“Nones” and the Coming Federal Sequestration.

The “nones”, not affiliated with any branch of any religion, are a very diverse group. But, different religions and branches of the same religion also have little in common, and they form alliances for certain causes.

While it’s difficult to perceive of how nones would be united on something, it’s also good to remember Ronald Reagon’s observation, “Politics is a thing where what seems most unlikely often happens.”

Nones and the liberal branches of Christianity have many things in common.  The two combined could constitute some 30 to 40 percent of the population.  The question is, what would cause them to unite?

We are approaching a period in U. S. politics made for political junkies.  With political turmoil is always religious turmoil as well.  The event we can enjoy watching is the upcoming “sequestration”.  This is a series of rather dramatic reductions in government spending.

Both political parties agree on one thing:  Sequestration is the second best outcome to the circumstances they are in.  Neither can obtain their first choice.

What plays out after sequestration will depend on what problems the news media focus’ on.  We know news outlets, both liberal and conservative, like a specific kind of story.  It is the story that projects emotion.  I think stories of hardship that comes from sequestration will provide such emotion and tilt public opinion toward the liberal point of view.

This liberal view will unite, to some extent, the more secular nones.


Profile photo of Jon Lindgren

About Jon Lindgren

I am a former President of the Red River Freethinkers in Fargo, ND, a retired NDSU economics professor and was Mayor of Fargo for 16 years. There is more about me at Wikipedia.com.
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

35 Responses to “Nones” and the Coming Federal Sequestration.

  1. Michael Ross says:

    “With political turmoil is always religious turmoil as well.”

    I see the political spectrum as follows: 1) Conservative -2) Liberal – 3)Libertarian – 4)anarchist
    I would come down between 3 & 4. No taxes, no standing army

    I do not believe in chaos though. Order is based in God’s Constitution, the 10 Commandments enforced by local jurisdiction. Ordinary men governing themselves under God. How’s that for radicalism?

    • entech says:

      enforced by local jurisdiction.
      Ordinary men governing themselves under God. or even without any god.

      Nice ideals, unfortunately it won’t work, To misquote “Animal Farm”, it will soon become apparent that “some ordinary men are more ordinary than others” and will eventually think other men are less than ordinary and need to be guided.

      Radical maybe, Utopian more likely.

    • Brad says:

      No taxes? Ok, then I guess we can go back to riding horseback because there won’t be any roads to drive on, unless you want Walmart owning and controlling all the roadways, and setting up toll booths that we all get to stop and pay a huge fee for.

    • Profile photo of Mac Mac says:

      Now Michael, you’re speaking out of both sides of your mouth a bit . . . you say you’d like ordinary men governing themselves under God . . . as long as it’s your religion that used to define laws and their enforcement.

      I think I’m a normal man and perfectly capable of determining what’s best for everyone around me. I suspect Brad thinks he may be a reasonable candidate to do the same. Entech seems fairly reasonable. Clearly you think you’re the one.

      Just who gets to determine all this?

      Oh, wait, we figured that out already. It’s a government elected by the citizens. When something’s broken most often you fix it rather than completely destroy it and start over.

      When your car has had it, you don’t scrap your car and buy a horse or a spaceship, you buy a new and improved car.

      • Jeffrey Eide says:

        I thought that was well said, Mac. I have difficulty expressing the frustration I feel when meeting anarchists… It is the intellectually lazy way to deal with an issue.

        ‘Don’t get involved, just say screw it all and fall deep into a golden age fallacy.’ In this case, the golden age would be primitive agriculturalists forever condemned to tribal warfare.

        • Henry says:

          “I have difficulty expressing the frustration I feel when meeting anarchists… It is the intellectually lazy way to deal with an issue.”

          That may be so. Then there is the liberal (politically) way of dealing with an issue. Equally intellectually lazy. Raise taxes. Raise spending more. Fly to a private golf course on Air Force Vun dumping the media correspondents, and sequestering oneself to play with dabblers in pornstars. Then blame the resulting deficit spending on the Republicans for legislation passed in the 80’s or some other improbable reason. Brilliant.

      • Michael Ross says:

        “I think I’m a normal man and perfectly capable of determining what’s best for everyone around me.”

        I don’t think so Mac, nor am I.

        “There is a way which seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death.”(Proverbs 14:12)

        whoops, sorry, you don’t like being quoted scripture. Must be convicing.

        • entech says:

          Context Michael, context. You are one that calls for Biblical in context. Read the entire paragraph.

          If you were someone else I would think that was a bit of deliberate quote mining to make a point.

    • Profile photo of Jon Lindgren Jon Lindgren says:

      Michael 4:00 “I do not believe in chaos thought. Order is based in God’s Constitution, the 10 Commandments enforced by local jurisdiciton.”

      When it comes to the 10 Commamdments, the definition of what is a “sin”, when life begins, what is “traditional” marriage and most other things Biblewise, chaos is the current state of affairs. There has been, since day one, continual disagreement, changing interpretations and unresolved definitions of “truth”. I like chaos because it’s reality.

      • Michael Ross says:

        I like chaos too, as opposed to central planning by politicians and monetary authorities. Leave the wealth in the private economy and we can take care of ourselves at the local level. We both favor chaos but define it in different terms.

  2. Ed says:

    Well getting back to sequestration Jon……this reality is the refusal of the liberals to accept that we cannot continue to expand government programs and handouts without generating income to pay the bill. You might be right that the sequestration will unite the liberals, because when they find out their check is diminished or not there at all, they will be upset – not to the point where they may look for a job – but definitely upset. As it is in my current job today, I will be working to fund the government programs until sometime in May. At that point, I can start saving for college education, retirement etc…for myself. So we really need sequestration on steroids to face reality in my opinion. We need to return to a society where there is a sense of pride to never have accepted a handout from the government….and we have a long, long ways to go.

    • Brad says:

      The fundamental problem is that all the wealth is being sucked out of the economy by the top 1% and stuffed away in offshore bank accounts, and the working class has less and less every year. The top 1% has as much wealth as the bottom 50%. When you have an economy this rigged against the working class, there is no other possible outcome.

      It’s really an atrocity to try to blame entitlement programs when people have paid into these programs all their lives and are therefore “entitled”. That’s why they are called “entitlements”.

      If you want to really destroy America, let the Republicans have their way and just butcher everything people have paid into all their lives. Then maybe once enough people have been forced to suffer the consequences of right wing insanity for a long enough period of time, then maybe we can have a real economy that works for everyone, rather than just the top 1%.

    • Profile photo of Jon Lindgren Jon Lindgren says:

      Ed 5:36 “I will be working to fund the government programs until sometime in May. At that point can start…for myself.”

      Are you saying you get absolutely nothing from the amount you pay in until May? You get nothing from National Defense, federally funded research into health, food safety, travel safety, roads, any of that.

      I think there are three things all of us conclude. One is we all get something from the taxes we pay. The second is we all feel we pay more than we get. The third is we’re convinced there are other groups that get more than they pay in.

      On this latter, rich think the poor get more than they pay, poor think the same about the rich. Both are could be right, depending upon how you measure the benefits.

      • Brad says:

        One difference between the rich and poor (at least in today’s economy) is that most of the money that the rich acquires does not circulate back into the economy, whereas pretty much all the money poor people get does circulate back through the economy. All of the money they get goes to food, clothing, transportation, housing, and other necessities. This creates jobs, or at least it used to before much of the manufacturing was moved to cheap labor havens like China.

  3. buzz says:

    I desire the Land of Goshen.

  4. Stanta says:

    Of course if an actual budget had been passed in the last four years this wouldn’t have been needed.

    • Henry says:

      Obamba’s budget for 2013 was so bad it was defeated in the house 414-0. Apparently, he was so intellectually lazy in its preparation, he couldn’t even conjure up one vote from his party of liberals.

    • Brad says:

      The fact is, both sides voted for this, so the blame game is really bogus.

      • Stanta says:

        Brad, the President is already blaming the Republicans, and so is every mainstream news source out there. Still a BUDGET four years ago as required by law would help. Thank you Harry Reid.

        • Brad says:

          Like I said, the blame game is bogus, and I mean on either side. The whole lot of them are to blame. The Republicans for deliberately wanting to destroy the economy to make Obama look bad, and the Democrats for not having enough backbone to stand up against these thugs.

  5. Stanta says:

    You call both sides bogus then place the blame on the Republican again in both statements you make.

    A BUDGET FOUR YEARS AGO when the Democrats held both houses and the presidency would have made it unnecessary.

    • Profile photo of Jon Lindgren Jon Lindgren says:

      Stan 6:14 “..place the blame nf the Republican again..”

      I concluded Republicans would lose the public relations contest because the press would do emotional stories about the effects of the budget cuts. I’m not sure how that is “placing the blame” on Republicans.

      • Stanta says:

        Of course you wouldn’t call it blaming the Republican Jon! Duh!

      • Stanta says:

        Tell me Jon, if we had a budget for the last four years would sequestering be needed? Pretty damn simple an economics professor should be able to answer it, but everyone dances around the subject here and then blames the Republicans.

        • Profile photo of Jon Lindgren Jon Lindgren says:

          Stan 11:03 “…if we had a budget for the last four years would sequestering be needed?”

          I’d assume not. As I thought I made it clear in the blog, both parties see it in thier individual interests to allow sequester. They also saw it as in their interests not to have a budget the last four years. I don’t understand why you are on my case about this.

          • Stanta says:

            Because you are the face of the liberal Democratic party Jon. In 2009 the Democrats held the House, the Senate and the Presidency yet failed to pass a budget, the same in 2010. Yet the mainstream press, the democratic party and you are doing your best to make sure the Republicans are painted as the bad guys.

          • Profile photo of Jon Lindgren Jon Lindgren says:

            Stan 1:38 “Yet the mainstream press, the democratic part and you are doing your best to make sure the Republicans are painted as the bad guys.”

            That is what political parties do, paint the others as bad guys. What I’m trying to point out is the political material each side has available to advance its cause. The old white men of the Republican Party will have press conferences saying the government needs to balance its budget. The Democrats will have press conferences with women holding babies saying they can’t buy milk. Which of these will appeal to the more or less not interested public??

            I’ve had a lot of experience trying to eliminate or reduce programs I thought were not needed in the City. Mostly, I was unsuccessful because of what I have just explained.

          • Henry says:

            Jon: “I’ve had a lot of experience trying to eliminate or reduce programs I thought were not needed in the City.”

            Thank you for that. Without your efforts, we would have had 5 men instead of 3 men standing around holding themselves up with shovels for work meant for one man.

            Why do snow plow trucks no longer work alone? They are always in groups of two or three even on a residential street. I could understand it would make sense for the arterial roads to have a number of trucks at once, but residential does not make sense. They seem to be more in each other’s way with much waiting than helping each other.

          • Profile photo of Jon Lindgren Jon Lindgren says:

            Henry 4:15 “They seem to be in each other’s way…”

            Seems like that to me, too. Maybe two plows work well when there are no cars parked on residential streets. On my street there are almost always parked cars.

    • Brad says:

      I know Republicans use this whole budget thing as a talking point, but TPM did a good job of debunking it:


      By the way, the Democrats really only had actual control of congress for about 2 months, not 2 years. Remember, the new requirement for passing any legislation is 60 votes in the senate, and Democrats only held the 60 seat majority for about 2 months during the passage of Obamacare in 2010.

  6. Jinx says:

    I have no time to add to this discussion for the next 2 month’s (am moving 800 miles away and since I am “the wife” I am doing most of the packing and organizing) but I will keep reading and inject a support statement here and there. Jon, Entech, Jeffrey, Mac, Brad adn Doug………..I pretty much support your arguments, so hang in there!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>