The Grassroots movement , and the Tea Party

[turbo]

I don't know how common these ideas are, but the TP members in this state (or supporters, more fairly, since it's not an organized party) seem to have a poorly-focused rage regarding government programs that benefit others. If a single mother needs access to Medicaid to get health-care for her children or food-stamps, then she is a freeloader, regardless of her work-status, wages, and lack of benefits.

Governor-elect LePage played to this rage regarding government programs, despite the fact that his business benefits disproportionately from them. His company offers part-time jobs with low wages, and NO benefits - not even access to unemployment insurance coverage. His company makes plenty of money while foisting off all their low-wage workers onto public-assistance programs. Somehow the TP members never seem to understand the connection between sub-living wages and the need for public assistance.

 

[WhoWee]

IMO, welfare abuse is more likely to occur in a major metropolitan setting than a small community or rural setting.

 

[turbo]

IMO, welfare abuse is more likely to occur in a major metropolitan setting than a small community or rural setting.

Certainly, there is a lot less anonymity in rural settings, but I don't know that welfare abuse is more common in one setting or another.

 

[NobodySpecial]

IMO, welfare abuse is more likely to occur in a major metropolitan setting than a small community or rural setting.

Depends whether you count agricultural subsidies as 'welfare'

Or schools, roads, fire, police, hospitals that are vastly more expensive to run in areas with low population density. Government costs per person are normally a lot higher in rural areas than in a major metropolitan setting.

 

[WhoWee]

This will surely get me into trouble here but (IMO) abuse of food stamps and medicaid are less acceptable in a small community setting - more likely to be reported.

 

[lisab]

Depends whether you count agricultural subsidies as 'welfare'

Well if you're going include agricultural subsides as 'welfare', would you also include the mortgage interest deduction?

 

[turbo]

Well if you're going include agricultural subsides as 'welfare', would you also include the mortgage interest deduction?

I would include ethanol-production subsidies as "welfare", but only for the big agribusiness and chemical companies - not for citizens. About 20 years ago, I was invited to make a pitch to the company operating some ethanol/corn-product plants in Iowa. After-hours, I had a few beers with a CE from the plant, and asked him when that plant would make "break-even", and he said "Never". Basically, the plants were dropped into the middle of corn-country to suck up subsidies for "clean" fuel that uses more energy to produce than it returns.

The toll of ethanol on small engines is staggering, resulting in a hidden tax that is spread all around. I have to add expensive fuel-stabilizer to every jug of gas that I buy for my wood-splitter, small tiller, chain-saw, weed trimmer, outboard motor, lawn tractor, etc, and I have to perform lots of extra maintenance to keep them going. I paid over $75 a couple of years ago to get my Husqvarna chain-saw rebuilt after the ethanol practically dissolved the fuel-line and contaminated all the fuel-system downstream of the tank. That fuel-line was tacky to the touch and would stick together with no provocation.

The fuel systems on my neighbor's tiller and sawmill will both have to be torn down and rebuilt this winter. They are both in rough shape from the crappy ethanol-laden gas we have to buy here. We'd both pay a premium to buy gas that doesn't contain ethanol, but everything up here is now 10% ethanol.

 

[WhoWee]

I would include ethanol-production subsidies as "welfare", but only for the big agribusiness and chemical companies - not for citizens. About 20 years ago, I was invited to make a pitch to the company operating some ethanol/corn-product plants in Iowa. After-hours, I had a few beers with a CE from the plant, and asked him when that plant would make "break-even", and he said "Never". Basically, the plants were dropped into the middle of corn-country to suck up subsidies for "clean" fuel that uses more energy to produce than it returns. QUOTE]

How is this different than subsidizing wind and solar projects?

 

[mheslep]

Ethanol subsidies, as I understand them, differ from the mortgage deduction in that the former is a case of tax money taken from taxpayer A and given to ethanol producer B. The later, mortgage deductions, are a case of keeping more of your own money than you would have otherwise paid through taxes. I'd do away them both. Canada seems to avoid mass homelessness without a mortgage deduction. I think it certainly would have avoided the housing bubble, at least the worst of it.

 

[turbo]

How is this different than subsidizing wind and solar projects?

Well, for one, ethanol production takes valuable crop-land out of production for human food and livestock feed, and increases those costs to all of us, while sucking up our government's tax revenues. Ethanol is nowhere near break-even. I'd much rather subsidize wind-projects. Wind is usually there, and it doesn't result in profit windfalls to the putative producers of the wind (our planet).

 

[mheslep]

It might be difficult to run that tractor from the local wind turbine. Ethanol serves a purpose unique to transportation, for the moment.

 

[Evo]

Does anyone remember what the topic was?

 

[Char. Limit]

The Tea Party.

I don't like it how I keep getting referred to as a "Teabagger", when I'm not even conservative. I'm centrist, for God's sake! Conservatives call me a radical liberal, liberals call me a teabagger.

 

[NobodySpecial]

The Tea Party.

I don't like it how I keep getting referred to as a "Teabagger", when I'm not even conservative. I'm centrist, for God's sake! Conservatives call me a radical liberal, liberals call me a teabagger.

Is there a democrat equivalent of the tea party?
Would it be the Latte party?

 

[WhoWee]

Does anyone remember what the topic was?

It's not easy to stay on topic for some reason this weekend?

I'll try to get us back.

It should be obvious after this discussion that local issues are important to everyone.

The Tea Party doesn't seem to have a national organization because of that reason - there are a few (see my 3 legged post) things all members agree on - and everything apparently falls into a local category. Things important to a Maine Tea Party member may not be important to a group in Idaho.

Another thing that might be derived from this thread is that some programs are more effectively managed on a state level - VERY rarely does a one size fits all approach work for everyone. I think the Tea Party recognized that waste has become the norm - doesn't know what to actually do about it - and is looking for people who will address the problem. AGAIN IMO

 

[Evo]

It's not easy to stay on topic for some reason this weekend?

I'll try to get us back.

It should be obvious after this discussion that local issues are important to everyone.

The Tea Party doesn't seem to have a national organization because of that reason - there are a few (see my 3 legged post) things all members agree on - and everything apparently falls into a local category. Things important to a Maine Tea Party member may not be important to a group in Idaho.

Another thing that might be derived from this thread is that some programs are more effectively managed on a state level - VERY rarely does a one size fits all approach work for everyone. I think the Tea Party recognized that waste has become the norm - doesn't know what to actually do about it - and is looking for people who will address the problem. AGAIN IMO

I agree with what you've said. So, do you think that some "celebrity" politicians, such as Palin, tried to hijack the "movement" for their own personal gain, or do you think people like her were sought after to represent them?

 

[WhoWee]

I agree with what you've said. So, do you think that some "celebrity" politicians, such as Palin, tried to hijack the "movement" for their own personal gain, or do you think people like her were sought after to represent them?

I'm not sure either regarding Palin. At one point it looked like a national organization was forming (wasn't there a convention in the summer?) and she spoke. But I got the feeling that she distanced herself from the group's organizer (can't recall his name?).

I think Palin needs to keep herself available to the RNC if she wants a shot in 2012 or 2016.

I think Michele Bachman is more likely to be the Tea Party candidate - who knows?

 

[Evo]

I'm not sure either regarding Palin. At one point it looked like a national organization was forming (wasn't there a convention in the summer?) and she spoke. But I got the feeling that she distanced herself from the group's organizer (can't recall his name?).

I think Palin needs to keep herself available to the RNC if she wants a shot in 2012 or 2016.

I think Michele Bachman is more likely to be the Tea Party candidate - who knows?

Do you really think sane republicans would would back her? She lost the election for McCain, even hard core Republicans came out against her because she's a nut. Of course McCain had no clue that she was crazy, but now that people know her, can she really draw non-fringe backing? I can't imagine anyone thinking this woman is mentally capable.

 

[WhoWee]

Do you really think sane republicans would would back her? She lost the election for McCain, even hard core Republicans came out against her because she's a nut. Of course McCain had no clue that she was crazy, but now that people know her, can she really draw non-fringe backing? I can't imagine anyone thinking this woman is mentally capable.

Actually, I think McCain would have done worse without her (yes he was THAT bad of a choice - IMO). I'm thinking the 2012 ticket will feature either Rick Santorum or Mitch Daniels and possibly Bachman as vp?

 

[Evo]

Actually, I think McCain would have done worse without her (yes he was THAT bad of a choice - IMO). I'm thinking the 2012 ticket will feature either Rick Santorum or Mitch Daniels and possibly Bachman as vp?

I think McCain would have won if it wasn't for her. I was leaning toward him until he chose her.

 

[Char. Limit]

How about Angle-Bachmann for 2012? Any chance of that?

 

[WhoWee]

I think McCain would have won if it wasn't for her. I was leaning toward him until he chose her.

McCain was not effective in the debates. He made solid arguments, but Obama clearly had the advantage when it came to personality. Also, McCain tried not to be negative - he left that to Palin.

Just out of curiosity, would you have voted for McCain/Lieberman?

 

[WhoWee]

How about Angle-Bachmann for 2012? Any chance of that?

Interesting choice, both are probably more popular nationwide than in their own states.

 

[Char. Limit]

Interesting choice, both are probably more popular nationwide than in their own states.

Yeah, though I probably wouldn't vote for it...

They're too far to the right for me. Just like Obama is too far to the left for me. I stand in the very exact center.

 

[WhoWee]

Yeah, though I probably wouldn't vote for it...

They're too far to the right for me. Just like Obama is too far to the left for me. I stand in the very exact center.

I know the feeling. My facebook page declares me an "unrepresented angry independent".

Most of the Tea Party people that I know are either small business owners or managers of some type. Nearly to the person, they describe themselves the same way.

 

[Evo]

McCain was not effective in the debates. He made solid arguments, but Obama clearly had the advantage when it came to personality. Also, McCain tried not to be negative - he left that to Palin.

I actually hated Obama's personality. I found him hokey and rather fake. I was really turned off when I saw him on tv at some county fair where he was jumping around on the bleachers and acting like an Evangelical preacher. He tried to play to his "audience" and it just smacked of insincerity.

Just out of curiosity, would you have voted for McCain/Lieberman?

I honestly can't say. Believe it or not, I'm not into politics at all, until it's shoved in my face and I have to decide. It was Biden that made me feel better about Obama, I was hoping Biden might take a stronger role. Is Biden still alive? I haven't seen him in a long time.

 

[WhoWee]

I actually hated Obama's personality. I found him hokey and rather fake. I was really turned off when I saw him on tv at some county fair where he was jumping around on the bleachers and acting like an Evangelical preacher. He tried to play to his "audience" and it just smacked of insincerity.

I honestly can't say. Believe it or not, I'm not into politics at all, until it's shoved in my face and I have to decide. It was Biden that made me feel better about Obama, I was hoping Biden might take a stronger role. Is Biden still alive? I haven't seen him in a long time.

IMO - Biden was a gamble (even more so in 2012). He has undeniable Washington experience, but you never know what he might say (or do). I was surprised that Hillary wasn't on the ticket.

 

[Evo]

IMO - Biden was a gamble (even more so in 2012). He has undeniable Washington experience, but you never know what he might say (or do). I was surprised that Hillary wasn't on the ticket.

Hillary was my first choice. That is one sharp lady.

 

[CAC1001]

Do you really think sane republicans would would back her?

What's ironic is that the Democrats seem terrified she could win the General election while the establishment GOP is terrified she could win the GOP Primary and then spectacularly lose the General.

She lost the election for McCain,

Palin didn't lose McCain the election. If anything, I'd say she is what prevented Obama from winning the election in what should have been a complete wipeout landslide.

even hard core Republicans came out against her because she's a nut. Of course McCain had no clue that she was crazy, but now that people know her, can she really draw non-fringe backing? I can't imagine anyone thinking this woman is mentally capable.

Hardcore Republicans came out against her due to her lacking qualification, not being a nut. This claim I have never really understood, as she strikes me as squarely a standard right-wing Republican. Now qualified in terms of knowledge on issues, that is a different story altogether, and I do not see her at all as qualified in that sense.

The polls show more Americans do not see her as qualified to be President (including Republicans), so that is an obstacle she would/will have to overcome should she seek to run for President. So she won't get backing from Independents unless she can prove to them she is knowledgeable on the issues.

Personally, I would much prefer her to President Obama though (but that's because I never viewed him as very qualified either, and I'm a center-right guy). If I had to choose between Hillary or Palin right now, however, I would probably choose Hillary.

It was Biden that made me feel better about Obama, I was hoping Biden might take a stronger role. Is Biden still alive? I haven't seen him in a long time.

Biden was selected for his foreign policy record, but during his time in the Senate, he has been wrong on quite a few of the major foreign policy issues. Obama hasn't had him dealing much with foreign policy, instead he had Biden tied up with his healthcare bill.

 

[CAC1001]

IMO - Biden was a gamble (even more so in 2012). He has undeniable Washington experience, but you never know what he might say (or do). I was surprised that Hillary wasn't on the ticket.

Not choosing Hillary as his VP was Obama's big blunder in the election, if he had chosen her, he'd have crushed McCain like a pancake.

 

[Galteeth]

And when you and a child's parent disagree about what their child should or shouldn't hear, who should consent on the child's behalf, you or the child's parent?Of course we can debate the specific age, but the principle is the same.

A little late on the reply to this one, but I think the individual (i.e., the "child") should get some say in what views they are willing to be exposed to. If they want to learn about evolution, but their parents' object, I think the child should have the right to learn what he/she wants regardless, especially considering its their future that will ultimately be impacted by the education. This is not even a case of a child making "potentially" dangerous choices, such as using drugs or having sex, simply one of them desiring access to information. Furthermore, as information becomes more freely available, the notion that a parent can realistically restrict a "child's" (I keep putting child in parentheses here, because I'm really referring to pre-teens and teenagers) access to information, on evolution, sex, politics, or anything else, is a fantasy. The most a parent can really do is explain their own views to their kids, and hopefully develop a good enough relationship that the kids have a reason to value their parents' opinions.
I am not suggesting the state should raise children, more so that children are not just mindless lumps of clay that parents have the "right" to shape however they choose.

 

[Gokul43201]

Not choosing Hillary as his VP was Obama's big blunder in the election, if he had chosen her, he'd have crushed McCain like a pancake.

In what universe does winning by a margin of 365 - 173 count as a "big blunder"?

 

[Gokul43201]

How about Angle-Bachmann for 2012? Any chance of that?

Would that be the conspiracy theory ticket?

Angle: "Obama is bringing Sharia Law to cities the US, like Dearborn MI"

Bachmann: "Obama's diverted 10% of the US Navy and booked 870 rooms in the Taj Mahal hotel at a cost of $200 million a day"

(approximate, but true, quotes)

 

[CAC1001]

In what universe does winning by a margin of 365 - 173 count as a "big blunder"?

I was thinking the popular vote, not the Electoral College, perhaps "blunder" was too strong a word though. But I think his not choosing Hillary still hurt him and took away from what would have been an even larger win.

 

[CAC1001]

Bachmann: "Obama's diverted 10% of the US Navy and booked 870 rooms in the Taj Mahal hotel at a cost of $200 million a day"

(approximate, but true, quotes)

The hotel one I could see as being accurate, but I don't see why anyone would complain there, I mean do they expect the Secret Service to just book one floor of the hotel!?