Radtke says the Republican Party has “gone wrong”
By JR Hoeft | Wednesday, November 16th, 2011 | PoliticsIn this interview, Jamie Radtke, a candidate for the Republican nomination, states unequivocally that the Tea Party has “no allegiance to party” despite her running for the GOP nomination. She has been very active campaigning for the tea party’s support in this primary.
Radtke, who is a former leader in the Tea Party movement in Virginia, says that having the Tea Party is “refreshing” and accuses the Republican Party of having “gone wrong.”
Tags:
Contribute for Conservatism!
Share this post
About the author
Conservative to the core; liberal with his opinion! J.R. has been involved in politics for over a decade and has worked on several campaigns in Hampton Roads. He has served on the Executive Committee of the Republican Party of Chesapeake and the Central Committee of the Republican Party of Virginia. He is also the director of “Blogs United” in Virginia. E-mail J.R.. Follow J.R. on Twitter.
We're 75% there! Thank you to everyone who has so far contributed! Just $2000 to go!
Comments
61 Responses to "Radtke says the Republican Party has “gone wrong”"
I keep saying that the Tea Party is not a political party but the fact that it has the word “party’ in it may mean I’m fighting a losing battle here. It’s Tea Party movement or something like that. “Radtke is working to get Tea Party movement voters to support her” you should have said. No different in principle than folks contributing or having membership in Common Cause etc running for office. Thus, it’s no contradiction for someone to be part of the Tea Party movement and run for office in any political party. However once they commit to running for office in a political party they should try to work within the party for what they believe. I assume Radtke would do that if she got nominated for anything. It’s not going to happen in this instance for the Senate race so why beat this into the ground using a non-point?
Duh? Do we need for Radtke to tell us that.
I did want to note that you used Tea Party movement throughout your article and DJ, used TP Alliance in referencing her campaign. Seems like we’re using a little dishonest journalism as the masters play on words. Why did you use Tea Party movement rather than Alliance? As even you pointed out, there’s a difference between the TPA and FTPP and other affiliations to the TP.
Valentinus,
Because a bill is named Affordable Healthcare doesn’t mean it will be affordable. Nor does stimulus, jobs and financial reform. Just because it says so, doesn’t make it so.
JJ – where was I dishonest? Radtke was a leader of a group in the Tea Party movement and is actively seeking broader Tea Party member support. Need I go get a press release from her that shows her schedule of events? There’s nothing untruthful in this post, unless you’re making that claim against Radtke – as this post is pretty much all her words. She shared this video on Twitter and I found it interesting. That’s the only reason it’s posted.
As I said “play on words”, the little dishonesty comes in that you paint her as the words of the Tea Party. As you said in a recent post, there are many factions of the Tea Party.
Her and Karen left the TP when they ran for Senate. There is so much work needed to be done on the local level.
JJ – be careful when you throw around a word like “dishonest” – especially when directed at me. I take that charge very seriously. So, you are a little lower than pond scum in my eyes now and lack any credibility, in my opinion. Yes, I said that there are many different factions of the Tea Party. Yes, D.J. made the argument that the Tea Party is doing their best work at the local level. And, yes, Jamie Radtke is running her campaign trying to gain the votes of Tea Party members, under the banner of being a Tea Party candidate. If you think any of that is dishonest, you’re entitled to your opinion, but I feel I have been nothing but truthful.
Well if Radtke thinks the Republican party has “gone wrong” then please tell me why she is running as a Republican ? Why doesn’t she run as a Tea party candidate ?
JR, I agree – see nothing dishonest here. Thanks for posting; I also found it interesting and, more relevant than a debate on play on words IMO is the truth behind Jaime Radtke’s words. The movement gave voice to frustrated voters that rightly blame bad legislation & massive sell-out (at America’s expense) ~ from both parties. The GOP acknowledged such w/ its mea culpa after 2008′s beating yet, at least in VA, party elites ignored the voices and regurgitated a poster-boy-for-cronyism to run against Kaine.
@Mike: Jaime’s candidacy is no different (or less legitimate) than the Pat Robertson Christian Coalition movement that ultimately radically changed the GOP’s focus and position on a number of issues.
Dishonest is “Intended to mislead” with play on words. Again, DJs post had Tea Party Alliance plastered throughout the article. Jamie Radtke was painted as the former face of the Tea Party movement. Call it what it is…Jamie Radtke’s campaign.
If you wish to put things into context, let’s try words like racist, rape, sexual harassment and now even child molestation. The context (or play on words) has been trashed by your fellow journalists for years now.
JayD,
The seat belt law was introduced as a secondary offense in the 90s. Seems rather innocent on the face.
Then it became a primary offense.
Now we have check points for seat belt violations.
On its face, we accepted each stage and the media presented it that way. But when its put into context, our freedom was just taken away all in a matter of 15 years.
And we accepted it because our journalist have made it personal rather than about the issues. It’s time to discuss issues.
For once, I agree with Radke; the republican party has gone wrong. Fact is, the party is now solidly built upon the myth of supply side economics and tax cuts, both of which are what have caused the Great Recession and our own decline as a beacon of representive democracy. Every rational american knows what the Super Committee has to do to restore our credibility, that is, cut spending, raise taxes, reform entitlements and the tax code, yet republicans simply cannot bring themselves to work in our interest.
Mike,
Even thought the in-fighting of the Republican scale may be that they have “gone wrong.” The Democrats aren’t even in the discussion. That’s for a reason.
JR, where can I buy a Bearing Drift hat, sweatshirt and other gear? You deserve some positive PR at no charge for this post.
Tea Party activists will never all agree 100% on any one candidate and that is not their prerogative. What matters is that people from within the movement, who activists recognize have the bonafides, rise to challenge the status quo from their respective party be it gop or dem or independent for that matter. Jamie is a lifelong conservative republican who recognized the problems we face as a state and a nation for a long time before the birth and evolution of the Tea Party movement. You do not need to agree with her philosophy to appreciate that Washington DC is broken.. We the People have to stand up and fix (or replace) what our elected representatives have failed to fix. Rising to challenge a politicians who broke us is what Jamie is about. This goes well beyond her opponents, George Allen not withstanding.
Jamie is committed to an interpretation of our constitution as written by our founders and representing us taking into full consideration the forces, meanings and restraints which it imposes on the federal government on behalf of the will of the majority. This is not too complex. This is something near and dear to every republican or democrat who loves what this country was made from.
I think the Democrats have “gone wrong” for a very long time.That being my opinion I sure as hell wouldn’t run for office as a Democrat.
“JR, where can I buy a Bearing Drift hat, sweatshirt and other gear?”
http://www.cafepress.com/sk/redstoreva/s_bearing-drift
@MikeBarrett, get your head out of the sand & FGS start thinking for yourself. Apparently, the RPV isn’t the only entity adept at regurgitation. You conveniently forget:
- There never was a surplus. It was an accounting device (first employed by LBJ) Clinton and Newt used to sell what was (in reality) a deficit to the American people as a fake surplus.
- It was the falsely-propped-up-by-government housing market collapse (long overdue for an adjustment) that brought down the house of cards. Run the spending numbers without those evil tax breaks and the result is same.
I’ll stop w/ just those 2 ditties, which you can thank red AND blue for.
Mike McKay,
Sorry, my comment was intended for Mike Barrett as he’s the resident “Democrat” on the website. He provides Democrat talking points with the delivery of Bill Maher.
The Virginia Tea Party movement is a coalition of Virginians who want constitutionally limited government at all levels- local, state and federal. We hold to American values and principles over political parties.
The Virginia Tea Party Alliance is a PAC- political action committee. It is a sovereign entity with many membership groups. It is designed to operate in elections, candidate selection, and training in elections and organization for elections.
The Virginia Tea Party Patriot Federation is just that- a federation of various tea party groups across the state of Virginia. Tea party groups come together in the Federation to do as a larger body what is difficult to do as smaller units (for example state legislation, best practices and so on). It is a collaborative group.
Each tea party group,is a sovereign entity with its own leadership base, its own structure and its own mission statement, its own agenda, its own values.
The Tea Party is not a political party, but the name is out of the Boston Tea Party spirit or revolt against over taxation and tyranny. It was a spontaneous uprising against an over-reaching federal government the good ol boy politics and corrupt processes that keep big government in place, and for the restoration of limited government. The Tea Party movement is a movement of constitutional conservatives. It has no political party allegiance or affiliation because the tea party movement is a movement NOT a single organization. It was not started by any one person, although several people have been catalysts prior to 2009 and since. It is, as one person put it, an “open source brand”.
It us united by a common understanding of American values, and traditions – like free market entrepreneurship- as embodied by our founding documents and overall Judeo-Christian principles, as Americans have traditionally expressed them.
The Tea Party movement universally rejects marxism, socialism, and political party elitism- just like our Founders did. If you really want to understand the tea party, then read the Virginia Declaration of Rights, the Virginia Constitution, the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, the Federalist Papers and free market economics -like Hayek, Von Mises, Friedman, Sowell, and Adam Smith. A working knowledge of the Ten Commandments, and the Judeo-Christian values about individual charity (not government charity), property rights, and family as the building block of society is helpful.
Where people get all in a knot, is that they want to define the tea party by various constructs- political parties, top down organizations, even marxist paradigms and so on. It’s not that- it’s the embodiment of the American Spirit, American Decency and American Commonsense.
Thanks, Karen. And I more than understand what the Tea Party is. My point is only that Radtke is making a concerted effort to gain the votes of the individuals who identify themselves as being associated with Tea Party organizations. That’s all anyone – well, at least me – is saying here. Radtke is seeking the Republican nomination and is explaining in her remarks that there is a problem with current state of the GOP. I am only reporting on Jamie’s words – not mine.
JR,
I know I’m in the pond scum category and have no creditability but thought I’d give it a shot.
Then say what Radtke said rather than mask it with the Tea Party banner whether it’s Alliance or movement. Ron Paul has some weird foreign policy concepts but we do not paint the Republican Party as such.
Karen,
The Federalist Papers? Really? Does the Tea Party movement embrace Federalist 9 where Hamilton argues for the supremacy of the central government over that of the “confederate states” or do you more strongly support Federalist 22 in which Hamilton and Madison argue against any veto power by the states over the actions of the central government?
For those herein who attempt to label my views, that is simply proof positive of how far to the right the current republican party has gone. The views I express are actually centrist, and frankly, not too long ago, was the view of the republican party. However, now the party is simply lost, having committed itself to an anti reality view based upon myth and theory, both of which are not reliable guides for public policy.
In fact, the proof of my view is that every major bi-partisan commission that has studied the current fiscal situation has recommended the approach which I have stated on this forum. Of course my views have been informed by these reports; they were done by americans of great respect and competence.
The republican party may continue to wander around in the wilderness, but since a majority of voters now support the same bi-partisan compromise that I have advocated herein, it will not be long until the Party is reduced to a shell, remaining in place to simply protect the rich, the wealthy, the 1%.
Of course, it is the richest 1% and their apologists, so they can buy influence and votes, but the end is in sight.
Karen gave a great summary, I think. It is also worth nothing that not all TEA party groups in Virginia are a part of the Virginia Tea Party Patriot Federation. Roanoke Tea Party (RTP), a large and very effective group, and some others are not a part of the VTPP, so it is incorrect to identify the VTPP as an umbrella group that speaks for all the TEA party groups in Virginia, it doesn’t. TEA party groups mostly work with their immediate neighbors instead of through a state wide organization, and in some cases there are multiple TEA party groups in a given area, Richmond for example, where there are at least three different groups that could be called the “Richmond Tea Party”.
Mike that sounds almost as stupid as when James Carville said Democrats would be in control until atleast 2049.Only to lose control of office after office every since.
For those herein who attempt to label my views, that is simply proof positive of how far to the left the current Democratic Party has gone. The views I express are actually centrist, and frankly, not too long ago, was the view of the Democratic Party. However, now the party is simply lost, having committed itself to an anti reality view based upon myth and theory, both of which are not reliable guides for public policy.
In fact, the proof of my view is that every major bi-partisan commission that has studied the current fiscal situation has recommended the approach which I have stated on this forum. Of course my views have been informed by these reports; they were done by Americans of great respect and competence.
The Democratic Party may continue to wander around in the wilderness, but since a majority of voters now support the same bi-partisan compromise that I have advocated herein, it will not be long until the Democratic Party is reduced to a shell, remaining in place to simply protect the freeloaders who pay no income taxes, illegal immigrants, and guilty-conscience limo liberals.
Of course, it is the government-dependent freeloaders and their apologists, whom the Democrats bribe to get their votes with hand-outs and income redistribution, but the end is in sight.
There is something broken but its not the system. The GOP problem is not being too conservative. Too many republicans appear spend too much time promoting symbolic campaign gestures they have no intention on following through on, such as the $100B budget cut that never happened, than about actual policy. They keep cutting deal$ and proving their loyalty is to the party leadership, not those who elected them. GOP blunders became a big enough problem among a crtitical mass of people who never had any interest in politics and enough of the public was primed and ready for what became the Tea Party. Mike, you are no centrist and neither are the majority of elected republicans. Taxpayers have had enough.
You know what’s interesting here is the number of folks associated from the Tea Party who seem to be distancing themselves from Radtke’s words. Do they not agree with her? Do they think the GOP has it right? do they think the Tea Party movement IS associated with the GOP? Do they think that the Tea Party movement is not refreshing?
It’s interesting that they want to focus onthemselves and not the candidate and what she said.
I can only surmise that the folks who are in a twist about this post disagree with Radtke’s statement and are doing what they can to avoid commenting about it.
J.R. H, I am not sure what you are asking for. Jamie Radtke isn’t a TEA party candidate in the sense that the TEA party got together and decided to nominate her to run, that never happened, so she has to court the various TEA party groups the same way she has to court any other group of voters. That said, there are many TEA party people who support Jamie Radtke, and there are some who don’t, and at least a few who can’t stand her. With that in mind, what is it that you are asking ?
Yes James, you are quite correct; taxpayers have had enough. As the broad middle class sees itself being destroyed as our society is divided into one of the rich and the poor, those in the middle are disgusted by the tax policies of the republicans that have created this disparity. The favorable tax treatment of investment income, the reduction of the spread in the tax table that reduces the tax rates on the richest americans, and the outrageous acceleration of CEO compensation and corporate benefits, has left the majority in our nation feeling cheated and unrepresented.
Further, in one decade, we have gone from surpluses to extreme indebtedness as President Bush reversed our national aversion to making our children pay for our wars, instead putting the costs on a credit card, while he reduced tax rates, and increased Medicare benefits without paying for them. He and the Republican Party are responsible for the bubble and the collapse.
Fact is, I really think most republicans know this, but won’t face the reality of the collapse of their ideology. I guess it will take the rating agencies to burst the bubble. Even Greece and Italy know the formula; cut expenses, raise taxes, engage in tax reform, and stimulate growth. That is what it will take for us as well.
Radtke is a sinking ship.She can’t raise the money it will take to defeat Tim Kaine.Im all for having the most conservative candidate possible but that person has to be able to raise money and put together a team of volunteers.Radtke has not been able to do either one.
So Mike McKay, do you think any candidate has enough diniero to compete with Kaine? Really?
Well Turbo I think George Allen is in a much better diniero position than Radtke is by far.For a candidate to talk about not spending more than you take in Radtke sure isn’t walking the talk.To answer your question YES I think George Allen will be able to go dollar for dollar with Tim Kaine.
Temporary -
I’m going to try this ONE LAST TIME. I’ll type in short sentences so you can follow it.
1) The TEA PARTY is individual voters. It is NOT a PARTY. I know this.
2) Because the TEA PARTY is a collection of voters and loosely associated organizations, many candidates would like their support – collectively.
3) Radtke is running for the REPUBLICAN nomination.
4) Radtke helped found/run the Virginia Tea Party Patriots
5) Radtke would like folks who identify with the Tea Party to vote in the Republican primary – for her.
6) That being said, a Republican party candidate, Radtke has gone on record saying that the Republican party is failing, in her effort to get indvidual Tea Party members to support her.
That’s it. I’m done. You will somehow find some flaw in my reasoning, so I give up. I will never write about the Tea Party again because it’s just too frustrating.
JRH, nope, no such luck, I did not see any flaw in what you are saying, I agree with all of your points.
I still feel I am missing something, and that something might be that you are saying that there is some kind of, for lack of a better word, hypocrisy in saying the Republican party has problems at the same time that you are running for the Republican nomination ? If that is what you are saying then we disagree on that point.
I am not saying it. I am reporting it. I have not posted my opinion on this matter because it really doesn’t matter.
I posted on it because it is an interesting thing for a candidate to say, regardless of party. When was the last time you heard a candidate say, “My party has gone wrong”?
To give my opinion on this matter: comments like this do a good job at dividing people who should be of like mind: Beat Tim Kaine.
Mike Barrett, I say again … There was NO surplus left by Clinton. We were in debt when Clinton took office, when he left office and in MORE debt today. Here are the national debt (and deficit) figures at the end of each FY of Clinton’s budgets, <bstraight from the US Treasury. </bhttp://www.treasurydirect.gov/NP/BPDLogin?application=np
1994 Debt $4.692749 trillion Deficit $281.26 billion
1995 Debt $4.973982 trillion Deficit $281.23 billion
1996 Debt $5.224810 trillion Deficit $250.83 billion
1997 Debt $5.413146 trillion Deficit $188.34 billion
1998 Debt $5.526193 trillion Deficit $113.05 billion
1999 Debt $5.656270 trillion Deficit $130.08 billion
2000 Debt $5.674178 trillion Deficit $17.91 billion
2001 Debt $5.807463 trillion Deficit $133.29 billion
Why do I care that you get it right? Because the amount of stupid in this country is appalling.
Thanks JayD; if your numbers are correct, I am surprised you would have posted them. In essence, during the Clinton years, the deficit declined from the start every year. In fact, Bush initially defended the tax cuts because they projected budget surpluses for every year of his Presidency. Of course, as we know, he just dramatically increased the debt every year, proving that the tax cut theory is not only wrong, it is dangerous.
Okay JRH, I follow you now, sorry it took me so long to catch up.
I think it is helpful to think of it from the perspective of a lot of TEA party people, which is that it really doesn’t matter so much if Republicans win or lose because Republicans weren’t doing what TEA party people wanted in the first place. I’m not saying that Mrs. Radtke believes that, I really don’t know, but a lot of TEA party people believe that.
Republicans often see the TEA party through the lens of Republican strategy, and when doing so they see the TEA party as a dividing force, one that takes away votes from candidates they perceive as having a better chance of winning, for example, but that is a Republican perspective of the TEA party, not the TEA parties perspective about itself. To the TEA party, Republicans are almost as bad as Democrats when it comes to issues the TEA party cares about, and the TEA party isn’t in it to make sure that Republicans have a majority, because who cares if Republicans aren’t going to adhere to TEA party principles when they have a majority ? Said another way, Republicans if they do have a majority are just going to go off and do Republican stuff, which is often in conflict with the TEA party agenda, so why support the goal of having a Republican majority in the first place ? Republicans would then argue that if it isn’t a Republican majority it will be a Democratic majority, which is worse, but again that is entirely a Republican way of seeing the world. Most TEA party people would be fine with 50% of the people elected as Republicans who agree with the TEA party, and 50% of people elected as Democrats who agree with the TEA party, because then that’s 100% of the people agreeing with what the TEA party wants to do, no Republican majority needed. I think most TEA party people would vote Democrat if it was Democrats who started pushing the TEA party wish list, because it is about the agenda, not about Republicans.
There is a real desire on the part of a lot of TEA party people to work with Blue Dog Democrats, and you can go and read on the Roanoke Tea Party web page right now an open letter by that Roanoke Tea Party to the Occupy Wall Street people pointing out areas of agreement and making an offer to them to work together on things they agree on. To Republicans, from their own perspective, this is completely heresy and bizarre behavior, but if you get into the minds of the people in the TEA party this makes perfect sense, because it isn’t about Republicans winning or losing, it is about what the TEA party wants for itself.
I don’t think that most Republicans “get” that the TEA party isn’t Republican, probably because what most people understand (or think they understand) about the TEA party they got from the media, and the media was quick to cast the TEA party as an extremist arm of the Republican party for its own purposes. But it is much more complicated than that from a Republican perspective, and from a TEA party perspective much more simple. From a TEA party perspective, if you are for a government that adheres to the Constitution and a few other points, then you’ve got a friend in the TEA party, and that goes for Democrats, Republicans, and whoever else is out there.
From a Republican perspective it is probably easiest to think of the TEA party as Conservatives who are part of a reformation movement within the Republican party, because even though that isn’t the reality, from the outside it looks about the same and probably makes it easier for Republican strategists to sleep nights.
From a TEA party perspective, the TEA party basically knows what it is about, and it is Republicans who either come to see things the way the TEA party sees them and wins their support, or goes off in the other direction and loses it. Pretty simple.
Hey, Barrett – whose responsibility is it to enact a budget and which party had control of those purse strings from 1994-2000? Then, I ask you, what significant thing happened in 2001 that changed the trajectory of this country?
You really have blinders on and you are hardly a centrist. I have yet to hear you advocate for anything Republicans have done or are proposing.
I’ve been following the Tea Party and its development since it started. And, no, I am not part of the Republican apparatus either. I work with them, but there are times when they don’t exactly agree with our commentary. It has to be that way.
Regardless, I appreciate your post because I am sure it helped others.
And, like you, I want to see my issues advanced as well, regardless of who is doing the advancing. Most of the time, it is conservative Republicans who I support. If that person is not available, I’ll take the next best alternative.
Mike,
You crack me up, as usual. Every time I read one of your comments, my bullshit detector goes off–and I have it set on minimum sensitivity. First, you claim that we had a budget surplus when Clinton left office. When someone puts up the numbers disproving that liberal canard, you switch gears and claim that Clinton lowered the deficit and Bush increased it, ignoring 9-11. And the Bush tax changes were not a “tax cut.” They were a roll-back of the Clinton tax increases, one of the reasons Slick Willie was able to reduce the deficit.
Hey Hoeft, I have commended the republican Congress that worked with Clinton to implement pay go and believe it could be implemented again if we solved the revenue shortfall problem. But since that time, the Party has gone in a totally different direction and has ostracized the actions taken in the past by moderate, centrist republicans. Today, none of those leaders remain, they have been replaced by the Grover Norquist groomed radicals that have signed his no tax pledge. Of course you realize that President Reagan would be ostracized today for raising taxes, but of course he did believe in country over party.
There, I complimented a republican. And while he is responsible for the emergence of Norquist, I can’t imagine Reagan turning over the Party to an unelected dictator. Since some 98% of republicans in the House have signed the pledge, there is zero chance of a balanced solution to what can destroy our economy. Again, it is my belief that any elected official that has taken that pledge has broken his or her own oath of office.
Thanks for the link JayD; a closer look proves that we did go into surplus. If you check year 2000, we started the year with a debt of 5.776 trillion, but by the end of 2000, the debt was only $5,662 trillion. Of course today, we would be absolutely giddy over these figures. Point is, Congress and the President were successful in getting spending under control, and tax rates were higher but businesses were profitable.
We could do that again if we took the steps every bi-partisan commission has recommended. Fact is, supply side economics and its trickle down theory was an abysmal failure; just ask the 99%.
Mike Barrett Obama plans have really worked out great for everyoe haven’t they ? Spend then raise the debt limit spend more raise the debt limit again.Democrats haven’t the slightest clue on fixing the economy.
Adding to JR’s comments, Tea Party is not a political party.. not yet anyway. TP rejects the Mike Barrets fellow democrats and a few worst case rinos widely held view that brainy “government” folks are the best at solving prickly problems through some miracle of divine legislation and this is why TP currently finds it has more in common with conservative Republicans. TP blames both sides. They are equally disgusted with dem and gop congressmen who have failed to reign in spending and debt.. and especcially those who raise our capacity to take on more debt.
Mike, I welcome you to tell me what either party has collectively done to reduce debt and spending. I also invite anyone to explain their interpretation of what went wrong during the Bush years, specifically, who voted for it and why.
[...] brings her the goods. If the rumor is true, it makes sense that certain society types would want to call attention to her indiscretion……a little pre-emptive tongue waging, perhaps. Of course, how you think it helpful [...]
Mike Barrett, you’re welcome, but you’ve still got it wrong. Deficits declined during the Clinton years, but he (and the congress) never produced a surplus.
And while PUBLIC debt declined btw FY1998 and 2001, intra-government holdings went up each of these same years by FAR GREATER amounts.
Clinton and Newt used boomer Medicare and SSI trust fund premiums to offset yearly deficits. And, BTW, the last Clinton budget was FY2001 – go back and look at that last Clinton budget figure again.
JR,
You run a great blog. You are very professional for the most part. Could have done without the pond scum but if that’s your harshest, you are a very nice guy. But let me explain the issue with parsing of the Tea Party and Jamie Radtke:
We no longer have Rights in this country. Our freedom is literally gone. When we are fighting for the right raise animals or farm our property, freedom is gone and a new government dependency is created:
http://articles.dailypress.com/2011-11-15/news/dp-nws-york-board-of-supervisors-ordinances-1116-20111115_1_aquaculture-and-chicken-oyster-farm-zoning-ordinance
Do I need to pull out the Federalist papers, the Constitution, explain the difference between Madison and Jefferson style politics so some can understand what true freedom is about? A lawyer, politician, media or what Thomas Sowell describes as Intellectuals cannot explain freedom to the point at which some understand its true value. It is quite a different story to have experienced it which adds a whole layer of knowledge that is called wisdom. Something most intellects do not possess.
My friend…when we are fighting to raise chickens, oysters or dock commercial boats on our own property, freedom no longer exists. Hopefully, you do not throw your hands up in frustration and not write about what the Tea party is about because we need people like you the most. To help us regain our freedom!
Hopefully, you will join the cause rather than hinder it with petty arguments as to whether the Republicans had “gone wrong.” Everyone knows damn well they participate as co-conspirators in this power grab of our freedoms.
I hope you do not have children because they will not live a life you have because they are on a Road to Serfdom….and you are leading them there. Hopefully, you’ll wake up before you realized you’ve been duked like Ken.
Red pill or blue?
Well JayD, the link you provided says we did go into surplus, and of course both democrats and republicans claim credit for doing so. Point is, what came after, that is, the Bush fiscal disaster, in the fault of the supply side theorists in the republican party, and of course, on the Party’s Prime Minister and chief enforcer, Grover Norquist.
Ironically, most business executives and economists are in agreement; if the Super Committee were to go bold, get a deal done bigger than required, then that action in and of itself will produce a stimulus to rapid and sustained growth of our economy. But of course, as we know, republican leaders in Congress have pledged to do anything to ensure that the President is not re-elected.
So there we have it. Now on this Forum, where the radical right dominates, I expect no agreement with rational and respected economists, but in fact, there are still rational and reasoned republicans who know this to be true. But Grover has not granted permission for our economy to recover, so republicans will continue to obstruct recovery, growth, fairness, and equity.
No Red or Blue or purple pills for that matter.. TP is Red White and Blue with 50 stars.
Political parties have not made us more inclusive, stronger or greater. One thing that differentiates the TP movement is that it includes all who possess a strong belief in the Judeo-Christian values embedded in our founding documents. TP movement activists say over and over that they believe the responsibility of our country is entrenched within the hearts of true American Patriots from all walks of life, every race, religion and national origin, all sharing a common belief in the values which made America great. Arguably has we not strayed so far from our founders vision we would not be in the fiscal mess we are in. Saying this is not bible thump, its fact and logic.
Jay D and Mike Barrett,
So then can you two agree that the closest thing we had to a balanced budget was back during the Clinton years with the Clinton tax rates? That going back to those rates might be a good step to be included in efforts to balance the budget?
Deficit spending in earnest started with Reagan and has continued through to the present day without interruption. Anyone who looks at a simple graph of the national debt could tell you that.
@Turbo,
The pill reference is whether someone wishes to live in an alternate reality (Matrix) to where someone actually is stupid enough to believe that politicians will solve these problems they got us into.
Whether a study is intended to assist with abortions or suppress them, and whether there are people who wish to grow food on their own property so when the whole world goes to hell…the rest of these sponges who wish to rely on the government can also.
Meanwhile, you’d be sitting pretty with your crops, your guns and your property. That is until the IRS came.
Oh yeah…I forgot me God. I’m one of those clingers!
It’s hard to believe anyone running for a party nomination would actually speak against that party concurrently. Not a smart move, that’s for sure!
Well yes Little David, of course I could agree with that. Of course, most herein would not agree as fact does not trump ideology on Bearing Drift. The mantra of cut taxes is so deeply ingrained in the far right to the point that even though we face a financial debacle in the failure of the Super Committee, the republicans, having pledged their loyalty to Grover Norquist, cannot vote for higher taxes.
If I am not mistaken, some 98% of the republicans in the House of Representatives have signed the pledge, and if they vote for a tax increase, will be targeted with a primary opponent in the next election cycle.
So we face a situation in which even many of these republicans know what they have to do, but won’t or can’t because they owe their loyalty to an unelected dictator, not to their constituents. They know that if they compromised, the nation would prosper, but they would have a well funded primary opponent.
Why no do what is best for America?
Conservative gal, Many find it refreshing to hear someone running for office state the obvious. The Republican party and the Democratic party have both gone wrong. Saying what so many know does not equate to speaking against party values does it?
Just look at the incoherent presidential candidates our party is trotting out.. Our party has not gone haywire?
Temporary,
My first reaction to your comment about deficit spending under Reagan was that Johnson started it when he put the Vietnam War on a revolving charge plan, but I looked up the facts. You are right. As a percent of GDP, deficit spending increased more under Reagan than at any time since World War II. On the other hand, Reagan’s deficit spending ended a cycle of four recessions in only 12 years and bankrupted the Soviet Union, a noble accomplishment equal to the defeat of Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan in my humble opinion.
Mike, you are hardly in a position to claim that facts don’t trump ideology on BD. Your liberal bias seems to be impervious to facts.
Well Temporary, I have earned many labels on this forum, but of course that is more a reflection of those who post than of any relection of my view. I would note that the so called rescue plans for both Greece and Italy contain essentially the same ingredients that I have advocated on this forum. Only the far right has engaged in purely denying the facts and supported the same tactics that got us into this mess in the first place.
Suspension of reality is the only way anyone could advocate for more tax cuts and for cuts only to reduce the deficit and debt. That or they could really want another depression.
Mike said, “Temporary, I have earned many labels on this forum”.
Mike, I think you intended to respond to Rocky who posted just before you did instead of to me. But sure, you have gained a lot of labels here, my nickname for you is “Occupy Bearing Drift”.
Rocky, I hear you, but when bankrupting the Soviet Union maybe he bankrupted us too and we just don’t know it yet.
MikeBarrett,If private bankers treated trust fund deposits as income (or surplus), they’d face criminal charges. If the government refused to pay on savings bonds, we would call it default. But our US Treasury treats these particular binding obligations (not others) as balance sheet revenue, allowing politicians from both parties to use SS and Medicare premiums as free money and skew the numbers. I think it’s time to re-think that.
Re “Bush reversed our national aversion to making our children pay for our wars …” Wrong. Revolutionary war debt wasn’t paid off until just before the Civil War, which wasn’t paid off until the 20th century. Ever since the founding, America’s children have always paid off war debts of their fathers AND borrowed to pay for wars.
Re “Bush … increased Medicare benefits w/out paying for them”. Agreed. But if you don’t like the Bush-signed (and dem supported) $400 billion 2003 Prescription Drug bill, then you sure as hell wouldn’t have liked the competing Daschel plan – which cost $200 billion more – AND you should be outraged that Obama, Pelosi and Reid made it worse by filling in that expensive ‘donut hole’ medicare benefit with the 2010 $940 billion Healthcare reform bill.
Re “(Bush) and the RP are responsible for the (housing) bubble & the collapse”. Beyond ignorant.
No question the Clinton era budgets come closest (in recent times) to a balanced budget, but taxing the rich isn’t how he did it. Check your ‘history’. Clinton’s terms (’93 – 2001) not-so-coincidently included the dot.com boom/bust years (’95-2000). By ’95 the US economy was crank’n with most new gains driven by high productivity growth, low inflation, and high employment ~ GDP grew for 9 straight years in the ’90s and by ’99 unemployment was at a 30yr low – 4% – and baby boomers (now entering peak earning years) collectively sent lots and lots of cash to Washington.
Then btw. ’99 and early 2000 (also Clinton years), the Fed increased interest rates 6 times, the economy started loosing steam, and by 2001 the majority of dot-coms ran out of venture capital and stopped trading. Companies lost $5 trillion in market value in the 2000 – 2002 stock market crash, the 9/11 attack accelerated the drop, and newly laid off techies found a glutted job market. You can’t match up 90s events with the Clinton era deficits and not come away understanding, “It’s the economy” and not tax rates that wag the dog.
BTW, President Clinton recently publicly (Meet the Press) supported the Republican tax reform plans. http://digitaljournal.com/article/311713
Back on topic: Jaime Radtke is spot on, but only half right. Ditto Turbo’s comments.
Ok, I get that, there are ways to say things, and how you say things matter. As a matter of fact, I heard Jamie speak yesterday at a forum of Republican women, and just about everything she said was incorrect or incoherent. First she said in the history of Virginia there has been no woman to hold office at the state level, and she wanted to be that woman. She also said we shouldn’t worry about the presidential election, it will not matter who the president is, we should only worry about the Senate races. She was part of a panel with other republican candidates and elected officials, and none of them were too happy with her party bashing. She needs to talk about her platform and why it’s better than the other candidates’, versus all this negative campaigning, or she will not have a prayer!
Leave your response