Comments

Anbody attending the "Tea Parties?"

Posted by Judith Ellis at April 15, 2009 7:11 AM

So you can afford to lend me a pound or two Tom - my next tax payment is due in 10 days. I keep promising myself I'll put money aside each month but somehow there's always too much month left at the end of the money :-)

Posted by Trevor Gay at April 15, 2009 9:19 AM

Don't you wish the government had to pay us interest on money we loan them every year?

Posted by Dan Gunter at April 15, 2009 9:25 AM

Judith--I would if I could, but I have to work today. Grassroots protests, of any kind, have always been one of the founding principles of this country and it makes me sick to read commentary by people making the tea party-goers out to be some kind of idiots.

Dan--at least our tax refunds didn't become halved in value like our other investments!

Posted by Useless Sam Grant at April 15, 2009 1:57 PM

Useless Sam - I would no longer participate in such a "grassroots protest" if you paid me. There is NOTHING grassroots about these protests. I am ALL for grass roots organizations, but these are not. They were engineered and organized by organizations on the far right, NOT by the people. They have the air of such and have gathered little steam.

Joe the Plumber was here in Michigan heading up a protest. Whether he's an idiot or not, I'm uncertain of. But he does not seem like the brightest and his vigor leaves me utterly unmoved: hot noise on a pogo stick! I am, however, for making tax codes more sensible and for deficit reduction. We'd be hard pressed to find Americans who would not want this.

By the way, where were such "grassroots organizations" for the past eight years when the deficit spiraled completely out of control? It seems very politicial indeed. Most Americans are pleased with the way President Obama is handling tax issues.

Posted by Judith Ellis at April 15, 2009 5:40 PM

Quote: "Most Americans are pleased ..."
I would be more pleased if the President's accountants were more honest with us about the real long-term impact of the huge deficits in every direction. Let us hope that they are being more honest with him.

Posted by Mike L. at April 15, 2009 7:09 PM

"Recent polling also suggests that a majority of Americans are giving the president a thumbs up when it comes to taxes. Sixty-two percent of people questioned in a CNN/Opinion Research Corporation national survey conducted last month said they approve of how Obama is handling taxes. Thirty-seven percent disapproved." (CNN, April 15, 2009)

That would be:

62% Approve
37% Disapprove

Yeah, there were not too many people speaking about the creative "accountants" of the last 8 years that did not include BOTH wars in an administration where deficit has been the largest ever in our history. So, what was President Reagan's excuse? The deficit increased then to its greatest level ever before President George W. Bush and there wasn't even ONE war!

Now, can we talk about honesty? No one talked about the "real long-term impatct and huge deficits in every direction" then. I'm all for reducing the deficit, especially after seeing the documentary I.O.U.S.A. Scary stuff! But these Tea Parties seem purely political, not to mention lame. Many interviewed could not even explain why they were protesting. But they looked the part!

Posted by Judith Ellis at April 15, 2009 7:51 PM

USG: Interesting point.

Judith: There are always questions rolling around in my mind that are practically impossible to answer. In regards to the approval/disapproval rates of President Obama's handling of taxes, perhaps the lowering of Federal tax rates and making belated "stimulus" payments from last year available had some impact on opinions? If instead the President had said "My fellow Americans, we ALL have to tighten our belts. Basic economics and fiscal responsibility says you have to take in as much as you spend, so we're cutting spending and raising taxes" would the above stated approval ratings have flipped (or worse)? Admittedly, most of us need the extra money these days and there is at least some validity to the theory of stimulating the economy by increasing the money we have available to spend. But that seems to me more of a band-aid and a placebo. Not a real, long-term solution.

At the risk of oversimplification, most of us learned from our parents, school teachers, etc. at ripe, young ages that spending more than you take in doesn't work. If not then and there, we learned it later when we overdrafted our bank accounts. Look at bankruptcy rates. Look at mortgage and credit defaults. If we spend more than we take in as individuals or businesses, we end up in court or jail. When our government does it they end up back in office. Again, this is admittedly an oversimplification and I'm aware that the complexities and intricacies of running a country make it so. On an aside but related thought: I recall hearing once that someone had run a computer analysis that said that if the Federal Government had improved in efficiency at the same rate as microprocessors, the entire U.S. Government including support departments, staff, etc. would now (then) consist of 2 employees and an annual budget of around $100,000.

So, do we put Andy Grove on the ticket for nomination next round? Dave Ramsey or Suze Orman available to serve as Treasury Secretary? Humor aside, it's definitely time for some different thinking and a different approach. It's far too early in the game to make any fair or reasonable assessments of President Obama's performance, but I do hope that in time we will be looking back at some fixes that don't backfire.

Wouldn't that be refreshing?

Posted by Dan Gunter at April 16, 2009 7:05 AM

"but I do hope that in time we will be looking back at some fixes that don't backfire."

Dan, agree, but economics = psychology, especially at a precarious time like this. In my opinion we gotta do what we gotta do in the short term to prevent catastrophe. In the short term (I repeat) I'm a "day-at-a-time" guy.

Posted by tom peters at April 16, 2009 7:53 AM

Dan - There are a great many things the President could have said or couldn't have said. Your words are indicative of this. In fact, he has said a version of what you have said many times though perhaps in a way that only he can. He's brilliant in this regard. I believe he understands the issues and political ramifications of some things perhaps in ways that are not obvious. There are many things at the feet of this adminstration. I have not agreed with everything that this administration has done. But I appreciate many things, including the President's tone. This too is very important.

With regards to different thinking and a different approach, I don't think many would disagree with you here. This is needed an It think on many levels the President brings this. But do we honestly expect the whole of Washington to change over night? The President's approval rating longterm will probably hinge on this.

Presently, we can talk until we're blue in the face about the appropriate time to assess the President. But this is indeed a DIFFERENT TIME! Rightly or wrongly, he will ge judged daily. While polls may not say everything, they are indicators of where we are on some level. By the way, hoping that things won't "backfire" is often a sure way of not addressing the different thinking and approach that you have advocated.

Good decision-making requires varied briefing, intelligence, and confidence. President Obama has these in abundance. But NOTHING is assured. Let's hope he succeeds by insisting on some things and letting him lead on others. When to push and pull is important. As a nation, it might be good to now when and how to to do such. But I fully understand that change usually occurs with dissonant and unexpected voices. We know these when we hear them in our guts, even if they are momentarily refused.

Posted by Judith Ellis at April 16, 2009 7:59 AM

"By the way, hoping that things won't "backfire" is often a sure way of not addressing the different thinking and approach that you have advocated."

I think I get where you are coming from, and if so, we're on the same page. I'm not advocating being so cautious that we are afraid to try things. We certainly don't need "paralysis by analysis," given the current economic crisis. Instead, what I am getting at is the importance of taking a hard look at what we know hasn't worked. The failure points, so to speak.

We do have some history to indicate that -- at least for the moment -- the President's approach is indeed plausible. Roosevelt's "New Deal" and post-depression recovery. As a nation, we did manage to get back on our feet and simultaneously saw infrastructure expansions and improvements on unprecedented levels. Akin to the "You can't shrink your way to greatness" theory. I certainly don't envy the President, any of his cabinet, Congress, or any of our leaders for that matter, as these are extremely trying times and the "zero to hero" pendulum can swing very quickly. What Tom called "The Nanosecond Nineties" has only evolved into more like a "Picosecond Period" -- and I stress "Period," as we are only becoming more and more of a "here and now... instant gratification" society. While it's not at all fair, we admittedly do judge our nation's leaders from a short-term perspective.

My sincere hope is that our great-grandchildren will be existing in a time of tremendous prosperity and be saying "Boy, things sure were tough for them back then." Again, perhaps a matter of perspective, but it would sure beat the other possibilities.

Posted by Dan Gunter at April 16, 2009 9:38 AM

Postscript to my own comment... in terms of "perspective," I can't help but wonder: if our great-grandparents were observing our lives and lifestyles today -- even given our genuine day-to-day concerns -- would they end up saying "What in the world are you whining about?" Perhaps every generation has its own version (definition?) of what constitutes a crisis to some extent. Lord only knows when I watch teenagers today and they talk about how "tough" their lives are, I sometimes strain to relate. I sincerely put forth the effort, but it can admittedly be difficult. I remember doing my school research papers using encyclopedias, real books (real leather and paper), note cards, and lots and lots of pencils. So from my point of view, I have to make myself pause and try to see it from a teen's perspective when they get frustrated over giving up MySpace time in order to do online research for school. But in all fairness, their lives and concerns are ultimately as unique to them as our parents' and grandparents' were to them.

generic viagra canadian

To me, perspective is one of the most powerful and important words in the English language. Trying to see things from another's point of view is a lifelong endeavor.

Posted by Dan Gunter at April 16, 2009 10:21 AM

Have to agree with Dan and Useless Sam. You can certainly debate the merits of stimulus. I can see where it might have been necessary to halt the slide. But the agonizing truth is that there is no accountability for the money spent. So I can reasonably agree that deficits to this point might be necessary.
But I find it hard to justify the huge spending that will be coming in the months ahead. It appears to be more idealogocially driven than economically driven.
Polls are just a reflection of the fact that many Americans now work for federal, state, and local governments, feed off the government trough, or pay little or no taxes. Not hard to find supporters there.
Tea party participants have made the link between spending and taxes, and the link between deficits and inflation. Not a big leap.

Posted by Bruce Bortree at April 16, 2009 10:30 AM

"But this is indeed a DIFFERENT TIME!"
Judith Ellis

"We must adapt to changing times with unchanging principles."
Jimmy Carter, 1976

Posted by Useless Sam Grant at April 16, 2009 11:01 AM

Useless Sam - Please don't take my statement out of context. The "DIFFERENT TIME" related to the fact that President Obama will be judged more harshly on a daily basis than past presidents for a whole lot of reasons, namely because of the many crises we face as a nation and this new age of 24 hour media coverage. The blogosphere is a whole new element of criticism.

Regarding Jimmy Carter's quote, I'm not sure if I agree with it wholeheartedly, though I think I understand the premise of the statement. Solid principles are unchangeable, but they are most certainly adaptable.

Posted by Judith Ellis at April 16, 2009 3:41 PM

"But I find it hard to justify the huge spending that will be coming in the months ahead. It appears to be more ideologically driven than economically driven."

canada viagra mastercard

What does this mean? Examples?

"Polls are just a reflection of the fact that many Americans now work for federal, state, and local governments, feed off the government trough, or pay little or no taxes."

Not! The middle class and working poor are paying plenty taxes, more aggregately than the very rich and they are not working for the government.

"Tea party participants have made the link between spending and taxes, and the link between deficits and inflation. Not a big leap."

Many of the teabaggers seemed to have leapt over the deep end. Did you read the signs? Did you see the guns and holsters? Did you see the hat brimmed with hanging tea bags? Did members in the crowd seem very much like the "I'm made; I'm real made guy" or the "crazy" McCain rally lady depicted on SNL? Americans rejected this mentality resolutely.

Speaking of ideology, far right-wing radical gun-toting hate-spewing ideology was prevalent at many of these tea parties.

Posted by Judith Ellis at April 16, 2009 4:21 PM

Healthcare for all. Ideologically driven. You only have to look at Massachusetts to see what a boondoggle that will be spawned. They are only a couple years into the program and they are drowning in red ink. Real costs running out of control compared to estimates. No cost savings realized as predicted. And now considering rationing.
Massive education spending with no school choice. Ideologically driven. Had high hopes for Arne Duncan which are quickly eroding.
Continuing to pretend that entitlement programs are not a government-run Ponzi scheme. Ideologicaly driven.

Posted by Bruce Bortree at April 17, 2009 10:56 AM

Don't know much about Massachusetts, but it appears that you may be in the minority if you are not for some of nation health care. A lot of what you have described above seems very similar to the last 8 years, especially "real costs running out of control compared to estimates. This was exactly my point earlier about both the Reagan and George W administrations. viagra canadian

Regarding education spending, if I'm not mistaken the President and Secretary Duncan are both for school of choice and for overhauling the system. Any specific grievances? Speaking of entitlement programs, are you one who believed that we should have gambled with Social Security in the stock market? I will concur that there are a great many things to be looked at anew and I am often frustrated with many people in Washington on both sides. I write of them often.

Do you think we should halt the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan to assist with deficit reduction? Personally, I wrestle with the question that with such threats to our society that the Wall Street banks and AIG have inflicted, who needs foreign enemies?

Posted by Judith Ellis at April 17, 2009 11:39 AM

Maybe we change the oath...

"I swear... to defend the United States of America against all enemies, both foreign and economic..."

Posted by Dan Gunter at April 17, 2009 4:16 PM

LOL!

Posted by Judith Ellis at April 17, 2009 5:13 PM