Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

An analysis from Lawrence Kudlow:

... the tea-party message comes together in the "Contract From America... with nearly 500,000 votes recorded in less than two months, this Contract forms a blueprint of tea-party policy goals and beliefs.

... the No. 1 issue is protect the Constitution. That's followed by reject cap-and-trade, demand a balanced budget and enact fundamental tax reform. And then comes number five: Restore fiscal responsibility and constitutionally limited government in Washington.

...two of the top-five priorities of the tea partiers mention the Constitution.

...the bottom-five planks are end runaway government spending; defund, repeal and replace government-run health care; pass an all-of-the-above energy policy; stop the pork; and stop the tax hikes ...

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_ ... ist_revolt" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Quick aside - one thing I can not stand is any group that claims to be "Patriots", implying that those who do not believe exactly as they do are not.





Protect the Constitution - pretty ambiguous - in what way?

And put me in the camp of one who trusts the Federal Government, overall more than I do state or local governments.

dbackjon wrote:Quick aside - one thing I can not stand is any group that claims to be "Patriots", implying that those who do not believe exactly as they do are not.





Protect the Constitution - pretty ambiguous - in what way?

Probably should read "Protect our view of the Constitution".

dbackjon wrote:Quick aside - one thing I can not stand is any group that claims to be "Patriots", implying that those who do not believe exactly as they do are not.





Protect the Constitution - pretty ambiguous - in what way?

You are right on both counts, Jon.

I wonder what it will take to rebuild a national consensus on what it means to be American... what it means to be patriotic?

I am also disappointed than many of the top ten Tea Party planks are ambiguous.

native wrote:

dbackjon wrote:Quick aside - one thing I can not stand is any group that claims to be "Patriots", implying that those who do not believe exactly as they do are not.





Protect the Constitution - pretty ambiguous - in what way?

You are right on both counts, Jon.

I wonder what it will take to rebuild a national consensus on what it means to be American... what it means to be patriotic?

I am also disappointed than many of the top ten Tea Party planks are ambiguous.

What it mean to be an American? WTF is that?

It means 1 million different things to 1 million different people. That's the beauty of America. Why have so many people forgotten that?

I'm disappointed they that ending being the police of the world is not in the top 10.

danefan wrote:

native wrote:
You are right on both counts, Jon.

I wonder what it will take to rebuild a national consensus on what it means to be American... what it means to be patriotic?

I am also disappointed than many of the top ten Tea Party planks are ambiguous.

What it mean to be an American? WTF is that?

It means 1 million different things to 1 million different people. That's the beauty of America. Why have so many people forgotten that?

If the government were not an organized criminal cabal, wastefully redistributing wealth and aggrandizing themselves at the expense of the productive class, danefan, then we could indeed share that beautiful American value of individuality. Obamaworld, like other paths to socialism, does not encourage individuality.

ASUMountaineer wrote:I'm disappointed they that ending being the police of the world is not in the top 10.

At least seven of the ten Tea Party planks would necessitate a less adventurist foreign policy, Mountaineer:

balanced budget
fundamental tax reform
fiscal responsibility
constitutionally limited government
end runaway government spending
stop the pork
stop the tax hikes

I do like the part where the TP wants to change the corrupt Washington political scene. Obama didn't change that, even though some thought he would, or said he would, his platform was to change America, but we still have corrupt politicans.

native wrote:

ASUMountaineer wrote:I'm disappointed they that ending being the police of the world is not in the top 10.

At least seven of the ten Tea Party planks would necessitate a less adventurist foreign policy, Mountaineer:

balanced budget
fundamental tax reform
fiscal responsibility
constitutionally limited government
end runaway government spending
stop the pork
stop the tax hikes

I guess it was too hard to write it out.

native wrote:
If the government were not an organized criminal cabal, wastefully redistributing wealth and aggrandizing themselves at the expense of the productive class, danefan, then we could indeed share that beautiful American value of individuality. Obamaworld, like other paths to socialism, does not encourage individuality.

- the productive class.

I watched these kids the other day working who work for a landscaping company installing an irrigation system. They worked their asses off and we're highly productive. They make $9.00/hour.

I have a friend who is an architect, living in a modest house, with a small family, in his mid 30's who works 60-70 hour weeks and is highly productive. He's still paying off his college loans.

Did you know productivity rose last year by 6%?

Meanwhile, the top 400 richest families paid an effective tax rate of 16% on their income. We have CEO's who earn 100's of billions of dollars a year. How many times more productive do you think they are?

Peasant mentality.

Gil Dobie wrote:I do like the part where the TP wants to change the corrupt Washington political scene. Obama didn't change that, even though some thought he would, or said he would, his platform was to change America, but we still have corrupt politicans.

And if teabaggers controlled the federal government they'd be corrupt as well. Look at all the politicians, media personalties, speakers, etc. making a TON of money off the teabagger rallies.

Corruption and government are intertwined. It's always been the case.

"The world is the will to power - and nothing besides!"

kalm wrote:

native wrote:
If the government were not an organized criminal cabal, wastefully redistributing wealth and aggrandizing themselves at the expense of the productive class, danefan, then we could indeed share that beautiful American value of individuality. Obamaworld, like other paths to socialism, does not encourage individuality.

- the productive class.

I watched these kids the other day working who work for a landscaping company installing an irrigation system. They worked their asses off and we're highly productive. They make $9.00/hour.

...

Point well taken!

The rest was typical. Surely you are not arguing that the political class is productive?

dbackjon wrote:Quick aside - one thing I can not stand is any group that claims to be "Patriots", implying that those who do not believe exactly as they do are not.

One thing I cannot stand is any legislature that passes a law with the word "Patriot" in the title, implying that anyone who disagrees with the law is not a patriot and might even be a terrorist. Patriot Act, anyone?

Slightly off-topic, but I was watching a professor talk about how the Tea Party might be in the early stages of becoming a completely new political party in the United States. He was talking about how some Republicans don't want to be associated with it, and others obviously do, and this movement may become a complete split from the GOP. Anybody think this is a real possibility? I think it's a very interesting topic.

∞∞∞ wrote:Slightly off-topic, but I was watching a professor talk about how the Tea Party might be in the early stages of becoming a completely new political party in the United States. He was talking about how some Republicans don't want to be associated with it, and others obviously do, and this movement may become a complete split from the GOP. Anybody think this is a real possibility? I think it's a very interesting topic.

I don't think we'll know for a couple of election cycles. If Ron Paul were 15 years younger, I would expect a third party in 2016 if he did not show up at least as the VP on the GOP ticket in 2012.

But as you can see, many of the libertarians on this site are openly hostile and dismissive of the Tea Party movement and tea partiers. With the Tea Party representing a minimum of 20% of the electorate, who the hell else can the libertarians find to form a successful coalition? Democrats?!??? Evangelicals?!???

It's obvious that the Tea Party is willing to throw Republican leaders such as Charlie Crist under the bus for big spending and liberal policies, but these may not really be the issues that energize young libertarians. Despite Gary Johnson's success as a Republican governor, the successes of the liberty caucus Republicans in Congress, and the obvious libertarian leanings of the Ron Paul supporters who put him over the top in the CPAC straw poll, it remains to be seen whether libertarians will be able to forge a constructive coalition with anyone.

There is no way in hell that libertarians can be successful as a major party at this point without the Tea Party. If libertarians continue to give the cold shoulder to the Tea Party, then the Republican Party can easily avoid annihilation in the next couple of election cycles by tacking towards the Tea Party.

On the other hand, if the libertarians wake up and swallow their pride to find common cause with the Tea Party, this coalition could take over the Republican Party and establish a majority for the next decade or two.

native wrote:

kalm wrote:
- the productive class.

I watched these kids the other day working who work for a landscaping company installing an irrigation system. They worked their asses off and we're highly productive. They make $9.00/hour.

...

Point well taken!

The rest was typical. Surely you are not arguing that the political class is productive?

Political class? I have no idea what you're talking about.

But I would like to hear you define "productive class" and further describe how they have been taken advantage of.

kalm wrote:

native wrote:
Point well taken!

The rest was typical. Surely you are not arguing that the political class is productive?

Political class? I have no idea what you're talking about.

But I would like to hear you define "productive class" and further describe how they have been taken advantage of.

"Political Class" is a term used by Rasmussen. He discusses the meaning of the terms in the reports from several of his surveys.

"...The Political Class and Mainstream classifications are determined by the answers to three questions measuring general attitudes about government.

Most Americans trust the judgment of the public more than political leaders, view the federal government as a special interest group and believe that big business and big government work together against the interests of investors and consumers. Only seven percent (7%) share the opposite view and can be considered part of the Political Class. ..."

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_ ... _disagrees" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

"...The questions used to calculate the Index are:

-- Generally speaking, when it comes to important national issues, whose judgment do you trust more - the American people or America’s political leaders?

-- Some people believe that the federal government has become a special interest group that looks out primarily for its own interests. Has the federal government become a special interest group?

-- Do government and big business often work together in ways that hurt consumers and investors? ..."

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_ ... ical_class" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

∞∞∞ wrote:Slightly off-topic, but I was watching a professor talk about how the Tea Party might be in the early stages of becoming a completely new political party in the United States. He was talking about how some Republicans don't want to be associated with it, and others obviously do, and this movement may become a complete split from the GOP. Anybody think this is a real possibility? I think it's a very interesting topic.

I doubt it. If the teabaggers become viable then it will really amount to infighting amongst Republicans and it would only be brief... a couple of election cycles maximum.

If a true third party were to emerge with lasting influence it will have to come from the middle and not from the far left or the far right.

Skjellyfetti wrote:

∞∞∞ wrote:Slightly off-topic, but I was watching a professor talk about how the Tea Party might be in the early stages of becoming a completely new political party in the United States. He was talking about how some Republicans don't want to be associated with it, and others obviously do, and this movement may become a complete split from the GOP. Anybody think this is a real possibility? I think it's a very interesting topic.

I doubt it. If the teabaggers become viable then it will really amount to infighting amongst Republicans and it would only be brief... a couple of election cycles maximum.

If a true third party were to emerge with lasting influence it will have to come from the middle and not from the far left or the far right.

Can you name a new party that came from the middle? Perhaps the Progressive Party can be said to have emerged from the middle, even though it was soon taken over by lunatics and absorbed by the demokrats.

What political elements in today's society could come from the "middle" to form a political party?

native wrote:

kalm wrote:
Political class? I have no idea what you're talking about.

But I would like to hear you define "productive class" and further describe how they have been taken advantage of.

"Political Class" is a term used by Rasmussen. He discusses the meaning of the terms in the reports from several of his surveys.

"...The Political Class and Mainstream classifications are determined by the answers to three questions measuring general attitudes about government.

Most Americans trust the judgment of the public more than political leaders, view the federal government as a special interest group and believe that big business and big government work together against the interests of investors and consumers. Only seven percent (7%) share the opposite view and can be considered part of the Political Class. ..."

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_ ... _disagrees" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

"...The questions used to calculate the Index are:

-- Generally speaking, when it comes to important national issues, whose judgment do you trust more - the American people or America’s political leaders?

-- Some people believe that the federal government has become a special interest group that looks out primarily for its own interests. Has the federal government become a special interest group?

-- Do government and big business often work together in ways that hurt consumers and investors? ..."

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_ ... ical_class" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

And that's the problem Nate. The government and the people should be the same, but they are not. If the Tea Parties want meaningful change they should attack corporatism as aggressively as they attack bad government. They should include campaign finance reform in their agenda, and they should be appalled by corporate pershonhood and the citizens united case.

But back to my question. Define productive class and explain how they are being taken advantage of.

kalm wrote:

native wrote:
"Political Class" is a term used by Rasmussen. He discusses the meaning of the terms in the reports from several of his surveys.

"...The Political Class and Mainstream classifications are determined by the answers to three questions measuring general attitudes about government.

Most Americans trust the judgment of the public more than political leaders, view the federal government as a special interest group and believe that big business and big government work together against the interests of investors and consumers. Only seven percent (7%) share the opposite view and can be considered part of the Political Class. ..."

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_ ... _disagrees" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

"...The questions used to calculate the Index are:

-- Generally speaking, when it comes to important national issues, whose judgment do you trust more - the American people or America’s political leaders?

-- Some people believe that the federal government has become a special interest group that looks out primarily for its own interests. Has the federal government become a special interest group?

-- Do government and big business often work together in ways that hurt consumers and investors? ..."

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_ ... ical_class" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

And that's the problem Nate. The government and the people should be the same, but they are not. If the Tea Parties want meaningful change they should attack corporatism as aggressively as they attack bad government. They should include campaign finance reform in their agenda, and they should be appalled by corporate pershonhood and the citizens united case.

But back to my question. Define productive class and explain how they are being taken advantage of.

Corporatism is a problem, but campaign finance "reform" is not the answer. McCain-Feingold was un-Constitutional and deserved to die. The cure was worse than the disease.

One definition of the productive class would be those who work or invest in activities that create wealth. That would exclude both rich and poor ne'er-do-wells, criminals, many labor union bosses and some government bureaucrats who deserve nothing but public opprobrium. It would also include some folks who cannot contribute, through no fault of their own, and deserve our empathy and support.

In aeronautical terms, the government often adds drag without contributing to either lift or thrust.

native wrote:

kalm wrote:
And that's the problem Nate. The government and the people should be the same, but they are not. If the Tea Parties want meaningful change they should attack corporatism as aggressively as they attack bad government. They should include campaign finance reform in their agenda, and they should be appalled by corporate pershonhood and the citizens united case.

But back to my question. Define productive class and explain how they are being taken advantage of.

Corporatism is a problem, but campaign finance "reform" is not the answer. McCain-Feingold was un-Constitutional and deserved to die. The cure was worse than the disease.

One definition of the productive class would be those who work or invest in activities that create wealth. That would exclude both rich and poor ne'er-do-wells, criminals, many labor union bosses and some government bureaucrats who deserve nothing but public opprobrium. It would also include some folks who cannot contribute, through no fault of their own, and deserve our empathy and support.

In aeronautical terms, the government often adds drag without contributing to either lift or thrust.

And...please explain how the productive class has been taken advantage of and how, based on productivity you justify compensation that is 100's if not 1,000's of times greater than the average worker. What does a hedge fund manager produce?

Also, regardless of McCain-Feingold, corporate rights are not enumerated in the constitution, and public funding of elections is the answer. Let a candidate or politician stand on the issues and their voting record, conservative or liberal.

kalm wrote:

native wrote:

Corporatism is a problem, but campaign finance "reform" is not the answer. McCain-Feingold was un-Constitutional and deserved to die. The cure was worse than the disease.

One definition of the productive class would be those who work or invest in activities that create wealth. That would exclude both rich and poor ne'er-do-wells, criminals, many labor union bosses and some government bureaucrats who deserve nothing but public opprobrium. It would also include some folks who cannot contribute, through no fault of their own, and deserve our empathy and support.

In aeronautical terms, the government often adds drag without contributing to either lift or thrust.

And...please explain how the productive class has been taken advantage of and how, based on productivity you justify compensation that is 100's if not 1,000's of times greater than the average worker. What does a hedge fund manager produce?

Also, regardless of McCain-Feingold, corporate rights are not enumerated in the constitution, and public funding of elections is the answer. Let a candidate or politician stand on the issues and their voting record, conservative or liberal.

Kalm, you advocate broad, sweeping prescriptions that wipe out hundreds or thousands of times more healthy cells than diseased cells, and in the end may not not cure the disease and will introduce even more insidious diseases.

Why does it bother you so much that someone makes more money? Why is it so very important to tear someone else down? Markets suck, but they work better than anything else.