What Do Measures 66 and 67 Tell Us?
Jeff Alworth
I hope that one of our many insiders posts a final recap of how the "yes" forces managed to pass a tax hike measure for the first time since 1930. Owing to various personal issues, I was less involved in this effort than in almost any in the past decade--and have no special insight. Like everyone else, I just sat by and watched it play out, culminating in last night's amazing victory. I'd love to hear the story.
But in terms of the larger picture, even someone not directly involved can draw some conclusions. In politics, there are certain preconditions that color what kind of action is even possible. One of the preconditions is a prevailing set of accepted "truths" about policy. Of course, they're not really truths--they're mainstream beliefs that a majority live by. They fit into a quasi-historical narrative that we tell ourselves in newspapers and at election time, and only a few dyspeptic dissenters--whom we ignore--dispute the "facts." This process has an end point, though. Eventually, the narrative becomes more and more rigid and ideological and the country veers off-course, and we abandon it for a new narrative.
Following the depression, we believed in the power of labor and the middle class and we were suspicious of the moneyed interests who ruined our economy. This was well and good until the 70s, when the country slid into bad economic times again and the fringe left became ever more militant and dogmatic. Enter Reagan and a new narrative. In this one, taxes and government were bad, wealth and business were good, and labor was corrupt.
This narrative seemed bulletproof. I remember my shock in 2004 when amid stagnant wages, a collapsed Dow, and two wars, Bush was re-elected. How could it be? Narratives are hard to change because people don't relate to them as narratives. It takes awhile for people to revisit their assumptions and even longer for them to abandon them.
Over the past decade, Oregon has been a bet of a bellwether state. We seemed to be just ahead of the curve in the changes that were happening across the country. The results in M66 and 67 could be seen as an anomaly. Maybe they are. Or possibly they are more evidence that people have begun to revisit the Reagan-era "truths" and have found them wanting. Eighty years is a long time to go between successful tax-increase measures. That's suggestive that this was more than the average surprise. I can't help but notice the similarities between the two eras, either. In 1930, the crash had already arrived, but the new narrative wasn't yet in place. If I had to guess, I'd say yesterday's results mean that the old rules are no longer operative. Something changed last night. What will rise from the ashes remains to be seen, but if history is a lesson, it won't be a reprise of the old orthodoxy that has ruled for a generation.
 |
More Recent Posts | |
Albert Kaufman |
|
Guest Column |
|
Kari Chisholm |
|
Kari Chisholm |
Final pre-census estimate: Oregon's getting a sixth congressional seat |
Albert Kaufman |
Polluted by Money - How corporate cash corrupted one of the greenest states in America |
Guest Column |
|
Albert Kaufman |
Our Democrat Representatives in Action - What's on your wish list? |
Kari Chisholm |
|
Guest Column |
|
Kari Chisholm |
|
connect with blueoregon
Jan 27, '10
I hope your insider points out how they manipulated the public with the ballot title, purposefully exploited envy and class warfare, used out of state money from greedy labor unions, nuisanced the No Campaign with a statist progressive lap-dog AG, broke the law several times by distributing materials to school children and, ultimately fesses up to the victory as one on the march to statist socialist utopia.
Jan 27, '10
I don't know. I think maybe some in the country will realize that Oregon made the responsible choice...that instead of cutting funding to schools and public health and safety, that we were willing to pass very moderate taxes on the wealthy in order to cover that end...after cutting 2 billion out of the budget already. I think Oregon made the right move, but I don't see it as an in-your-face sort of victory that will matter much at the national level. It might get a little play, but it's not going to change much of the overall tone.
Jan 27, '10
@Zull The school funding deal was a fraud ... they're constitutionally mandated to fund schools -- the cuts would have come elsewhere -- probably bureaucracy.
11:35 a.m.
Jan 27, '10
Geoff:
Your sour grapes are interesting--but that's all they really are.
The teabaggers have lost Oregon. I suspect they've lost the nation as a whole...but in reality they've probably never had the nation. You are simply squeaky wheels.
This was a decisive, statewide victory. Even a good share of the counties who didn't pass the Measures outright and who would normally stamp out progressive candidates and issues made it a race.
I love you, Oregon. You make me proud.
Jan 27, '10
@Carla -- you know what you're doing is wrong right? You know that don't you? In your heart of hearts you know that what you're doing is destructive don't you? The ideology you support has NEVER ended well, never. You have to know that it ends in serfdom right? don't you? You're mind is capable of processing abstract thought right? You may be right about liberty losing ground here in Oregon and if you are, it's tragic. Enjoy your pom-poms.
Jan 27, '10
"What Do Measures 66 and 67 Tell Us?"
It tells us Oregonians want their government to do more and more, but they don't want to pay for it. That's for some minority of voters to do, like the "rich".
Why don't you think the Multnomah County I-Tax lasted?
Because the average joe doesn't want to write the check. They still want all the goodies. But they sure as hell aren't going to pay for it.
M66/67 is nothing more than short-term life support for Oregon government. it's going to take much, much more tax revenue to grow this government as big and as fast as the Progressive Socialists want it.
11:57 a.m.
Jan 27, '10
Geoff, by the 1970s, there were radical left fringe groups who were regularly warning of dark futures if the country didn't immediately switch to socialism. Some of these folks tried to provoke violent revolution, so certain were they that the apocalypse was at hand. Whenever I read your comments here, I see the same political manifestation.
It is further evidence of my thesis.
Jan 27, '10
@Jeff Alworth -- Violence has always been a phenomena of the left -- look at those SEIU thugs that attacked that Black man in St. Louis or, even Andy Stern "If the power of persuasion doesn't work, we'll use the persuasion of power". You could go back through history and see it again and again, Chavez in Venezuela, Mussolini in Italy, Stalin in Russia, Mao in China ... your politics are violence.
12:14 p.m.
Jan 27, '10
Geoff:
What Jeff Alworth said.
Your myopia to the violence and malevolence of the political right in this country isn't serving you or the teabaggers. Oregonians don't believe in your vision of what "works". We don't want it.
Your fear mongering and saber rattling isn't working. Oregonians showed you this last night. In droves.
If you refuse to listen to us and continue to go along as you are, you will continue to lose and be marginalized. Badly.
Jan 27, '10
@Jeff Alworth -- Incidentally, have you followed up on the careers of the violent left of the 70's? You'll find quite a few of them are directly involved, on the national stage, today ... as progressives (President Obama's public life began in Bill Ayer's living room, The Apollo Project, etc.)
Just sayin'
Jan 27, '10
@Carla -- you didn't answer my question. And with regards to violence, I sighted 4 members of your pantheon of statist greats who also happen to have killed millions of people, show me one individual on the right that has killed millions, just one ... go ahead ... I'm waiting ...
Jan 27, '10
I don't care about measure 67, but passing measure 66 does say this: Oregon DESERVES to have the 9th-highest unemployment rate in the country. If anyone thinks that taxing corporations on earnings instead of their profits makes any sort of sense, then I'll be the one laughing when you're sitting on the street corner begging, wondering why there are no jobs left.
Jan 27, '10
I am not part of the Tea Party movement, I don't watch Glenn Beck, Fox News, and I don't listen to Lars Larson. I didn't vote against 66 and 67 because any of them told me to; I voted against them because they were bad measures.
Look, there was an alternate plan that would have balanced the budget with an only minor temporary tax increase. Chambers of Commerce across the state approved them as not being harmful, and schools would have gotten their funding. This plan was never voted on! I voted no on 66 and 67 to tell Congress to try again.
What is "progressive" about fiscal mismanagement? How is that progress?
12:34 p.m.
Jan 27, '10
Geoff: I can cite rightist authoritarians who have done as much and worse. We can begin with The Crusades if you like and go to Hitler (Hitler's regime was governed by an authoritarian, conservative ideology and as you may or may not know, the Nazis hated the Communists. This is historical fact.)
We can play tit for tat on that all day if you like. But that won't win Oregonians over to your way of thinking.
12:37 p.m.
Jan 27, '10
Geoff, your vision of what America is will be tested. Teabaggers are going to play a very large role in the midterms later this year. If your vision of America appeals to voters, the teabaggers will help conservatives seize back America.
If you think your extreme language is useful, by all means, carry on.
Jan 27, '10
@Carla
Regarding extreme language, do you know what "tea bagging" is?
Jan 27, '10
Meant to say @Jeff
12:44 p.m.
Jan 27, '10
Ted, here's where you and I part ways. What you call "bad" is, I think, an affirmation of the Reagan-era narrative. I happen to think that America was on the wrong course during that era. The top marginal tax rate dropped from 70% to the 20s, capital gains taxes were slashed. This did create wealth--for the already wealthy, who saw their incomes spike dramatically. Meanwhile, median incomes have been totally flat since 1990, and now the US is in the middle of fiscal ruin.
We didn't need a temporary tax. That was part of the "good" of these measures--and what made their passage all the more remarkable. If you read my post, you'll notice that I didn't invoke the teabaggers--I didn't even really get into party politics.
What I'm talking about is how those things we believe to be "good" and "bad" are not fixed or absolute quantities. What's so hopeful for progressives (the dyspeptic dissenters of the previous era) is that this vote suggests that those definitions may be changing. Long road to go, but I think we've just taken the first step.
Jan 27, '10
I purposefully left Hitler off that list expecting that you'd try to pull that card.
You understand that the Nazi's were socialists right? That wasn't just a marketing ploy to have that in their name right? The ideology of the right doesn't extreme to authoritarianism ... if anything it extremes to anarchy ... You can't simultaneously want less government and extreme to authoritarianism ... logically, it is only through more government that one can extreme to authoritarianism. Your system it seems ends in the enslavement of one class to another and ultimately both to a centralized control -- one by the boot, the other by the carrot.
Jan 27, '10
Jeff:
Your obsession with tea bagging is humorous and I'm sure admirable to your fans in the gay community, but I'm not sure what that has to do with politics. If you douchbaggers insist on bringing your sex life into the streets, may I suggest you back...and pass measure 68 and 69?
Jan 27, '10
Look, there was an alternate plan that would have balanced the budget with an only minor temporary tax increase."
False
"Chambers of Commerce across the state approved them as not being harmful, and schools would have gotten their funding.
False
"I voted no on 66 and 67 to tell Congress to try again."
Congress had nothing to do with 66 or 67.
Oh, and Geoff, to quote Motley Crue:
Don't go away mad. Just go away.
12:45 p.m.
Jan 27, '10
@Ted Re: teabagging. I am aware of the irony of a group of far-right activists inadvertently naming themselves after something they abhor, yes.
12:46 p.m.
Jan 27, '10
Ted: It's the term that those in the anti-tax, anti-government group named themselves when they began their so-called 'Tea party' rallies.
Those of us who oppose what they're doing picked up on it and continued it.
It would appear now to have multiple meanings.
Jan 27, '10
Oh, and they hated the communists because they were in competition with them for the same group of people, the communists were focused "Internationally" and the Nazis were focused "Nationally" -- hence the "National" part in "National Socialist".
12:49 p.m.
Jan 27, '10
You understand that the Nazi's were socialists right?
Their ideology was conservative to the core, Geoff. It's clear to me that we're not going to agree so it seems like we're about to go down a futile path. I don't have the time or the inclination to do that.
And once again, it's not going to bring Oregonians around to your way of thinking. So its useless.
Have the last word on this piece if you like.
Jan 27, '10
Wow, whine, whine, whine...your tears nourish me. These measures were worth fighting for if only for Geoff's ridiculous words and the greater angst behind them.
Ah, and I love being accused of exploiting class warfare. Without getting into your type always waging it Geoff, I will gladly keep exploiting it.
And Geoff you named quite a few of the so-called right who have murdered many, Hitler and Mussolini to name a couple. And how many have we killed in Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan? These are the works of the real rightists, people regardless of party who value property over people. Congratulations on your great associations.
And again, congratulations on siding with the losers on Measures 66 and 67.
Jan 27, '10
Thanks Jeff:
For illustrating your intellectual dishonesty, for all to see!!! Finally!
Jan 27, '10
@Carla -- Perhaps you don't know what "Conservative" or "Liberty" is -- I don't know. If you did and, you were honest with yourself, you'd come to the conclusion that neither could extreme to the tyrannies we've discussed -- only "Progressive" or "Statist" can extreme to that. You're wrong, Either you are too lazy or too aloof to publicly defend your ideology or, you know you're wrong and that I have history behind me -- that's why you smugly stepped back and offered me the last word.
Jan 27, '10
Jeff Alworth posted: I hope that one of our many insiders posts a final recap of how the "yes" forces managed to pass a tax hike measure for the first time since 1930.
I hope that recap fairly notes that the $ kicked in by the public employee unions enabled the YES canpaign to outspend the opposition - by ~2:1 per the last estimate I heard. No complaints or sour grapes, mind you - for better or worse, that's how the system works. It's just interesting that if the NO campaign had outspent the YES by such a margin and the tax increases had NOT passed, I'm sure we'd be hearing all about how the corporations and monied interests bought the election. As it is, all I've hearsd so far today is warm fuzzies about the triumph of democracy, how the people have spoken, and the possibility of new narratives. Funny how that works...
I remember my shock in 2004 when amid stagnant wages, a collapsed Dow, and two wars, Bush was re-elected. How could it be?
Two words: Kerry/Edwards...
Jan 27, '10
@Jim -- your knowledge of history is staggering (guess what? Hitler and Mussolini -- progressives.) I know, I know, they weren't real progressives like the real ones we have here ... what those progressives in Italy and Germany did could never, ever happen here ... really? Think of how much you hate me right now.
You nailed it ... people regardless of party who value property over people ... Measures 66 & 67 were ALL about valuing property over people ... those who voted for it value their property -- why else would you ask someone else to pay your tax bill?
Jan 27, '10
Carla, that was a bit of rock'm'sock'm "screw you geoff" there.... Geo, I'm curious - your bit about the schools DOES seem disingenuous,given cuts made to schools in the past and lost school days
Jan 27, '10
@Kari -- BTW, you might consider deleting the exchange between Jeff, Carla, and Myself -- it's off topic.
Jan 27, '10
@rw Article VIII, sections 3 and 8, of the Oregon Constitution
Jan 27, '10
Carla:
Again, your ignorance of history is nothing short of appaling, but understandable, given your indoctrination.
I don't know if you don't know history, or simply choose to ignore it, knowing that most people aren't taught real history today. I think it's more likely the former, as you yourself admitted that the Hitler regime was Socialist. Then, you laughably claim the policies were Conservative. LOL!!!
I'm guessing you knew that Germany and Russia were strong allies and signed a "non aggression" pact, called the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact.
Shall we review some of Hitlers agenda?
Expansion of Universal Health Care. Expanding access to public education. Cradle to grave welfare state. Attacking big business and high finance. Gun Control. Speech Control.
Goebbels himself said, "the difference between the Soviet system and the German system, is VERY slight."
Now, I've given you multiple parallels of your so called, "Right wing" claim of Germany. Now, I want to see what you have to support your lie.
Jan 27, '10
Holy smokes Mr. Trees.
Jan 27, '10
Sorry,
I failed to mention that Hitler acknowledged in his book,Mein Kampf, The movements were so close, that were it not for the focus on race, his national socialist movement,"would really do nothing more than compete with Marxism on it's own ground."
Oh...BTW...Marx was a Jew.
1:59 p.m.
Jan 27, '10
@Kari -- BTW, you might consider deleting the exchange between Jeff, Carla, and Myself -- it's off topic.
And wildly so. You're also behaving like a typical troll, picking fights for no productive reason:
Jan 27, '10
Will the nurses at the mental ward PLEASE dispense the meds ASAP.
2:15 p.m.
Jan 27, '10
The historical factual errors in "Trees" rants are unfortunate.
But again, I don't see how this brings Oregonians around to the teabaggers POV. Either you bring the goods to convince the electorate that you're the better alternative or you don't.
Last night, Oregonians showed the teabaggers (in droves) that we aren't in to what they're about. Ranting historical inaccuracies won't change that.
Jan 27, '10
Right on top of those meds!
Jan 27, '10
They tell us that now is the time to pass new legislation restricting out of state participation in ballot measures, when those monied interests are thinking it probably doesn't work anyway!
Jan 27, '10
Carla:
Again, your ignorance does not surprise me, but who am I to change the years of indoctrination you have been subject to?
Please, feel free to deny history all you like, without providing ANY substance, other than your denials and name calling. I have offered facts, which can be researched for anyone who actually cares about the truth. There is this thing called Google (among many other sources. You may have heard of it?
The reality, that so many don't care about truth anymore, is at the base of what is wrong with America. You would disagree with my last statement too, I know! Because ignorance is your most effective weapon. That...along with name calling and lies. Ignorance allow lies to stand unchallenged. Geoff and I are here to challenge, and you can't handle it!!!
I've offered historical, researchable, undeniable (to the intellectually honest) facts to your assertions of "Right wing" definitions. You respond with meaningless denial, name calling and refusal to address very clear and direct facts. I asked for evidence to bolster your assertions and definitions. Your silence speaks volumns!
I'm actually happy you douchebaggers don't get it. I'm glad you focus on what you believe Oregonians "aren't buying." While you ignore what the electorate at large, aren't buying. While ignoring, Virginia, New Jersey and most recently, Massacussetts! While ignoring the worst poll numbers of any President in his first year, in modern history! Please...PLEASE...continue your excellent work!!!...oh...and Thank you!!!!
BTW.."douchebaggers" is fair...isn't it?
3:06 p.m.
Jan 27, '10
Geoff Ludt | Jan 27, 2010 11:48:16 AM
You know you are spectacularly full of it don't you? You know that you're in the grips of a serious bout of guano deliration don't you?
3:06 p.m.
Jan 27, '10
Geoff and Al, I'd delete these off-topic comments, but I think letting them stay is a better rebuttal. Carry on.
3:19 p.m.
Jan 27, '10
No they weren't They were fascists (aka corporatist) Try learning your history. Fascism (as defined by Mussolini's own words:
Jan 27, '10
Jeff:
Thanks! You are a champion of the First Amendment! Halleluja!!! Sorry, a little "right wing" jargon there.
What you call "off topic", is nothing more than a direct response to erroneous assertions made by certain respondents. If "off topic" is a problem for you, may I suggest "certain respondents" stay ON topic? It's difficult to respond to something that hasn't been asserted in the first place!
Jan 27, '10
Mr Ludt, two questions (1) Which turnoff do I take from I-5 to get to the Statist Socialist Utopia? (2) Which turnoff do you take to get to Aynrandville?
Jan 27, '10
lestatdelc:
Thanks for making Mr. Lundts point! Nicely done!
The whole thing about learning your history? That's great advice! You should follow it!!!
Jan 27, '10
OK, I admit it, I'm a Nazi, Alworth's a Nazi, Obama's a Nazi. You've fuckin' well outed us all, Mr Trees.
4:15 p.m.
Jan 27, '10
Al:
The Nazis did not institute gun control. They also did not institute universal health care in Germany. Both of those things were done prior to Hitler and the Nazis taking control of Germany.
I haven't had time today to research the other assertions you made. But if they're anything like the other two--you have no idea what you're talking about.
These are historical facts. You simply listed things that are patently untrue with nothing to back them up. You shouldn't be surprised when you're called on it.
Jan 27, '10
Mr. Peckerwood, aka "Al Trees":
I really think when right wingnuts say "Nazi", they mean "losing our freedoms in a sudden, ham fisted manner". As opposed to the Republican virtue of slowly eroding them like some kind of social water torture.
The fact of history is that the Nazis weren't anything. Tell me, Mr. Trees. What political philosophy do the Crips follow? They're a gang. The Nazis were a gang. You might as well call the Genovese family socials and then indict socialism based on that. It was just a gang. They rhetoric was symbolic to distract the symbol minded. What they were ace, world class #1 at, was propaganda. Unfortunately, those decrepit seeds still find fertile ground in right wing minds.
It's not different than a 6 year old fighting a parental directive by yelling, "I don't like it, you're a...a...a...big ninny pants socialist". How about stopping at "I don't like it", until your side can articulate. It's political survival. The measures are an indication that you are going to have to have substance to get your point across, not just empty name calling. While you're at it, you might consider donating your body to the Oregonian. You bring a hole new perspective to the phrase "pulp fiction".
Jan 27, '10
And lestatdelc's point about Fascist well taken. That is the point about the Nazis. Real fascists, Italian fascists, were horrified at the Nazi appropriation of the label by a thuggish, political street gang. Jews were Italian fascists. National Socialism might not be so bad. Whatever it is, it has nothing to do with the Nazis. Get over the label. They still call their "FBI", the SS (Soziale Sicherheit ). There's a new label for you. SS. Social Security. At least it's more intellectually honest.
Jan 27, '10
Joel: C'n I be a Nazi too? Please?
Jan 27, '10
Thanks Carla:
And nice try! But as you and everyone else will note, I did NOT say Hitler "instituted" these policies. I inferred that he advocated and expanded them. Quite different. But, if you want to split hairs...fine!
Here is just one link, factually bolstering my point! Thank you for shopping!
http://www.stephenhalbrook.com/article-nazilaw.pdf
The current issue, which you began..is, who resembles more closely the Nazis? The "right"? or the left? I'm still waiting for any of you douchebaggers to give any credible evidence that the lie the left has perpetrated upon ignorant Americans, victimized by the public, supposed "education" system in this country...has ANY credibility what so ever! Just give me the parallels...that can't be blown to smithereens!...or....continue to dodge and distract!
Jan 27, '10
Carla said: Last night, Oregonians showed the teabaggers (in droves) that we aren't in to what they're about.
I voted no on 66 and 67. I have never been to a "Tea Party" and I don't have a political affiliation. This type of insinuation that anyone who didn't vote the way you did is bigotry. An 'us and them' mentality will lead you down a hollow path where at the end you are alone.
5:12 p.m.
Jan 27, '10
Yeah, because actually quoting what fascism is by the father of the fascist movement in the 20th century does nothing to educate people on what fascism is.
Or are you suddenly claiming the Axis powers were not fascist regimes?
BTW, here is another little ditty by Mussolini on what fascism and the fascist regimes in the Axis powers opposed:
5:19 p.m.
Jan 27, '10
Hitler also created modern highways (aka the autobahn) and was an ardent supporter of physical fitness and being kind to animals. Does that make Eisenhower a Nazi, or being into fitness akin to being a jack-booted racist, or that not torturing animals means you are advocating death-camps?
Your tripe is not only historically ill-informed but pathetic attempts at rhetorical feces flinging (in hopes to make things you disagree with smell bad) which fail even in that low objective.
Jan 27, '10
Carla:
Thank You!!! LOL!!! You on the left, do such an exceptional job of making the point of those on the right.
This entire thread was begun on the premise of "us and them." You don't "have a political ideology?" Are you F-ing kidding me? What is "Progressive" if not political?
You can attempt the insults others intelligence if you like, by pretending your refusal to label yourself, means you aren't "affiliated" with a party, but that's as laughable as the lie that Nazis are associated with the "right." Because the left wing doucebaggers say it, doesn't make it so! But I don't expect that fact will stop them!
5:22 p.m.
Jan 27, '10
So you would have been ok if the GOP and the teabaggers appropriated your no vote as vindicating their world-view and agenda if the vote had gone the other way as being "bigotry"?
5:28 p.m.
Jan 27, '10
Posted by: Al Trees | Jan 27, 2010 5:21:41 PM
Try a remedial reading course. The person who said what you are responding as if Carla posted is a poster using the screen name "R" not Carla. And he was a no vote on measure 66 & 67.
But continue your "fire!... ready... aim!" rhetorical self-immolation (while calling people Nazi's then crying about personal insults). It's nothing if not amusing.
Jan 27, '10
Zarathustra:
Pleas try and keep up with the conversation. Until you learn history and the differences between Nazi "ism" and facism was really nothing more than two gangs fighting on the same street, I will try not to embarass you.
Your "gang" analogy was the only thing remotely close.
lestatdelc's point was well made, because he posted the words of a fascist who made "our" point very well. Government take over of the private sector! Geez!!! Why do I have to spell out the obvious?
That was a rhetorical question!
Now...would you like again, to address the question of who resemblems whom more closely? Or...quit while I'm ahead.
Jan 27, '10
I do stand corrected on one point. I did erroneously attribute a post by "R" to Carla. My mistake.
Jan 27, '10
lestatdelc said: So you would have been ok if the GOP and the teabaggers appropriated your no vote as vindicating their world-view and agenda if the vote had gone the other way as being "bigotry"?
Bigotry is tied to intolerance. If someone wanted to validate their point of view with my vote, sure go right ahead, they might be wrong when it comes to different issues down the line. The second they use my vote to tell other people they are incorrect on their world view you cross a line. I hope you can see the difference there.
5:53 p.m.
Jan 27, '10
And nice try! But as you and everyone else will note, I did NOT say Hitler "instituted" these policies. I inferred that he advocated and expanded them. Quite different. But, if you want to split hairs...fine!
Uh..it kind of looked like you did say just that, especially with gun control. So now you're backpedaling...okay.
It's a myth that the Nazis instituted gun control and even with the 1938 law was not put through by any legislative body. It all came down from the dictatorial power of Hitler. The Nazis were well entrenched and in full control before that. They also didn't need gun control to hold on to power. The Gestapo and the success of Nazi programs (restoring the economy, elimination of socio-political chaos) . In addition, the 1938 law relaxed previous gun restrictions--making only handguns illegal. Rifles, shotguns and ammunition were once again allowed:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Germany
A simple Google search on Nazis and gun control should easily yield a number of other good sources for this information.
On universal health care, as I mentioned this was in place decades before Hitler. As far as "expansion" of it, I find that claim quite dubious. As I understand it, the Nazis attempted to get rid of universal health care early on and it was wildly unpopular with Germans. They eventually took it away from Jews and other groups that they considered outside their boundaries, which would in fact mean that it was no longer "universal health care".
5:58 p.m.
Jan 27, '10
This should say:
The Nazis were well entrenched and in full control before that. They also didn't need gun control to hold on to power. The Gestapo and the success of Nazi programs (restoring the economy, elimination of socio-political chaos) took care of that .
Sorry.
6:04 p.m.
Jan 27, '10
Except you got the point (and the history) 180 degrees backwards. The industrialists backed Hitler and Mussolini which is how they successfully came to power.
All of which, in the context of your tortured analogy, makes the K Street lobbyists (i.e. the DeLay crew)... or more timely and locally, the Phil Knights and the 'No' campaign folks the fascists who subvert public policy to their own corporate bottom-line over the public good, are the "fascists" in the analogy.
Of course I am not implying that the horrendous criminality and racist crap the fascists in the 20th century did are at all relevant to Nike, et al, just carrying your dumb rhetorical argument to the end. I also posit that your b.s. about Nazi's etc. only goes to cheapen the lessons that should be learned for the horrific crimes during the Nazi era.
6:12 p.m.
Jan 27, '10
Posted by: R | Jan 27, 2010 5:40:44 PM
Except your vote was substantially (and historically) in the minority, so Carla's point is valid in that it does invalidate the media and rhetorical talking points of late that "conservatism" and teabaggery is a growing and important refutation of the progressivism, Democrats, the Obama administration and HCR, etc.
If anything, the Palin/Bachman/Joe-the-plumber teabaggery is a death spasm of the dying Reagan-era economic world-view twitching on the ash-heap of AIG, Lehman's et al.
Which is what Carla's point actually was. Not that everyone who voted no on measures 66 & 67 are mouth-breathing teabaggers which you seemed to have taken it as. I hope you can see the difference there.
Jan 27, '10
You guys are really full of yourselves.
I don't really see how a 18% of Oregonians voting for 66 and 67 represent America. And not only that, but that 18% of Oregonians represents 0.2% of the population of the United States. But go ahead and run with it.
Jan 27, '10
Ok, where did this thread go viral?
I command ye to put down the scotch, and take a Valium.
Come back when you get your sense of humor, and can argue as civilized citizens of a civilize nation.
Happy Thoughts;
Jan 27, '10
I command ye to put down the scotch, and take a Valium.
Smoke a bowl instead. It's better than those nasty chemicals. ;)
10:50 p.m.
Jan 27, '10
Ok, where did this thread go viral? I command ye to put down the scotch, and take a Valium.
I checked out a long time ago. First one to mention Nazis loses the argument, by Godwin's Law.
Since Hitler wore khakis, everyone who wears khakis is surely a Nazi.
Sigh.
Jan 27, '10
I'm content to sit back and watch those who buy into the class envey and hatred, while they continue to over reach and misinterpret the election results of MA, VA and NJ. Those examples were the results of Progressive arrogance. I'm okay with that!
While I'm not suggesting the results of prop 66 & 67 were misinterpreted, I am suggesting they are wrong headed, as were the results, IMO. It really doesn't matter what any of us believe anymore. The voters have spoken and the results will be what they will be. However, I will make this prediciton. The effect will be job losses and a worse econcomy. Those who voted in favor, will have to figure out where to place the blame when that time comes and they're on the corner with a "will work for food" sign.
One place they will NOT be able to honestly place it, is on the fallacy that "big business" is not paying their fair share! I realize it won't stop them from trying. Perhaps it will lend credibility to the idea and my belief that tax cuts, spur economic activity and growth which in turn, spurs higher revenues. But my guess is, the stateists won't allow that to stand either. Let's just hide and watch, shall we?
Jan 28, '10
Posted by: Bartender | Jan 27, 2010 10:20:14 PM
I command ye to put down the scotch, and take a Valium.
Smoke a bowl instead. It's better than those nasty chemicals. ;)
As always, the voice of sanity.
Posted by: Kari Chisholm | Jan 27, 2010 10:50:56 PM
Ok, where did this thread go viral? I command ye to put down the scotch, and take a Valium.
I checked out a long time ago. First one to mention Nazis loses the argument, by Godwin's Law.
Since Hitler wore khakis, everyone who wears khakis is surely a Nazi.
Sigh.
Well, I've been quite concerned to learn that Charles Manson AND Jeffery Dahmer were both into oral hygiene!
10:42 a.m.
Jan 28, '10
Except that is not what Godwin's Law is. Godwin only says that as an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1.
Godwin doesn't declare winners or loser in the merits of the discussion or argument.
Just sayin'
Jan 28, '10
"While ignoring the worst poll numbers of any President in his first year, in modern history! Please...PLEASE...continue your excellent work!!!"
in light of Obama's abysmal poll numbers, the decision of the anti-tax campaign to feature his quote about raising taxes in a recession might be considered a huge tactical miscalculation.
And since this thread seems to have veered off from Jeff's original question into screeds and apologias by the losers, punctuated by ahistorism, allow me this observation on the Tea Party movement. The Tea Party movement inception and growth in a time of profound social change and anxiety mirrors the resurgence of the KKK in the 1920's. Begun as a get-rich quick scheme by a cuople of southern entrepenuers in a few short years the KKK's brand of America Firstism and cultural conservatism had grown to a national phenomenon. They even had a member as mayor of Portland.
Jan 28, '10
Obama is to my left politically. That makes him a socialist. Or a Nazi. Or some damn thing.
Gotta go, got some more rape and pillage to deal with.
Love and kisses,
Genghis Khan
Jan 28, '10
@ Ron Morgan:
Why am I not surprised that you resort to calling a genuine grass roots movement, such as the Tea Party, essentially racists? It's a tired and worn out tactic, which attempts to "shut up" opposing views. Very Alinsy like of you. Good Job!
Jan 28, '10
Wunderblunder has a new name.
10:18 p.m.
Jan 28, '10
Wow. Trolls are sure out in force.
Hitler and Stalin. Both totalitarian dictators. That is where the similarities end.
Naziism and other Fascist movements (Spain, Italy) are considered by virtually all historians to be far right movements.
Anyone who is foolish enough to use the party label as indicative of their ideology must believe that the Deutsche Democratische Republic was "democratic", or that Mugabe is beloved by his people.
I have no problem, as a liberal, in condemning the extremes of communism, as well as the blindness of American liberals who denied the excesses of Stalin, Mao, and Castro. Yes, Jane Fonda was an idiot. But I expect the same from conservatives about Hitler, Mussolini, Pinochet, etc.
But this is all irrelevant. To suggest that a tiny, 2% increase in tax rates among the very wealthiest, making Oregon's tax code a tiny bit more progressive than it's previous essentially flat variant, is in any way a step toward socialism is idiotic.
Jan 29, '10
Posted by: GENGHIS KHAN | Jan 28, 2010 12:09:25 PM
Obama is to my left politically. That makes him a socialist. Or a Nazi. Or some damn thing.
Gotta go, got some more rape
We don't care how you get your dates. When do your parents ship you off for your next vacation? We certainly enjoyed your being away at xmas. Guess you only do this when you're bored. I can definitely see why they are so eager to ship you out every chance. The rude awakening comes when they think they can just dump you on society. I'm the one that called the resort you were at last spring break and told them to search your room for contraband. I've got a much better surprise this year.
Fat chance you get a word of that. Let me try in your native dialect. "Komrade, very well said. You are good socialist. Make Russian politician very horny. Please to put your cocktail weenie peenie in my hairy butt"!
Jan 29, '10
"Why am I not surprised that you resort to calling a genuine grass roots movement, such as the Tea Party, essentially racists?"
I don't recall I used the term racist. And the KKK in the 20's was a genuinely populist, grassroots movement, which is why I think the parallel holds. At its height of popularity members held the mayoralty of Portland Oregon and Portland Maine. It was a truly national movement. It drew popularity for the same reasons the Tea Party movement does today, anxiety over social changes beyond most people's control and a inchoate resentment against the power elite. It was riven by charges of untoward financial gain by some of its leaders, similar to what the Tea Party movement is going through at the moment. And it was used by a national political party, the Democratic Party, to unseat unpopular Republican incumbents deemed out of touch. It lead to the election of Huey Long in Louisiana and the Heflin dynasty in Alabama. Just like the Republicans are trying to coopt the Tea Parties today.
"It's a tired and worn out tactic, which attempts to "shut up" opposing views. Very Alinsy like of you. Good Job!"
Well, thanks, I guess. And considering that the tea baggers have been canonizing Alinsky as a tactical genius I will consider that a compliment. But if you want to discuss populist movements in the US, far from wanting to shut you up, I'd love to hear your historical perspective.
Jan 29, '10
Surreal, the juxtaposition of the blather vis a vis new, hard evidence, that Prescott Bush was directly involved with the architects of the Nazi financial system!
Jan 29, '10
It is truly wonderful to see Geoff Ludt so upset. May he suffer many years of frustration and defeat until learns to love humanity and the the wonderful world we inhabit.
Feb 5, '10
Well, the majority of Oregonians apparently voted to screw themselves. There will be companies that either move, or choose not to come to Oregon in the first place. And, those small companies that do chose to stay will perform a simple calculation to adjust for these unfair taxes: 1) At the end of the year the owners will calculate the tax increase they incurred due to this farce; 2) They will then deduct this amount from the bonuses and benefits to their employees.
Socialism is great until you run out of other people's money.
Feb 6, '10