Note that I'm not in the Tea Party, and I don't speak for them. They may have a more defined agenda than I give them credit for, but so far as I know the primary "goal" is a reduction in the deficit. As an example, when presented with the across-the-board cuts in the sequester, they favored those. Had the cuts been 5% to Department B and 15% to Department A, instead of equal amounts to both, I think that would be fine, too.

As for claiming that Tea Party members can come from both parties, I agree that most of them currently come from the Republican party. Given that the core position is fiscal responsibility, I don't see why that needs to be true, nor why it will necessarily continue to be true in the future. I strongly disagree that all fiscally responsible people are Republicans, and that no Democrats are fiscally responsible. Certainly there is little evidence of fiscal responsibility in the current administration, but Democrats regimes under both Clinton and Carter were fiscally responsible, while Republicans, especially under Reagan, were not.

Note: I edited my earlier post to insert the clause "to significantly reduce the budget".

The Friedman plan was essentially what President Nixon proposed in a national TV address to the nation.  At the time I thought it was a great idea.  Unfortunately, for reasons that I've never understood, after Nixon's speech he had a bill introduced in the House of Representatives and then got cold feet and didn't use his bully pulpit to get it through Congress and the whole idea died.  I'd certainly like the idea to be updated and considered again.

I will also say, that as a former grad student who worked on a NSF grant, research and development performed by government employees are anything but fiscally responsible.

The Tea Party is not some aimless collective of loud noises (that finnOhio, was the Occupy Movement).

 

L.C.--We all like you.  But your sense of doom seems overdone.

There are problems here and on the horizon.  Those problems may be bigger than we've faced for a while.  But we'll get through some how most likely.

The unforeseen could change things either way.  I think there will be change and consequences.  But nothing so immediately dire.

Have more faith in American ingenuity and ability to find a path!

2nd that for best post of year!

That's true now, but unfortunately, it probably won't always be. When austerity comes, things turn ugly. In any case, I've said my peace. As the old saying goes, you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink.

Now it's time to beat Miami.

I thought I was through, but I will answer your post, since it raises some extremely valid questions that definitely need to be addressed.

Thanks for those links. I do strongly agree with them, in part. I agree that the fact that our debt is denominated in dollars makes us semi-immune to a collapse. That is actually why, unlike many, I don't think the problem is imminent, but a generation in the future. Having the debt denominated in dollars, we could simply print 17 trillion dollars, and pay it all off. The problem is, what comes next? If the US would then have a surplus, there would be no problem at all. If not, there would be a problem because printing that much would create a one-time massive inflation, and having been paid in devalued dollars, lenders would be skeptical about lending to the US again. Still, the fact that it is an option does give greater strength to the US Debt. It also eliminates the treat of hyperinflation that you sometimes hear bandied about.

The other point in those articles that I strongly agree with is that it makes a great deal of difference to whom you owe the money. In Japan, they have a massive debt, but it is to their own citizens, and therefore no problem. In the US, there was a massive debt after WWII, but again it was to our own citizens, and therefore, not a major problem.  The problem here is that increasingly the US debt is held, not by our own citizens, but by foreigners. We have had a large current account deficit for the last 30 years or so, and that is reflected now in who holds the debt.

So, the question is, will we go from point A (where we are not like Greece) to point B (where we are like Greece)? I think the answer is yes. We are already seeing it in the increasing foreign holdings of our debt. I think that increasingly we will see pressure on the US to issue debt no longer denominated in dollars. Instead the market will increasingly demand "inflation adjusted" bonds. These are already being issued, and are called TIPS. This sounds like no big deal, but economically it is very significant. You see, if the government does print more money, that increases inflation, and thus increases the amount to be repaid. That means you can no longer print your way out of debt. Thus the bond, while on its face is denominated in dollars, is really denominated in an absolute basis that is not dollars at all. That, combined with the fact that our debt is no longer held primarily by us, will make all the difference in the world, and so, while we are immune today, I don't believe we will be immune a generation from now. I don't know the market share of TIPS bonds, unfortunately, but I suspect that it is growing, and will continue to grow, especially if inflation starts to pick up again with a recovering economy.

As regards my comments on the Occupy movement, note that I did not say "they are Nazis". My point is that they use language similar to early language of the Nazi movement, and I said that I consider then a precursor of a future Nazi movement. To clarify my position further, I don't believe that current members are Nazis, nor do I think that most realize the similarity of their movement to the early history of nazis, but that doesn't mean that similarity isn't there.  If you google "occupy wall street nazi" you'll get over 1.5 million hits, so my observation of the similarity is not isolated, or just "out of the blue".

I will further add that I am neither Jewish, nor a banker, but I find the term "banksters" offensive since it is intended to be a racial epithet. Whenever I encounter it, I try to make sure the person using it is aware of it's meaning. Again, I don't assume they are a racist - I assume they are not one, but are unknowingly using a racist term.

By they way, I did a search for "tea party racism" and got 62 million hits, and I have been reading them, but I can't seem to find what anyone seems to think the connection is, other than that they think "Tea Party is Right wing" and "right wing is racist". I did find this link that kind of explains that the Tea Party has evolved from what it once was, a basically Libertarian grass roots organization, and into an arm of the political right, where it is probably more racist than it originally was. I haven't kept up to date, I guess, and was still aware of the Tea party in it's original form. In any case, all racism should be decried wherever it is found.

Interesting, finn. It wasn't this comment that got you: If the Tea Party was in charge those kids would never have a chance to go to college, because they would be slaves.

Instead, it was this one: I see the Occupy movement as a precursor to a more full-fledged Nazi movement. Much of their central rhetoric was based around condemnation of "banksters", a term with ethnic overtones, intended to mean "Jewish Bankers".

One of the preceding comments was an empty, direct slur (one that BTC finds irresistible). The other was a supposed comparative with supporting reason.

How do you let the first one slide and get offended by the second one? How do you do that and continue any meaningful debate?

Simple. Students don't HAVE to pay it. They don't HAVE to go to school there.

And if you are not against excessive taxation, I suppose you are in favor of excessive taxation.

Read an excellent article the other day in the change of the direction and current division of the Republican Party, focused on the Rockefeller Republicans, and drawing parallel's to the party ideology under Nixon and later prominent GOP leaders up through Regan and Gingrich.  Was a very good read.  For the life of me though I cannot think of where I found this.

My point is these fees are taxes, and if a person wants a college education they are taxed for athletics....I just am trying to point out that on one hand some of you are against excess taxation, except when you are for it.

You have to keep in mind that the subsidy is required only because of Title IX. If you changed the premise and eliminated all subsidies, and let each support fund itself based on revenues that it generates, I would have no trouble supporting that. That would simplify the Grambling situation, too. The football program could have whatever things (new floors, food, etc) that its own revenue could support.

In any case, Robert is right. The University puts together a package deal that it thinks will be attractive to students. That package includes facilities, Professors, athletics, Museums, landscaping, etc. Then it sets a price for that package. If students like that package, they come to Ohio. If they don't, they choose another school that offers a different package they prefer.