest that party would be no better than the duopoly.”
Precisely my point, Roy. We agree. So, what is your plan to raise sufficient funding to compete for Congressional seats without falling prey to the conditional wiles of contributors?
Nothing big occurs without a plan. Absent a plan, ideas amount to little more than mental masturbation. The plan has to be practical and real world based.
I have given the matter some thought, and have yet to imagine a realistic plan to fund a third party’s elections without succumbing to the same forces that corrupt the duopoly party.
I am all ears, Roy. I don’t think it is impossible. I just haven’t heard anything credible yet.
The problem with, “If you build it, they will come” is getting the funds to build it in the first place, without becoming corrupt. It is THE catch-22 of 3rd party politics in America.
Posted by: David R. Remer at August 21, 2010 05:48 PMTo get started we need a few people to join the Republic Sentry Party and we need some people who would run for local offices under the banner of the party. Until we reach that stage there is not much to build on. Hard to advertise a party with no members. If I had a couple of local supporters I would be in the local towns waving banners, etc. But, we have to start from somewhere and right now we are starting from zero. So, in that sense, the world is our cherry!
Posted by: Roy Ellis at August 21, 2010 06:32 PMRoy, to get members you have to devise a concise and credible plan that sells itself. And then begin with small donations to expand the reach of that plan to an ever larger audience who will buy into it.
Books on how to set up a small business are enormously educational in starting up such ventures. But, I warn you, someone is going to have to dedicate the better part of their entire personal life to it, to get it off the ground and keep its rudder on course. Dedication and commitment to a worthy cause will become contagious in time. But, some milestones have to be reached for credibility to be established.
Posted by: David R. Remer at August 21, 2010 06:44 PMAgree, not rushing to founding until some ducks are in row.
Posted by: Roy Ellis at August 21, 2010 07:56 PMHTML Formatting Tips:
<strong>bold text</strong>
<em>italicize text</em>
<u>underline text</u>
<strike>strike text</strike>
<a href="http://domain.com/link">link text</a>
<blockquote>quote text</blockquote>
By clicking the "Post" button you agree to abide by the Rules For Participation. Please report abuse and inappropriate behavior to editor@watchblog.com.
