Up for a line of Koch?
“We’ll make darn sure they spend it in a way that goes along with our intent. If they make a wrong turn and start doing things we don’t agree with we will withdraw funding.” &ndash David Koch…
"A sinister cabal of superior writers."
Article comments
26 - Bill
It was the only sign I found that even mentions god. I don't even believe in god, but I have to say that I can tolerate a person who does believe in god, easier than someone who reveres government.
Bush stomped on the constitution, and with that knowledge I can see myselfe carrying a sign mentioning my belief in the constitution.
Gay rights and abortion are, I think, liberties, but I don't see any signs about those specific topics.
Is it possible that the Tea Party members kind of know who their constituents are. That it's a mixture of people that come from different walks of life, some believe in god , some are gay, some are out of work, anybody.
I think they have 1 thing in common, they're pissed at government and one way or another feel that American liberties are at stake. Anyway, that's how I feel.
27 - Glenn Contrarian
Bill -
Please address what I pointed out about the fact that (other than oil-rich OPEC nations) ALL first-world nations are - by Tea Party definition - nanny states, while there are no examples of a nation with a small government having become a first-world nation.
Why is that?
28 - Dan
"ALL first-world nations are - by Tea Party definition - nanny states, while there are no examples of a nation with a small government having become a first-world nation."---Glenn
Haitians will be happy to know that all they have to do is adopt nanny state social policies, and then they will become a "first world Nation". So easy.
Wealth creation is directly influenced by economic freedom. Small government contributes to that freedom with non-confiscatory tax policy. Nanny states are only possible because of the wealth created by economic freedoms.
29 - Glenn Contrarian
Dan -
Apparently your experience in third-world nations is fairly limited - what you see on the boob tube is no substitute for experience. I've got a house in one, and that's where my youngest son is attending college. There are hundreds of thousands of Americans with more experience in the third world than I (such as Clavos and Dan(Miller) and STM), but I still have much more experience in this than the vast majority of Americans.
For instance, Dan, you mentioned Haiti, taking as an example of one of the worst-off nations in the world. Problem is, you don't even know what kind of issues face the people in such countries:
First, where there is little regulation, there is a great deal of corruption, and corruption is endemic in all third-world nations. Having a great deal of regulation doesn't guarantee a low level of corruption, but having a very low level of regulation guarantees a high level of corruption.
Second, most third-world nations have never invested in the infrastructure necessary to ensure that everyone who is supposed to pay taxes, does pay taxes, whether it's the individual or a small business...and as a result, the government is forced to collect taxes and duties and tariffs as best they can from large businesses and ports of entry.
Third, since the minimum wage is either very low or nonexistent, corporations pay as little as they can get away with. My sister-in-law works as a supervisory secretary at the Supreme Court in the Philippines. Her salary? About thirty bucks a week. When salaries are so low, Dan, people get desperate to put food on the table, which means they'll do almost anything to get money to feed the kids...and this is another cause of corruption.
See, Dan? The normal American has no clue as to what's going on in third-world nations. Their problem isn't that "they're not American" or "they're not free", because in many instances, the people in such nations have a degree of freedom that we here in America do NOT have. Read that again - there are third-world nations that are FREER than America...but you've got to live in such places to grasp the reality of the concept, because that's when you begin to realize that having little or no regulation of business and personal responsibilities results not in personal freedom, but in personal hardship, whether in terms of wage-slavery, environmental deterioration, mandatory bribery of government and corporate officials, and so forth.
But not having lived in such places, it's very difficult for an American to understand that there really is such a thing as too much freedom. It all boils down to the old caveat that "nature abhors a vacuum"...and when government is not there to keep businesses in line, then businesses engage in wage-slavery and do whatever they want with the environment and they are accountable to no one. And the final result is always, ALWAYS a nation of the rich and the poor and very little middle-class in between.
Now, Dan, assuming that you think that since what I've said is anathema to conservative dogma, care to answer why are there ZERO first-world nations with the conservative idea of "small government"? Care to answer that?
30 - Bill
Gosh Glenn, what I was pointing to Pam was that I don't see evidence of the religious fundamentalism in the tea party, that she spoke of.
This is what I can admit to you. Everything is Bush's fault, and there's some community in Texas where teachers work 2 jobs.
You happy now?
This is what I can tell you. There's a bunch of people that are so good at making money, that's all they think about.
Please tell me how much they're allowed to have.
Can we take enough from the rich so that everyone can live as well as the government, and labor unions insist?
Can we take enough from the rich to pay our debts?
What is fair Glenn? You say.
31 - Dan
Scott Walker has just been confirmed in Wisconsin. Landslide.
This is very good news. The tea party has sent a message again. Hopefully the momentum will continue throughout the Country as more and more people see the fiscal success Walker has delivered.
32 - Glenn Contrarian
You didn't answer my question, Bill. Why is it that ALL non-OPEC first-world nations are by Tea Party definition "nanny states", whereas ALL nations that have limited government are third-world nations?
Why is that? I asked first. If you can't answer, don't feel bad - none of the other conservatives on BC have answered that, either.
And FYI, you said "some communities in Texas where teachers work 2 jobs" - dude, it's 41% of ALL teachers in Texas. Two out of five of all teachers in Texas don't stay to grade tests or homework or develop lesson plans or counsel students or involve themselves with after-school student activities - they're too busy getting to the second job so they can have food on the table. But hey - that's austerity for you!
33 - Glenn Contrarian
And it looks like Wisconsin will get to experience the same "benefits" of austerity, thanks to Citizens United.
34 - Dan
Yes! thank God for Citizens United for helping to restore the traditional value of limited government that is responsible for the greatest wealth creation in world history.
35 - Dr Dreadful
Scott Walker has just been confirmed in Wisconsin. Landslide.
Landslide? Hardly. 52-48, according to CNN.
36 - Bill
Not sure. I'll just guess Glenn. Is it because all tea party fundamentalists are stupid? Okay, now you answer my questions.
37 - Glenn Contrarian
Bill -
No, I"m not going to let you off that easy. There's a reason why - think deeply about it. Do you really suppose that it's simply an accident that all non-OPEC first-world nations are "nanny states"? And is it an accident that all nations with the conservative idea of "limited government" are third-world nations?
The pattern's obviously there - why is it a pattern?
38 - Dan
"Landslide? Hardly. 52-48, according to CNN."---Dreadful
That is one of those reliably slanted exit polls from CNN. I was refering to actual vote counts. It's running about 57-42 with two thirds accounted for.
A mandate for sure.
39 - Glenn Contrarian
Dan -
Same for you as I just posted in #37 - can you answer why?
40 - Dan
Glenn, it is your type of authoritarian ideology that is entrenched in the third world. Not tea party conservatism.
You simply seem to not understand that private sector success is responsible for any type of social safety net period.
Wisconsonians get it though. At least enough of them still do. It probably helps that Walker has turned a 3.6 b defecit into a slight surpluss, and that everyone still has their jobs. Unemployment down too.
I think the recall effort was doomed soon after voters were visually treated to the despicable tantrums thrown by protesters last November.
41 - Dr Dreadful
How come they're only despicable tantrums when you don't agree with them, Dan?
42 - Glenn Contrarian
Dan -
I notice you didn't even try to address my question, which was:
Do you really suppose that it's simply an accident that all non-OPEC first-world nations are "nanny states"? And is it an accident that all nations with the conservative idea of "limited government" are third-world nations?
The pattern's obviously there - why is it a pattern?
C'mon, Dan - I'm just asking you to explain why the pattern's there. All the non-OPEC first-world are nanny states, while all nations with the kind of limited government you seem to want...are third-world nations.
Why, Dan? It's just a simple question, right?
43 - Pam Messingham
@Glenn, I think it's getting time to board that plane and relocate.
@40 Dan, you raise your glass to Citizens United? You believe the Private Sector is the way to go? Since Obama took office there are less corporate taxes paid. As the "private sector" has had a gross increase in net profits since Obama took office, why haven't they created any jobs? Obama is not an employer, yet he is being held responsible for the unemployment rate. My question to you is this: If giving corporate America all of these breaks is where the Conservatives think they will find job growth...why is their no job growth? They keep getting richer and there is no "trickle down?" All the Walker thing did was prove was 34 million bought a lot of kool aid. They literally brainwashed many people. When the spending is $34 million - $4 million...doesn't it make you realize that our politicans are bought and maintained by the private sector you cherish? The private sector, though they have benefitted from all the Bush tax cuts are NOT providing jobs. I am ashamed to be an American. The world sees what is going on and they just watched, once again, America's greed in action. I listened to Fox News for just a few minutes last night and I watched commercials that literally said Obama was the reason for the $16 trillion dollar deficit. I know it's a lie, but those easily led by television commercials, don't. They eat it up and believe it. Glenn is right, Obama has been the most conservative president in a long time...I think it's so funny that the Right says he's a socialist/communist...when in reality, the left sees his conservativism.
Don't you dare comment and degrade the movement that tried to make things right. At least they are trying to bring back a bit of honor and integrity into America. They are fighting for our rights.
Citizen's United seriously has to go...if it doesn't then we will continue to have leaders that are bought by the highest bidders...democracy in America is a hoax.
44 - Clav
we will continue to have leaders that are bought by the highest bidders...
True. In his 2008 campaign for the presidency, Barack Hussein Obama raised more money than any other candidate in our entire history -- much of it from George Soros and Soros owned enterprises. And let us not forget that another of America's richest, Warren Buffett, is also a strong Obama supporter.
And, as we all now know, all that money worked -- it elected our country's first total amateur, a man who never held a real job in his life -- an Amateur -- to the top position of a country that once counted for something, even as recently as when he took office.
Oh, and Glenn. Is it just coincidence that almost all of those "First World" countries with those marvelous health plans you incessantly bore us with are, like the usa, sinking into a financial mire from which there is little hope of extraction?
45 - Pam Messingham
Clav, I will not deny that Sero backed Obama. Big money has played a role too large. It has trampled on freedom. I watched what the democratic party did to Hilary to make sure their seros boy won the nomination. I am strongly against electoral votes, we have the capacity now to count every vote, as we should, and that is all that should matter. Of course, the powers that be will never let that happen because it wouldn't be so easy to line pockets with their well wishes. I was pissed at the 2000 elections...at the 2004 elections and at the Democratic Party in 2008. Hilary would have won that primary and she would have been the party nominee, but they took it away from her. Money needs to stay out of politics...just like God.
46 - Igor
@28-Dan: odd you would claim this, since clearly all the great advances in US culture and business were sponsored by vigorous government action.
All the glamorous high-tech businesses, google, facebook, etc., owe their successes to the willingness of US taxpayers to fund the reasearch and development efforts at their foundation.
All thriving business in the USA owes it's infrastructures to government willingness to invest in highways, ports, airports, universities, research centers, medical centers, etc. And almost always those most productive enterprises were opposed and attacked by anti-government factions in society. Fortunately, our better instincts prevailed in those days, but now it looks like crooks just want to liquidate our assets and steal the proceeds.
Jun 05, 2012 at 5:36 pm
"ALL first-world nations are - by Tea Party definition - nanny states, while there are no examples of a nation with a small government having become a first-world nation."---Glenn
Haitians will be happy to know that all they have to do is adopt nanny state social policies, and then they will become a "first world Nation". So easy.
Wealth creation is directly influenced by economic freedom. Small government contributes to that freedom with non-confiscatory tax policy. Nanny states are only possible because of the wealth created by economic freedoms.
47 - Dr Dreadful
C'mon, Dan - I'm just asking you to explain why the pattern's there.
Dan's point, I think, is that third-world nations tend to have smaller governments and little to no public welfare not because they've made the conscious choice not to have them, but because they can't afford them. And that it is the prosperity brought about by free-market capitalism which permits first-world nations the luxury of comprehensive government services including social safety nets.
Curious, then, that he seems to think that the United States, having been supremely excellent at getting itself into that position, for some reason shouldn't take advantage of it.
48 - Bill
Glenn? Glenn? You still there?
I will accommodate you. If we don't compensate our public servants adequately, we're prone to corruption and lousy public services.
My questions to you ,earlier, were ultimately about the distribution of money, fairness, and unions.
Let's forget those questions. Another direction:
Correct me if I'm wrong. Progressives, ultimately are of 2 mindsets.:
First mindset is of a society without greed. That the people work towards the betterment of life for all. Those that are rewarded the most, in turn reward society. The rewarded may live a bit better, but understand the needs of the masses.
The second mindset is of a similar society where greed is evident. In this case government must take from the greedy to ensure the society of its comforts.
The first won't happen, and because I think the government is too individually selfserving, and mucks everything up, I don't like the second.
I would though, be more inclined to jump on the bandwagon if two things changed. First and foremost, the public sector cannot be unionized. They should be paid decently, but must be open, and understanding, to fluctuations. Second, same with politicians.
At that point in time, I will see more of a level playing field, and would be eager to sit down and relate with you. You see Glenn, the private sector is currently standing in left field all by itself, and we're cold.
49 - Glenn Contrarian
Clavos -
Oh, and Glenn. Is it just coincidence that almost all of those "First World" countries with those marvelous health plans you incessantly bore us with are, like the usa, sinking into a financial mire from which there is little hope of extraction?
Some of the first-world nations are in financial trouble, yes - but you're being simplistic about it. The ones in trouble are in the small minority and - with the exception of England - are hidebound to the Euro and thereby forcing their misery on the rest of the EEC whose economies are otherwise doing quite well. For those in the EEC, it's because they're tied together by a common currency. When it comes to England, they tried austerity - and where has it gotten them? Nowhere, of course.
And frankly, Clavos, given the choice and if family's not an issue, would you really rather live in a much-less-regulated third-world nation? Or in a first-world nation even if they're in a recession?
50 - Glenn Contrarian
Bill -
I will accommodate you. If we don't compensate our public servants adequately, we're prone to corruption and lousy public services.
That's only a small part of the answer. The larger picture is that in every first-world nation, the government is Big Business' single biggest customer, and this is often not the case in nations with smaller, weaker governments (third-world nations). It's wealth redistribution just like the conservatives say, but this wealth redistribution not only keeps people gainfully employed by the government, but all the money goes back to Big Business anyway. See comment #1 in this article for a much better description how a robust business sector requires a robust public sector.
Read that again, Bill - a robust business sector requires a robust government sector, even with all the taxes such entails. Read the comment, please.
Progressives don't have a problem with the profit motive - in industries where the profit motive belong. But government is NOT about making a profit - government is about governing the people, for the people, by the people. Corporations are not people - have you ever seen a corporation jailed or be sent to military service? Of course not.
There is NOTHING wrong with public sector unions, Bill - nothing. For instance, do you really think that public sector employees will get paid what they're worth if they're not unionized? Sometimes, but usually not. How can I make this claim? Wal-Mart makes money hand over fist - but are their workers unionized? If you don't think unions are important, read this list of 36 things that you can thank unions for. I don't think the list is right on all its claims, but it's right for the great majority of them.
51 - Clav
government is about governing the people, for the people, by the people.
Well, it's supposed to be, at least. But it's been a looonngg time since that's been true in the USA; here it's more like "government of the bureaucrats/politicians, by the bureaucrats/politicians and for the bureaucrats/politicians."
52 - Clav
For instance, do you really think that public sector employees will get paid what they're worth if they're not unionized?
One would hope that in the absence of the unions, their wages would be pulled back to what they're really worth, yes, but who knows?
53 - Glenn Contrarian
Clavos -
"government of the bureaucrats/politicians, by the bureaucrats/politicians and for the bureaucrats/politicians."
You left out "corporations"
One would hope that in the absence of the unions, their wages would be pulled back to what they're really worth, yes, but who knows?
And the 41% of teachers in Texas who have to have second jobs just to make ends meet and put food on the table, every one of these has at least a bachelor's degree and many (perhaps most) have master's degrees. So is this your idea of "paying them what they're really worth"?