Seattle’s new 20-cent plastic bag fee is clearly the most important issue facing America today. It was so important that Glenn Beck had Seattle City Councilwoman Jan Drago on his show to discuss how Seattle residents are ready to overthrow the oppressive nanny state that is Seattle city government. If Nickels, Conlin, and the others aren’t stopped, it’s a certainty that this will be copied across the country and we’ll all soon be knitting our own cloth bags out of our children’s clothes.
Of course, I’m being silly here. While I’m not wild about the fee, it’s really not that big of a deal in the grand scheme of things. And I’m curious whether or not either Beck or Drago figured out that the interview they did made both of them look ridiculous, primarily because Beck had Drago on to complain about arriving at an “oppressive” solution to this problem, while Drago would have been fine with a total ban, something which likely would have caused Beck and his 7 viewers to have a seizure.
There are a couple of things that I’ve found frustrating in trying to evaluate this issue, which certainly pulls at the cracks in that intersection between liberalism and libertarianism that I inhabit. The main source of frustration is that I find it very difficult to quantify the goals of the policy or the expected results. While my wife and I personally recycle our bags or use them as either trash-can liners or for discarding of the waste produced by our feline masters, I obviously know that not everyone disposes of these bags properly. How serious of a problem is that?
Both Mayor Nickels and Richard Conlin see this as being part of their effort to be as environmentally conscious as possible:
“It’s about the use of scarce resources, about pollution of our environment, about litter in our streets and parks and the costs, both economically and environmentally, of throwing away a piece of Earth we have an opportunity to protect and preserve,” Conlin said at the news conference, which Councilmembers Tim Burgess and Sally Clark also attended.
Playing Devil’s Advocate to the Council, Danny Westneat references a local expert on ocean-based pollution, who says that plastic grocery bags are a miniscule part of the overall pollution problem. Is that missing the point? Is there another area where improperly disposed plastic bags require the city to spend extra money to clean it up?
If you follow the logic being presented in order to justify the fee, there must be. But it’s not clear from anything I’ve read. From Kathy Mulady in the PI:
The 20-cent-per-bag “green fee” is expected to raise about $3.5 million each year. Seattle Public Utilities needs about $500,000 to run the program. The remainder will be used to offset expected increases in the city’s solid-waste rates.
Are the increases in the city’s solid-waste rates coming from problems with plastic bags? Somehow, I doubt it. But that’s where the money will come from. It’s like tolling to offset the costs of a new 520 bridge, except that you’re only tolling the single occupancy lanes.
In the end, all of this is moot if it’s completely painless and inexpensive for everyone to just start using the reusable bags. Richard Conlin continues to insist that no one will have to pay the fee because they can use the reusable bags. This is something I just can’t quantify right now. How much groceries can they hold? How convenient are they when getting large amounts of groceries? How easy are they to clean? And while many may attempt to look at the reduction in plastic bag use within Seattle grocery stores, will we know how many people are going to do what my wife plans to do (do her grocery shopping in the suburbs where she works instead of coming home to Seattle first)? As long as we continue to reuse our bags for our normal trash, we know we’re not contributing to the garbage problem. Will there be a way to measure not just plastic bag usage, but also the level of improper disposal?
And that leads to me to my last point. Is this policy really nanny-statism? I continually hear this over and over again that the bag fee is a blatant example of Seattle’s out of control nanny-statism. Nanny-statism is when government tries to protect people from their own decisions – because they see people as children incapable of caring from themselves. Once you start defining it more broadly than that, the term loses its meaning. Jaywalking, the 4 foot rule in strip clubs, drug laws, helmet laws – those are all examples of nanny-statism because those laws are attempting to protect people from their own moral or public health choices. The bag fee isn’t about making people’s moral or public health choices for them. It’s about a way to reduce the amount of plastic bags in circulation.
I sympathize with Drago that maybe the policy should have been implemented first without the fee, as I wonder if it will end up putting the burden for offsetting the city’s increased solid waste expenses on the people who can least afford to give up the extra cash, but it’s sure as hell not some slippery slope to oppressive government. Calling this fee nanny-statism is no different than saying that tolls to pay for the 520 bridge is nanny-statism. I’m often wary of Nickels and his belief that part of his role as mayor is to come up with ways that cities across the world can save the planet, but this issue has caused that wariness to really send some folks flying off the deep end here. Hopefully, by next summer, we’ll have a better idea whether or not this was good policy or not.
Let’s do away with all laws then. Who’s to say minors shouldn’t drink alcohol (just ask the Bush twins.)
And perverted republicans SHOULD be allowed to fuck their cows. That’s not the government’s business. Also, drug laws and prostitution laws should be abandoned. Let’s make a list. The problem with the “I don’t want the government in my business” approach is that people have proven they DO want the government in their business. The only disagreement is WHICH business.
Republicans won’t be happy until Seattle looks like Beijing. But they certainly don’t want to give up the right to tell us who we can fuck, marry, etc., what we can smoke, etc.
Can’t have it both ways.
The “GOP” only cares about individual freedom when it’s their own.
If this hasn’t been reported already – we have just posted that signatures are being gathered for a referendum to cancel the bag fee. We encountered a paid signature-gatherer set up outside West Seattle Thriftway this afternoon (click our name on this comment to go to the post, if this link doesn’t work). So far, though, can’t find any evidence of exactly who is putting up the money — the signature-gatherer professed not to know.
What I don’t get about this proposal is why anyone would go through the hassle of reusable bags just to save a few cents.
Maybe I’m just lazy, but even if I got them for free, I’d happily pay 20-60 cents per trip just to avoid having to carry an armful of cloth bags to the store and up and down the aisles. Twenty cents per bag doesn’t seem like nearly enough to influence anyone’s behavior, especially in a city where people pay $12 for a parking space.
Sheesh! I guess if you don’t care for the anti-bag and styrofoam container law then you should be against all laws.
Most Republicans are for sensible, limited government. I think most Democrats are as well. Not sure why a discussion about plastic bags suddenly brings up screwing cows or under-age drinking.
That being said, the Green Party candidate for governor wants to:
-Divert Boeing from airplanes and war machinery to solar, wind and wave power equipment.
-Outlaw single-occupancy vehicles, except where no public transport exists.
And I’m sure the Greens, like Nickels and his minions, are horrified that we still can legally build the occasional beach bonfire.
My personal objection to it is that it’s just ANOTHER way to tax Seattle by tax-happy politicians, under the guise of calling it “green”. The majority of people here are happy to help the environment and would most likely have simply gone along with a simple request – look how successful our recyling efforts have been that started many years before most major cities in the country. But NO, the Mayor & City Council just couldn’t resist slapping on yet another tax. People are angry because it does feel like Nannyism.
I too reuse my bags to line wastecans and am stocking up now, even though I have 4 of the cloth bags in my truck. Matter of fact, Shoreline is just up the road so I will probably limit my grocery shopping to there as a simple rebellion.
Most people walking their dogs at the park across the street use their plastic bags a lot to pick up their dog’s poop. Often I find they toss their doo-doo bag into my garbage can (fine by me, beats tossing it in the street). So now those dog walkers are expected to buy bags in order to continue doing their responsible disposal?
Or if you need more plastic bags you can always subscribe to the P-I or the Times. They’ve been delivering their liberal papers in very un-liberal plastic bags for years.
What will stoner Lee and Co. do when they decide to tax the small plastic “baggies?”
Actually, I DO use the un-liberal plastic bags from my P.I. if they’re large enough to fit the wastecan. The flimsy ones I keep stuffing into a clear single bag (they all have the triangle recycle symbol). Once full, I put it in the recycle bin. Beats trying to un-sog the newspaper in order to read.
That’s why I dropped my Seattle Times subscription many years ago after making many complaints. Their delivery people kept insisting on not putting the paper in my plastic news box and tossing it right where it was most likely to get wet, like under a broken gushing gutter the landlord wouldn’t fix.
I know, now the Times delivery folks are delivering the P.I. and my delivery person is very considerate (I make a point of tipping well to keep them considerate). Too late though, the Times already lost my subscription.
There must be other, less intrusive ways to raise tax money related to the use of plastic bags. At some point they’re sitting on a pallet. Tax them then. Instead, I see a desire by some to take this to the level of the individual and their bag. It seems to me that this twenty cent bag tax on individual bags is necessary only if you’re into social engineering of the individual citizen’s behavior. So my impression is that this tax is horseshit. Worse, I foresee an era of tragic accidents in Seattle due to a decline in double bagging.
I use those P-I bags too, for scooping up the leavings of The Cat Who Must Be Obeyed. And yeah, the rest have always gone into the recycle bin.
As for that petition. Where do I sign?
Lee, you believe the bag fee is a good thing because it will reduce the amount of plastic bags in circulation.
Then you must believe a great many more fees should be implemented on a variety of things as long as long as they, in some way, help the environment. Correct?
I also have another question for you. Do you agree with the bumper sticker “War is Terrorism?”
#9: A tax at the wholesale level doesn’t work for precisely the reason you describe — the point is to change individual choices by making the individual face the cost of their choice. To be perfect, the money raised should go to litter pick-up and increased recycling efforts and so on (but solid waste management is next best).
#11: Yes, there should be more taxes on things that harm the environment, most notably fossil fuels, and fewer taxes on things that don’t.
And why is this such a big deal? Several states have bottle deposits of 5 or 10 cents. One could argue about the effectiveness of those deposits, but no one can claim they have destroyed liberty and democracy. Good grief.
Taxing fossil fuels? (as if they aren’t already being taxed).
Interesting how liberal solutions always make things more expensive for everyone, particularly those who can least afford it.
HEY BYEBYE WHY DONT YOU INVEST IN A PLATIC BAG AND THEN TIE IT AROUND YOUR HEAD.
@12 “doesn’t work”
Only if you prefer to control people’s behavior. No thank you.
“Face the cost of their choice”
I’d rather corporations face the cost of their decision to give us only the choice between plastic and paper and to leave social engineering by those who think they know best out of my life. Quite frankly, social engineers don’t know best. They never have and they never will. Hell, they don’t even know what’s best for their own lives.
@12,
Matthew, would you be for this idea? Taxing couples for each baby they after their first baby?
Also, would you be for attaching a fee to each copy of The Stranger and The Weekly to help pay for the litter improperly disposed of papers create? So, each paper would cost, let’s say, 10 cents, but that fee would go directly to the government to help pay for cleanup, but also a portion of that fee would go to help support a literacy program for underprivileged youths. You would be for that, right?
[Deleted – off topic]
We should start taxing churches and religious schools. If we’re going to raise taxes that’s a fine place to start. Of course the tax discussion here is a red herring.
What is at stake is the environment. The plastic bags are bad for it. Even inbred republicans wether they’re smart enough to know it or not will be impacted when it all goes to Hell.
Them dying I don’t mind. In fact, I applaud it. But the problem is Democratic children will be caught as well.
@17 Yuck. I hope you remembered to double bag for that one.
You do such a great job representing the left, ByeByeGOP.
I encourage people to read this blog just to see it for themselves.
[Deleted – off topic]
@21 Dream on. You fascists are now hopelessly out of fashion and deservedly so, seeing as how your guys fucked up everything beyond any possible recognition. But, hey, feel free to check back in say 30 – 40 years. Maybe Republicans will then be given another shot at running things. Until then, get used to living in the political wilderness, dog.
You had your chance and you fucked up. Even election fraud can’t save you now.
[Deleted – off topic]
Republicans might just get a chance to run things in this state very soon considering what a mess Democrats have made of the state budget. How long does it take a Democrat to build a ferryboat? Probably longer than it took to build Grand Coulee Dam by the looks of things.
@23 Male Democrats get caught with adult women. Republicans get caught taking a wide stance in their diapers while oogling their neighbor’s mule from a public toilet. Hmm, I’ll stick with Democrats, thank you.
Lee, your ducking of my questions is not going unnoticed by me.
Will somebody please figure out something that totally escapes me? I recognize the ‘Seattle Way’ is that If it ain’t broke – jack up the costs bigtime while they insist on fixing!
At present time we have garbage pickup once a week (required by ordinance in City jurisdiction, you can’t opt out). We have yardwaste pickup every two weeks. (Personally, I have little yardwaste due to beauty bark, so I pay half the neighbor’s yardwaste cost to toss my weeds & vegetable scraps into.) I’ve rarely seen both of us manage to partially fill his big yardwaste bin; most of the other neighbors on the street also only fill 1/2 of their yardwaste bins during the spring/summertime/fall, from what they’ve said. We all have typical yards, no Street of Dreams stuff.
So NOW, being proposed is that as part of the new “social engineering of the individual citizen’s behavior” (Thanks Steve @ 9) we will soon commence to putting what was formerly known as “garbage” (i.e., fish & meat scraps, along with our present vegetable scraps) into the yardwaste bin.
Gasp! Because we will put garbage into the yardwaste bin, it will then stink! So therefore, the yardwaste should be retrieved Weekly, instead of on a Bi-weekly basis to save us from Stinkage.
Don’t MANY homes and apts have garbage disposals in their kitchen sinks? So how much Stinkage is even being dumped in the first place?
In the meantime, the garbage can (which shalt no longer stink) will continue to be picked up on a weekly basis. City of Seattle is proposing rate hikes of 40-45% to pay for all the additional needed service – that wasn’t needed in the first place – if we just left things alone.
Will someone please explain the “logic” that I can’t seem to wrap my brain around?
Why Steve, are you making an anti-gay comment at #25?
[Deleted – off topic]
Yup, the more voters discover that liberals routinely favor dumb things, (like opposing domestic oil drilling for the past 30-years), the more likely it is that they will be ultimately rejected.
@28 No, I’m just pointing out that Republicans are a bunch of pervs who are unfit to hold office. I thought you already knew that.
@26
Lee, your ducking of my questions is not going unnoticed by me.
The fact that your questions don’t make sense didn’t go unnoticed by me.
Even if all Republicans were perverts Steve, that really has nothing to do with why you don’t want them in office.
Wow, censorship at HA for going “off topic”?
I thought going off topic was a requirement for posting here along with references to animal sex and what someone wants to do to someone else’s spouse.
On topic, I don’t think the plastic bag fee is so much a slippery slope item as it is Nickels and company seeing how far they can push their feel-good greenie ideas.
@34
Bill, you’ve been mostly on topic here (and yes, we do have an official policy, although I’m reluctant to enforce it unless someone is being as deliberately obnoxious as JBD was).
As far as I’m concerned, it’s not censorship to tell the crazy person on the bus to stop screaming at the top of her lungs. Even if you’ve veered off topic, you’ve been civil and haven’t been overtly trying to steer the thread off topic like JBD has.
I think the tax is reasonable, as long as it goes to lower user fees fot garbage disposal. Of course, to be REALLY logical, their would be a more wide spread tax on indisposabilty.
What about all that plastic used in blister packs!
Thanks, Lee. I agree with your comments at 35.
I hate sin tax revenue projections. They depend so highly on people continuing to do what you are taxing.
To bring in $3,500,000.00 Seattle residents would need to use 17,500,000 $0.20 plastic bags a year.
That is only about 30 bags per year per person. Imagine if you brought your own bags shopping and used the $6.00 you saved for a gallon of gas instead. Pretty soon, there might not be enough money generated in revenue to pay for the program.
Of course we already do pay for all those bags and styrofoam containers, the cost of which is baked into what we pay retailers. The extra labor and accounting involved with charging for individual bags and containers will also now be baked into the cost of goods. Not to mention the increased length of time we’ll doubtless have to spend at the checkout stand while the checker and customer dither over how many bags were used and how much should be charged. I can’t wait to see the next brilliant idea the City of Seattle comes up with.
Hmm… There’s no fee for bags in Gig Harbor, but all of our local grocery stores have reusable bags for sale for a reasonable price. I’ve been seeing more and more of the reusable bags being used. It seems people wanted an alternative to plastic bags and didn’t need smacked on the knuckles to make the switch.
Maybe a public information campaign held in conjunction with the stores would be a better idea?
This bag thing is fucking retarded. You
dumb asses should kill yourselves if you really want to help save the planet. Don’t
forget, when the sun runs out of energy
nothing you “save” is gonna matter anyway.
Double plastic please. Don’t forget, when we
drill for oil and pump it out, we are cleaning
up huge underground ecological disasters. You
tards should be pleased about it.
The average Seattleite already has about $500-2,000 invested in bags and carryable containers of one kind or another including ski boot bags, ski bags, soft briefcases laptop bags yoga mats bags backpacks fanny packs picnic baskets camera bags roll on the airplane suitcases briefcases overnight bags duffel batgs tote bags for camping crap sail bags mitten bags (well I do, all my gloves and mittens go int one bag in closet) stuff sacks of every nature for travelling in Europe and in the camper van backpacks messenger bags bags for your folding chairs bags for your wine bags for keeping the beer cool at Golden Gardens etc.
but all of a sudden it’s impossible to have a few durable attractive bags for your food?
Come on.
@24
Grand Coulee was built by Democrats.
@30 yes Democrats like Jeb Bush – oops – he’s no Democrat. He’s a republican – the Monkeyfaced President’s brother in fact. He fought against domestic drilling off the coast of Florida because things like plastic bags and oil rigs are bad for the environment you asshole.
Oh yeah – then there’s Democrat Arnold Schwarzenegger – oops he’s a republican too! He fought domestic drilling in California.
How about Democrat John McCain? – Oops he is a republican too who before he was for it – was against domestic drilling and is STILL against drilling in ANWR.
More than 70 republican Congressmen have voted in this decade to ban domestic drilling.
Don’t you just hate it when those pesky facts get in the way of your poorly framed arguments Billy?
Or are you just too fucking dumb to know the difference?
ByeByeGOP spews:
“Let’s do away with all laws then. Who’s to say minors shouldn’t drink alcohol (just ask the Bush twins.)”
Are you an educated idiot like Goldy?
Apparently so.
Bag Taxes are quite a bit different than minors drinking…fool.
[Deleted – off topic]
[Deleted – off topic]
#44 “Grand Coulee Dam was built by Democrats”
Indeed, that’s true. Those Democrats also mobilized and helped win World War II.
They wouldn’t recognize today’s “we can’t” Democratic Party, and neither would JFK.
Everybody knows that, if you want to know what JFK would think, you ask a commie-fascist, goatfucking troll.
@47
I missed that one. It’s removed.
@49
Actually, Bill, the modern Democratic Party is starting to look more like FDR’s Democratic Party than JFK’s. There are a lot of parallels to the overall mood of Democrats now and what they were in the late-20s, early 30s.
Silly wabbits, how will I line my little garbage cans if I don’t get my plastic shopping bags? I can’t use expensive canvas for that!
Beep! Beep!
If any lurkers have actual information, we’re still looking for the answer to the question of who’s paying to gather petition signatures for the bag-fee referendum. If you don’t want to post here:
editor@westseattleblog.com
I’m not sure exactly what parallels you’re referring to Lee.
I’m pretty sure Democrats in 1933 did not refer to those they disagreed with politically as “commie-fascist goatfuckers”.
I know we might be straying a bit off-topic Lee but I am interested in what you mean by those political parallels specifically.
@55
I’m pretty sure Democrats in 1933 did not refer to those they disagreed with politically as “commie-fascist goatfuckers”.
I know we might be straying a bit off-topic Lee but I am interested in what you mean by those political parallels specifically.
I’m pretty sure the people who were suffering the worst of the Depression’s effects were awfully mad at the Republicans who blindly led the country into that mess.
Does that help?
It helps Lee but I was hoping you had something with a bit more meat on it. There really aren’t economic parallels between the current economy and the Great Depression as much as Democratic talking points would like voters to believe. We aren’t really even in a technical recession,(2-quarters of negative economic growth). Democrats tried to say during the Kerry campaign that we had the “worst economy since the Great Depression”, which was of course not true by any measure of the economy.
I think as well that measuring the “overall mood” from an 80% liberal enclave like Seattle can lead to a bit of overconfidence.
To put in the context of this topic. If Democrats proposed a .20 bag fee nationally I imagine it would be wildly unpopular.
When well over 50% of Americans favor new domestic oil drilling it’s not just Republicans that voters are mad at.
@57
There really aren’t economic parallels between the current economy and the Great Depression as much as Democratic talking points would like voters to believe.
Banks going under? Rampant overspeculation in various markets leading to widespread defaults? A massive nanny-state prohibition on a drug that many people secretly enjoy (alcohol in 1920s, marijuana now), largest divide between rich and poor in generations. There are differences of course, but they are just different variations of the same problem. Instead of being more isolated, we now have our military stretched across the globe and are much farther in debt to nations like China. Of course, this leads to an even more dire take on our circumstances.
Democrats tried to say during the Kerry campaign that we had the “worst economy since the Great Depression”, which was of course not true by any measure of the economy.
It’s much more true now.
I think as well that measuring the “overall mood” from an 80% liberal enclave like Seattle can lead to a bit of overconfidence.
On your part. Seattle is one of the wealthiest cities in the U.S. We’re not feeling the pain here the way they are in other parts of the country.
To put in the context of this topic. If Democrats proposed a .20 bag fee nationally I imagine it would be wildly unpopular.
It would be, and I’d be strongly against it. That’s not the federal government’s job.
When well over 50% of Americans favor new domestic oil drilling it’s not just Republicans that voters are mad at.
Yes, but considering that domestic oil drilling won’t do shit to solve our energy problems, it’s just another indication of the central rule of American politics. Democrats think the American people are stupid. Republicans KNOW the American people are stupid.
What’s the big deal? Many states, including Oregon and California, require a 20-cent deposit on cans and bottles to encourage recycling.
He he! Well I don’t think the American voting public is up in arms about the legality of Marijuana!
I think your comparisons between now and the early 1930’s requires a considerable amount of stretching. It might also be worth remembering that Roosevelt’s policies did not hasten the end of the Depression.
And Rabbit, if you’re old enough you might remember when we paid deposits on bottles which were cleaned and re-used. Same thing with milk bottles, etc. Now THAT was recycling.
@60
Well I don’t think the American voting public is up in arms about the legality of Marijuana!
You’d be quite wrong. A decriminalization initiative is going to pass in Massachusetts this year, and Oregon will be getting an initiative on the ballot in 2010 that will make it fully legal and sold in liquor stores. Online, it’s almost impossible to find people who are opposed to it whose opposition isn’t a result of being on a government payroll. Once people understand the amount of taxpayer money that’s wasted, and the damage that’s done through the creation of black markets, they quickly figure out how worthless it is.
I think your comparisons between now and the early 1930’s requires a considerable amount of stretching. It might also be worth remembering that Roosevelt’s policies did not hasten the end of the Depression.
That’s debatable. There was a lot of good policy that came out of that time that certainly contributed to the massive expansion of the American middle class and the unprecedented wealth that this country accumulated in the 20th century. One of the other parallels between now and the 1930s is that people understood the importance of weighing long-term planning vs. short-term.
I’m not particularly opposed to legalizing pot. But noting that two exceptionally liberal states might legalize it is hardly comparable to ending Prohibition. To be fair, Prohibition made a substance that was legal illegal. Pot hasn’t been legal in the memory of anyone living so the comparison is admittedly a bit unfair.
I guess you’d have to tell me what all those “good policies” that came out of FDR’s administration were that contributed to the expansion of the middle class. On my part I would argue that the invention of labor saving devices such as automobiles,(particularly the Model T), and electicity were much bigger factors than government policy. But as you say, it is debatable.
@62
I’m not particularly opposed to legalizing pot. But noting that two exceptionally liberal states might legalize it is hardly comparable to ending Prohibition. To be fair, Prohibition made a substance that was legal illegal. Pot hasn’t been legal in the memory of anyone living so the comparison is admittedly a bit unfair.
Marijuana was made illegal in 1937. And while not too many people remember back that far, most people do understand the history of alcohol prohibition and recognize the parallels.
All that needs to happen now is for the federal government to simply stop preventing the states from making their own policy. Even people in the deep south would understand why that should be done from a simple state’s rights perspective.
I guess you’d have to tell me what all those “good policies” that came out of FDR’s administration were that contributed to the expansion of the middle class. On my part I would argue that the invention of labor saving devices such as automobiles,(particularly the Model T), and electicity were much bigger factors than government policy. But as you say, it is debatable.
Providing safety nets and other labor protections is something that has a long-lasting positive effect on society as a whole. If doing these things were a mistake, then how come many of the wealthiest and strongest societies in the world are all places where governments do these things?
Capitalism is wonderful, but it works best when there are rules and safety nets. This is the lesson we learned in the late 20s, and its the same lesson we’re learning again today.
I’m not sure what “safety nets and other labor protections” you are referring to but I assume you mean Social Security and such things as the 40-hour work week and the minimum wage. Most Republicans do not oppose those things any more than they oppose FDA regulations. I think where there is disagreement is just how much regulation is necessary, and how large the “safety net” should be and how it should operate. The growth of entitlements is the most serious problem facing the federal government, particularly Social Security. If you’ll recall, Republicans proposed that employees have the option of allocating up to 6% of their Social Security to an investment vehicle of their choice. What did the Democrats do? Why they screamed that “Bush wants to privatize Social Security”, and the proposed reform went nowhere. And I guess I could ask you just how is that War on Poverty going…I mean besides creating an epidemic of single parent familes, crime, and hopelessness.
wow, Bill C:
Are you folks that desperate – “War on Poverty”?
How long was Congress controlled by the Republicans? And isn’t the current President a Republican? What have they done to solve these “so called problems”? Besides start a war in Iraq; which we’re still paying for.
Have they found bin Laden yet?? Are they looking?
@64
I’m not sure what “safety nets and other labor protections” you are referring to but I assume you mean Social Security and such things as the 40-hour work week and the minimum wage.
Sure, those are definitely things that came out of that era.
Most Republicans do not oppose those things any more than they oppose FDA regulations.
I’m actually curious how many Republicans oppose things like the minimum wage and social security. The people who run the Republican Party sure as hell oppose those things.
I think where there is disagreement is just how much regulation is necessary, and how large the “safety net” should be and how it should operate.
Certainly, but that’s very, very different from saying that the things that Roosevelt did only postponed the recovery from the depression. They were done to provide greater long-term benefits, and they worked.
The growth of entitlements is the most serious problem facing the federal government, particularly Social Security. If you’ll recall, Republicans proposed that employees have the option of allocating up to 6% of their Social Security to an investment vehicle of their choice. What did the Democrats do? Why they screamed that “Bush wants to privatize Social Security”, and the proposed reform went nowhere
Here’s a good breakdown of the Republican propaganda on this one. Social security isn’t even in the ballpark of the most serious problem facing the federal government right now. But it’s something that bothers many of America’s wealthiest folks because it’s seen as a drain on their ability to compete in the international marketplace.
Once again, it comes back to the central rule of American politics. Democrats think the American people are dumb enough to believe it, Republicans KNOW the American people are dumb enough to believe it. America’s wealthiest 1%, who own over 50% of the nation’s stocks, want all that money invested in the stock market where they can make the most from it. And they know that most Americans aren’t smart enough to know why that’s a bad idea for them.
And I guess I could ask you just how is that War on Poverty going…I mean besides creating an epidemic of single parent familes, crime, and hopelessness.
As I’ve had to explain to others here, the “War on Poverty” is a terrible metaphor. You cannot combat an issue of humanity through war. You have to do a series of other things better and you will slowly reduce the amount of poverty out there. You do that by focusing on enhancing two things in society – liberty and opportunity. The former requires government to back off, the latter requires government to be engaged responsibly. Forcing government to know when to do which is something that sadly doesn’t happen often enough. But that’s part of what happened in the 1930s, and I’m sensing that it’s where we’re headed now.
I don’t recall saying that Social Security was facing bankruptcy immediately. The Social Security Administration itself, as your link notes, says the fund will start running out of the ability to pay benefits at mid-century. That is hardly “Republican Propaganda”. There should be some attempt at reform now. The Bush Administration at least attempted to address it. I don’t recall any Democratic plan to fully fund the plan beyond 2050. My guess is Democrats will do two things ultimately…raise Social Security withholding and raise the eligible age when full benefits will be paid. Based on the historic performance of the stock market if I was a young guy I’d jump at the chance to stick 6% of that money in the market. And when you start talking about the market as only something “rich” people are invested in you’ve overlooked where most 401(k)’s and pension funds put their money. Are you serious when you say that the “rich” 1% “want all that money invested in the stock market so they can make the most from it”? Those “rich” people ain’t going to make money if the market tanks. Like I said above, most working Americans already are invested in the market.
My comment on the “War on Poverty”,(LBJ’s word for it), was to illustrate the failure of the Democrats idea of massive welfare and wealth redistribution. The result was particularly devastating in the African American community which has an astounding 70% of children born to single mothers. It was a success for the Democrats in the sense that it created a huge dependent voting block who wrongly see the Democratic Party as their saviors.
Lee-
Nice trying, but really, you are really trying to keep HA on subject? Th edeath knell appears to be ringing…..
@68
I don’t mind veering off-topic if the discussion meanders that way on its own, but what JBD was doing was way over the top (she was in hysterics over how no one here gives a rat’s ass about the John Edwards story).
@67
I don’t recall saying that Social Security was facing bankruptcy immediately. The Social Security Administration itself, as your link notes, says the fund will start running out of the ability to pay benefits at mid-century. That is hardly “Republican Propaganda”.
No, but you did say that:
To say that it’s the most serious problem facing the federal government right now is absurd, but you say it because the Republicans keep saying it. The messes we’re in in both Iraq and Afghanistan, the disaster along our southern border and the massive amounts of illegal immigrants here, our exploding deficits and the debt we’re racking up to China, the housing mess, the energy crisis, and the fact that we have 25% of the world’s prisoners are all far bigger problems. The growth of entitlements is a minor headache compared to all of that.
There should be some attempt at reform now. The Bush Administration at least attempted to address it. I don’t recall any Democratic plan to fully fund the plan beyond 2050. My guess is Democrats will do two things ultimately…raise Social Security withholding and raise the eligible age when full benefits will be paid.
You may be right. Those may be hard choices that need to be made.
Based on the historic performance of the stock market if I was a young guy I’d jump at the chance to stick 6% of that money in the market.
To me, it comes down to a matter of choice. I think people should have the choice between a system that’s based on stock performance and one that’s guaranteed by the federal government. I have a rollover IRA for my retirement, so I’m obviously not squeamish about my own situation, but people should continue to have a choice. But again, this is far from the most pressing problem we face as a nation. Hell, it’s not even in the top 10. But to the nation’s wealthiest people, who don’t have to worry about the kinds of things you do, it’s a bigger concern, which is why it comes out of your mouth like a well-trained parrot.
And when you start talking about the market as only something “rich” people are invested in you’ve overlooked where most 401(k)’s and pension funds put their money. Are you serious when you say that the “rich” 1% “want all that money invested in the stock market so they can make the most from it”?
Absolutely. The amount of manipulation that occurs with the financial sector, and the advantages that the federal government have been giving the highest income sectors is mind-boggling.
Those “rich” people ain’t going to make money if the market tanks.
Don’t be naive. They know exactly how to maximize their profits within the system and leave the average Joe holding the bag. I grew up in the northeast, in a Republican new-money area. These people know exactly what they’re doing. I went to school with kids whose dads were CEO’s of major companies. They are the real elitists, and they run the Republican Party. They know exactly how to use the media to their advantage. To them, paying Sean Hannity $100 million to keep you stupid is a bargain.
My comment on the “War on Poverty”,(LBJ’s word for it), was to illustrate the failure of the Democrats idea of massive welfare and wealth redistribution.
And right there, you’re demonstrating why they pay Hannity the big bucks. Wealth redistribution is not a failure. In fact, it’s the cornerstone of every successful modern society. Yet it’s something that chafes at the super-rich and therefore, again, opposition to it comes out of your mouth like the well-trained parrot you are.
The result was particularly devastating in the African American community which has an astounding 70% of children born to single mothers.
My god, have you ever even thought about that statement and how dumb it is? First of all, why would income redistribution have that effect? Do you actually believe that giving people with little resources money to get by actually causes men to abandon their kids? Really? Do you believe in the tooth fairy too?
The reason that so many people in the African American community grow up fatherless has absolutely nothing to do with our economic system. It has entirely to do with the criminal justice system. Here’s a good report that was done recently, showing the massive disproportionate arrest rates between blacks and whites for the exact same crimes. In other words, the difference does not result (as many people believe) from the fact that blacks commit more drug crimes, it comes from the fact that blacks get arrested for them in massively higher percentages than whites do.
This is the reason you have such high rates of fatherless children in the black community – because we’ve been systematically removing the fathers from the communities and putting them in jail. Considering the disadvantages that a person has when raised without a father, this disparity has just compounded the problem over the years.
It was a success for the Democrats in the sense that it created a huge dependent voting block who wrongly see the Democratic Party as their saviors.
And on this, we almost agree, but for different reasons. The failure of the Democratic Party to end the drug war is a massive part of why they’ve let down the black community, and will be one of the most interesting things to watch in Obama’s first term.