I think people should also consider very carefully what freedoms and rights they want to surrender to the state for the perception of physical and economic "security".
Some physical security is nice to have. I love to be sure that houses don´t come crashing down or go up in flames for shoddy building. And I hope that there are some controls on the food we buy, and preferably not by the companies themselves who produce said food. We had a scandal over here in which industrial grease unfit for consumption was mixed into animal food for an extended period, probably at least half a year, leading to dioxin in food, like eggs and meat. The guilty company did self tests, but did not send them to the department they should, as it showed that they produced poison food. Nobody knows exactly how much of this food has been consumed. The reason? Industrial grease costs half as much as grease fit for animal food. Now, I´m not saying every company is criminal, but the temptation grows with reduced controls.
I´m all for governmental controls in areas where life and health can be in danger, as I don´t trust privately owned companies with doing it right if there is a way to do it cheap.
Stefan
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16, 2011 Top 32
|
These kinds of conversations always reminds me of this. Don't know why it just does.
Because Monty Python is awesome and there is no situation in life for which they do not apply?
Nee! Nee!
I have to politley disagree with anyone that thinks by reduceing government spending we are denying ourselves some valuable services.
Just because we no longer fund the U.N. beyond our basic requirments doesn't mean that our houseing will suffer or our roads won't get built.
I see no corelation between reigning in the wasteful government entitlements and continueing the role of the fed as a over seer for the states.
I personally would love to do away with any and all foreign aid in it's entirety. Doesn't matter if it's africa, europe or where ever we the US are broke and can no longer afford to be as giving as we once were. When 40 cents of every dollar we spend is borrowed then something is very, very wrong.
My proposal for the military, let them continue their missions if possible but the first recommendation from the commanding generals that we are done then all the troops come home.
The biggest saveing factor, no new materials for the military for 4 years. They have more than enough equipement if they can take stuff over to the theater and then leave it for the natives after their done. Thats a serious waste. Let them use the current materials a little longer if thye have to but that is where most of the budget goes to is new toys for the boys.
You may have noticed the victory of a large number of politicians not purchased by lobbyists last November.
You're right -- they weren't purchased last November.
It was much earlier.
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16, 2011 Top 32
|
I have to politley disagree with anyone that thinks by reduceing government spending we are denying ourselves some valuable services.
Just because we no longer fund the U.N. beyond our basic requirments doesn't mean that our houseing will suffer or our roads won't get built.
I see no corelation between reigning in the wasteful government entitlements and continueing the role of the fed as a over seer for the states.I personally would love to do away with any and all foreign aid in it's entirety. Doesn't matter if it's africa, europe or where ever we the US are broke and can no longer afford to be as giving as we once were. When 40 cents of every dollar we spend is borrowed then something is very, very wrong.
My proposal for the military, let them continue their missions if possible but the first recommendation from the commanding generals that we are done then all the troops come home.
The biggest saveing factor, no new materials for the military for 4 years. They have more than enough equipement if they can take stuff over to the theater and then leave it for the natives after their done. Thats a serious waste. Let them use the current materials a little longer if thye have to but that is where most of the budget goes to is new toys for the boys.
The thing about making sweeping generalizations about "Reducing government spending" is that it covers so many things. You've mentioned suspending military spending and eliminating foreign aid (which is only 23.5 billion dollars, so not actually a HUGE amount.)
Which government services would you eliminate specifically? What services that we now provide should we provide less of?
And I agree, we should end many of our foreign military entanglements, but the problem is: no one seems to have any idea what success looks like, let alone how we know when we get there. Let's just admit we screwed the pooch in Iraq and Afghanistan and pull out our troops. At this point, there's really no military solution in those countries that will provide any lasting change. We need to allow them to forge their own futures in the manner that will work for them. Which is probably not the future we would hope for, but we missed that boat 10 years ago.
I think you and I have different definitions of the word 'monopoly'
Beleive me, we don't collude with our competitors.
Standard disclaimer: I work for an insurance company, I sure as hell don't speak for them (nor will they want me to).
I'd like to get both your definition of monopoly and how you feel your insurance company(again, off the record- not at all trying to get you in trouble with your job) is not colluding with their competitors. In my experience, it happens. Not to the point of vast Ludlum-esque conspiracies, but eventually when you work in a field, even if you want to make more profit than the other guy, there are going to be certain things you are going to have to agree on, such as going to the cheaper(note- NOT cheapest) source for raw materials of high quality, drawing from the same pool of potential employees, etc. To someone on the outside looking in, some things are going to look suspicious even if they aren't.
The thing about making sweeping generalizations about "Reducing government spending" is that it covers so many things. You've mentioned suspending military spending and eliminating foreign aid (which is only 23.5 billion dollars, so not actually a HUGE amount.)
Your quite correct in that it is not a huge amount BUT it is a start and by saveing "pennies" here and ther eyou end up saveing dollars with minimal impact over all rather than total denial of needed services.
Think of how in a few years 23.5 billion could reduce our defict or at the very least help mitigate the intrest somewhat.
Which government services would you eliminate specifically? What services that we now provide should we provide less of?
I personally would start with the ATF,then revamp or if it can't be saved dismantle the postal service(they have been loseing money for decades, save more money by stopping production of the penny and the nickel( we have enough in circulation to get by for a few years at least) NO more corprate wellfare in any form you live or die by your own buisness practices and the argument that "we need the money for R&D" is bogus if you can pay 1 person 45 million a year then you can cut their sallery and still have R&D budget. No more well fare unless that person is truley unable to work because of severe handicap or mental retardation that goes for the indians on their reservation too. They get paid just because they are of a certain ethnic group is just freakin wrong In MY Opinion, yes we took your land get over it.
All of these things are very small individually but can add up to true saveings and financial stability but they are all somebodies pet project so we all suffer for them.
I tend to agree, but I must disagree about privatizing war. Rumsfeld shifted a lot of logistics and support functions to private contractors from the military. While I'm a big fan of privatization I don't care for it in prisons and the military.No, there are way too many contractors bending the taxpayer over and not using lube. We're in debt because of the war we've been fighting for 10 years... and of course we can't sustain that kind of thing financially.
It's silly that both sides are putting forth their ideas's to shave money off the deficit without touching any of the primary four sources OF the defecit. I'll tell you, I'm in the Military (Actually I write and Administer Contracts for the government I.E. Procurement) and the DoD has run absolutely amok in the last decade. We had people being dropped into the desert in a humvee with dufflebags full of american cash. No oversight, no repercussions until it was far too late.
Erm...defense isn't even our largest budget item. And blaming our debt on a 10 year war....have you looked into our unfunded liabilities for domestic spending? They guarantee payments of money we don't have into perpetuity. They have to be changed.
I have a brother in law who sees some of this governemnt and military waste. As I said, you won't catch me protesting sensible cuts in that waste. But at least the military is a responsbility of the government. Stealing someone's pay and giving it back to them at a -1 to 1.5% rate of return is not. Confiscating money from an employer that already offers a 401k as SS tax is outside the scope of government, ineffective, and brutalizes the value of our currency.
We can't privatize war. We can privatize SS and Medicare to save them. We absolutely have to eliminate waste in the military as well as any part of government, but the blame for most of our spending goes on the domestic side, where these liabilities grow on their own and continue to make our problems worst.
For personal or political reasons?
I have to politley disagree with anyone that thinks by reduceing government spending we are denying ourselves some valuable services.
Just because we no longer fund the U.N. beyond our basic requirments doesn't mean that our houseing will suffer or our roads won't get built.
I see no corelation between reigning in the wasteful government entitlements and continueing the role of the fed as a over seer for the states.I personally would love to do away with any and all foreign aid in it's entirety. Doesn't matter if it's africa, europe or where ever we the US are broke and can no longer afford to be as giving as we once were. When 40 cents of every dollar we spend is borrowed then something is very, very wrong.
My proposal for the military, let them continue their missions if possible but the first recommendation from the commanding generals that we are done then all the troops come home.
The biggest saveing factor, no new materials for the military for 4 years. They have more than enough equipement if they can take stuff over to the theater and then leave it for the natives after their done. Thats a serious waste. Let them use the current materials a little longer if thye have to but that is where most of the budget goes to is new toys for the boys.
Interesting proposals.
We currently spend more in interest payments on the national debt (about 280 billion) than we do on any single program in the budget. Those interest payments are larger than the budget of nearly any Federal department other than Medicare, Social Security and the Pentagon.
Here's the punchline.
Those interest payments are paid out at a typical interest rate of 2-3%. They can (and will) go up from there when people decide the USA is a credit risk. A 2% rise in interest rates is a doubling of that budget line item.
I propose the following:
The Department of Education remains, but its remit be limited to DC.
Any elected representative or federal employee who works in the DC area is required by law to send their children to the DC Unified School District.
When the DC Unified School District - which is QUITE CLEARLY under the guidance of Congress - has people fighting to send their kids there, THEN the Department of Education can tell the states what does and does not work, and what is and is not required.
All non-military government personnel have their pay scale adjusted to match the GS-XX rating of the comparable Army Reservist.
We use the UN to establish an accord for environmental waste processing in manufacturing, and use non-compliance with that UN accord as a grounds for raising a tarriff against imports from those countries.
We can have environmental regulations. We can have free trade. Having both means we're moving all of the manufacturing to countries that lack them.
Any Federal employee that accepts a two year termination clause on their employment can get the following benefits:
1) Access to training on how to start and run a small business.
2) The option to take out loans at a favorable rate against the balance of their Federal pension program contribution.
3) A tax holiday on having their business pay employee payroll taxes starting at 3 months after they leave Federal service, and lasting 12 months afterwards, that is only applicable for businesses with 24 employees or less.
Now, historically, 6 out of 7 businesses fail within 3 years, usually due to undercapitalization. However, for every employee that takes this option, you A) reduce Federal expenditures, B) help fund the Federal pension programs (via payment of the loans), and C) create about 3-4 jobs that will last 2-3 years, and many small businesses.
Mind, you will also probably make a whole cadre of people who used to vote for one political party start to vote for a different one, so this is DOA.
I think everyone wants to reduce government spending. The question is in what areas.
Social liberals, in general, seem to prefer to cut defense and stop incentivizing big business and infinite wealth accrual -- things they scornfully lump together as the "military-industrial complex" and "the rich" -- but continue things like social security, medicare, and the environment. Taken to an extreme, this of course could lead to a helpless nation of poor non-workers bogged down in debt.
Social conservatives, in general, seem to prefer to cut education, science research, health care, and the environment -- things they scornfully refer to as "entitlements" -- but continue to fund military and incentivize etsablished big business and existing wealth-holders. Taken to an extreme, this could of course leads to a stagnant, uneducated population with extreme social inequality and poor mobility, ruled over by corporate overlords who inevitably lose global viability over time as all cutting-edge research is being funded elsewhere.
Libertarians, in general, seem to want to cut everything. One must give them credit for consistency.
Personally, I'm in favor of moderation. We need defense -- but do we need to be subsidizing two other nations (Afghanistan and Iraq) in addition to our own? We need affordable health care -- but do we need to increase government involvement in it in order to keep it viable? We need big business -- but do we need to offer large tax breaks to oil giants posting the largest profits ever recorded throughout recorded history?
For personal or political reasons?I tend to agree, but I must disagree about privatizing war. Rumsfeld shifted a lot of logistics and support functions to private contractors from the military. While I'm a big fan of privatization I don't care for it in I don't care for it in prisons and the military.No, there are way too many contractors bending the taxpayer over and not using lube. We're in debt because of the war we've been fighting for 10 years... and of course we can't sustain that kind of thing financially.
It's silly that both sides are putting forth their ideas's to shave money off the deficit without touching any of the primary four sources OF the defecit. I'll tell you, I'm in the Military (Actually I write and Administer Contracts for the government I.E. Procurement) and the DoD has run absolutely amok in the last decade. We had people being dropped into the desert in a humvee with dufflebags full of american cash. No oversight, no repercussions until it was far too late.
Erm...defense isn't even our largest budget item. And blaming our debt on a 10 year war....have you looked into our unfunded liabilities for domestic spending? They guarantee payments of money we don't have into perpetuity. They have to be changed.
I have a brother in law who sees some of this governemnt and military waste. As I said, you won't catch me protesting sensible cuts in that waste. But at least the military is a responsbility of the government. Stealing someone's pay and giving it back to them at a -1 to 1.5% rate of return is not. Confiscating money from an employer that already offers a 401k as SS tax is outside the scope of government, ineffective, and brutalizes the value of our currency.
We can't privatize war. We can privatize SS and Medicare to save them. We absolutely have to eliminate waste in the military as well as any part of government, but the blame for most of our spending goes on the domestic side, where these liabilities grow on their own and continue to make our problems worst.
Political.
I'm very concerned about the growth of the prison industrial complex. It troubles me that there is a growing constituency and lobby for criminalizing and imprisoning more and more people, but you know that I also think our prison and law enforcement systems are deeply broken.
I'm also concerned that a contractor driven military support system may not hold up in the event of a larger scale war with much higher casualty rates, and I'm concerned about the practice of putting increasing numbers of lower paid indigenous personnel into the military logistics and support structure to control costs. I'm also concerned by our dependence on private security contractors for a number of functions. This actually works against my personal interest for a number of reasons.
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16, 2011 Top 32
|
I personally would start with the ATF,then revamp or if it can't be saved dismantle the postal service(they have been loseing money for decades, save more money by stopping production of the penny and the nickel( we have enough in circulation to get by for a few years at least) NO more corprate wellfare in any form you live or die by your own buisness practices and the argument that "we need the money for R&D" is bogus if you can pay 1 person 45 million a year then you can cut their sallery and still have R&D budget. No more well fare unless that person is truley unable to work because of severe handicap or mental retardation that goes for the indians on their reservation too. They get paid just because they are of a certain ethnic group is just freakin wrong In MY Opinion, yes we took your land get over it.All of these things are very small individually but can add up to true saveings and financial stability but they are all somebodies pet project so we all suffer for them.
I definitely agree that small things add up, however I would support restructuring foreign aid over cancelling it altogether. For example, 1/3 of our financial aid goes to Egypt and Israel. I think Israel can probably do just fine without that aid. Also, we should increase aid through programs like the Peace Corps, instead of the current USAID projects which promote a culture of dependency in the foreign country.
And as much as it saddens me, I agree with you about the Postal Service, or at least that it can be drastically scaled back in today's digital culture. I also agree with eliminating corporate welfare completely; if you love the frickin' free market so much you should have to actually compete in it. I also agree welfare needs to be revamped to focus on education and practical job training over simply giving out money. I also believe in government assistance for quality daycare for the first two children in a household, so the parents can afford to work. I don't know enough about the ATF or welfare to natives to have an opinion about it.
I guess my only disagreement with you (and honestly, it's not much of one, just a difference of how we get to the goal) is that we need to examine and improve programs instead of simply getting rid of them. I think there are far too many legacy programs in the Federal government that need to be critically examined to see if they're doing what they should be doing.
Also, in order to ensure that our elected officials in Congress are doing what they should, I propose building a dormitory/apartment building for Congress. You are not allowed to own real estate within 100 miles of DC unless you represent a district/state within that radius. All congresspersons must live in this dorm, which will not be luxury, and should encourage them to spend more time in their actual districts.
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16, 2011 Top 32
|
Social liberals, in general, seem to prefer to cut defense and stop incentivizing big business and infinite wealth accrual -- things they scornfully lump together as the "military-industrial complex" and "the rich" -- but continue things like social security, medicare, and the environment. Taken to an extreme, this of course could lead to a helpless nation of poor non-workers bogged down in debt.
Interestingly, the military-industrial complex was coined by President Eisenhower, a Republican.
Actually, the military-industrial complex was coined by President Eisenhower, a Republican.
I'm aware of the provenance; I'm referring to the current usage. You might notice, too, that the old "Religious Dixiecrats" are now Republican Neocons, and the old "Cloth-Coat Republicans" are now Blue Dog Democrats.
I think everyone wants to reduce government spending. The question is in what areas.
Short answer: All areas.
I'd say start at 10% across-the-board. There will be tens of thousands of reasons while doing this would be a disaster. Listen to those reasons. Nod your head. And then do it anyway. Why?
1. We can no longer afford to fiddle while Rome burns; and
2. We'll never reach consensus anyway. Across-the-board is, at least, difficult to call unfair.
Personally, I think cutting education is folly. But I advocate doing it for the reasons stated above.
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16, 2011 Top 32
|
I think a problem occurs when we use short-hand notations such as Liberal, Convservatives, etc when we talk about politics. So much rancor and distaste has been invested in those words that they automatically start us off on bad feet, leading to name-calling and bitterness instead of discussion.
I consider myself to be a social liberal, fiscal conservative, yet when I actually sit down and talk to people who consider themselves Republican or Conservatives, I find we disagree generally on approaches rather than goals, and usually not as much as the media would have us believe.
I think this division between Us and Them sells advertising and gets ratings up and hurts our political discourse and helps our corporate media outlets. The political parties, who are in their own way corporate entities focused more on fundraising than actual change, go along with it to further their own ends, and the people get less and less useful information and representation as it progresses. I can completely understand how groups like the Tea Party or Think Progress can spring up and gain momentum so quickly, simply because they're not the Democratic Party, Inc. or the Republican Party, Inc.
I'm very concerned about the growth of the prison industrial complex. It troubles me that there is a growing constituency and lobby for criminalizing and imprisoning more and more people, but you know that I also think our prison and law enforcement systems are deeply broken.
I'm also concerned that a contractor driven military support system may not hold up in the event of a larger scale war with much higher casualty rates, and I'm concerned about the practice of putting increasing numbers of lower paid indigenous personnel into the military logistics and support structure to control costs. I'm also concerned by our dependence on private security contractors for a number of functions.
Yes. All of this, especially the first paragraph, but the second one, too. Oh very yes.
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16, 2011 Top 32
|
Actually, the military-industrial complex was coined by President Eisenhower, a Republican.I'm aware of the provenance; I'm referring to the current usage. You might notice, too, that the old "Religious Dixiecrats" are now Republican Neocons, and the old "Cloth-Coat Republicans" are now Blue Dog Democrats.
All true. Names change as time goes by. I myself am a staunch supporter of the Bull Moose Party.
I think a problem occurs when we use short-hand notations such as Liberal, Convservatives, etc when we talk about politics. So much rancor and distaste has been invested in those words that they automatically start us off on bad feet, leading to name-calling and bitterness instead of discussion.
I consider myself to be a social liberal, fiscal conservative, yet when I actually sit down and talk to people who consider themselves Republican or Conservatives, I find we disagree generally on approaches rather than goals, and usually not as much as the media would have us believe.
I think this division between Us and Them sells advertising and gets ratings up and hurts our political discourse and helps our corporate media outlets. The political parties, who are in their own way corporate entities focused more on fundraising than actual change, go along with it to further their own ends, and the people get less and less useful information and representation as it progresses. I can completely understand how groups like the Tea Party or Think Progress can spring up and gain momentum so quickly, simply because they're not the Democratic Party, Inc. or the Republican Party, Inc.
I agree across the board. The cynical side of me, though, suspects that if the Tea Party gets elected, they'll either join the Republican Party, Inc. or become the Tea Party, Inc. -- and if the Think Progress party gets elected, they'll either join the Democratic Party, Inc, or become Think Progress, Inc. -- and we end up no better off than we were.
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16, 2011 Top 32
|
I agree across the board. The cynical side of me, though, suspects that if the Tea Party gets elected, they'll either join the Republican Party, Inc. or become the Tea Party, Inc. -- and if the Think Progress party gets elected, they'll either join the Democratic Party, Inc, or become Think Progress, Inc. -- and we end up no better off than we were.
I agree. Until we have some sort of severe political change, we only buy ourselves some time.
Names change as time goes by.
Too true. I remember when "R&B" meant Aretha, not Beyonce; and "alternative" meant the Femmes, not Nirvana.
You may have noticed the victory of a large number of politicians not purchased by lobbyists last November.You're right -- they weren't purchased last November.
It was much earlier.
Ha! How glib! If you don't ahve a list of grass roots, tea party freshman and their secert owners, I'm gonna have to write that off as partisan pillow talk.
A tea party freshman could be you or me. A fairly firm rule in my marriage is no politics, or I could very well be involved. My parents are grassroots organizers in Tulsa and I have certainyl met enough people I could take a charge as city council if I needed to. ANd our city council is King Suck of Suck Mountain, so they deserve to get ousted by someone who actually had to manage a business somteim in his life.
If I went to congress, no one would own me. I have the same expressed principles many of the so-called cavalry do. I'm all about preserving SSI as it was proised to people without screwing the country with more deficit spending. I've researche dthe NRST and I dig it. I don't have any interest in breaking any rules with real estate backers or hiring a huge staf for my taj mahal office.
It can be done, moreso if we choose not to just be jaded and assume everyone we disagree with is a purchased partisan or that all politicians will always be the same level of sirty every single time. What can be done if that is true? And even if it was true before, then we should welcome a movement where real people recognize someone has to step forward and make better government happen.
RPG Superstar 2013
|
I think everyone wants to reduce government spending. The question is in what areas.Short answer: All areas.
I'd say start at 10% across-the-board. There will be tens of thousands of reasons while doing this would be a disaster. Listen to those reasons. Nod your head. And then do it anyway. Why?
1. We can no longer afford to fiddle while Rome burns; and
2. We'll never reach consensus anyway. Across-the-board is, at least, difficult to call unfair.Personally, I think cutting education is folly. But I advocate doing it for the reasons stated above.
The Ryan-Sununu plan for social security still [ayed what was promised into the 70s and beyond, and cut the budget 6.5% by itself. It might have to be modified since a few more critical years have passed, and it needs to have synergy with the NRST so they don't get in each others' way, but if we could even cut just half that much in SS alone, that's be immense progress.
If I went to congress, no one would own me.
Look into costs of getting elected sometime. A person (other than maybe Warren Buffett) cannot GET to congress without being owned.
If I went to congress, no one would own me.Look into costs of getting elected sometime. A person (other than maybe Warren Buffett) cannot GET to congress without being owned.
Indeed. The cash involved is no joke.
Ha! How glib! If you don't ahve a list of grass roots, tea party freshman and their secert owners, I'm gonna have to write that off as partisan pillow talk.
A tea party freshman could be you or me. A fairly firm rule in my marriage is no politics, or I could very well be involved. My parents are grassroots organizers in Tulsa and I have certainyl met enough people I could take a charge as city council if I needed to. ANd our city council is King Suck of Suck Mountain, so they deserve to get ousted by someone who actually had to manage a business somteim in his life.
If I went to congress, no one would own me. I have the same expressed principles many of the so-called cavalry do. I'm all about preserving SSI as it was proised to people without screwing the country with more deficit spending. I've researche dthe NRST and I dig it. I don't have any interest in breaking any rules with real estate backers or hiring a huge staf for my taj mahal office.
It can be done, moreso if we choose not to just be jaded and assume everyone we disagree with is a purchased partisan or that all politicians will always be the same level of sirty every single time. What can be done if that is true? And even if it was true before, then we should welcome a movement where real people recognize someone has to step forward and make better government happen.
Bad sentence structure aside, I don't buy that so-called "tea-party" members got where they did without someone getting hooks in them. So write it off as whatever you like -- though where you're getting "partisan" is a mystery to me. The two-party system ensures they're all corrupt.
Edit: Any particular reason you keep switching between aliases?
Indeed. The cash involved is no joke.If I went to congress, no one would own me.Look into costs of getting elected sometime. A person (other than maybe Warren Buffett) cannot GET to congress without being owned.
which in and of itself is part of the problem to begin with.
millionaires vs the middle class have two entirley diffrent perspectives on day to day life.
I don't wanna thread jack but had to comment on this one.
Look into costs of getting elected sometime. A person (other than maybe Warren Buffett) cannot GET to congress without being owned.
This.
It's easy to say what kind of representative you'd be if you were elected. The reality is that if you stuck to your principles, you'll never get elected in the first place.
Well, it might not be fair to ascribe to you, but you know how the first few rounds of "who's backing the tea party" went. Tns of partisan conjecture about how it wasn't really grass roots, it was jsut the same old people rebranding themselves, etc.
So, maybe you're just jaded cause you don't think any politician can get anywhere without a Faustian contract. I just disagree. Both of my senators just spent almost no money on their re-election. They don't have to pay anything back - they don't even ahve to come back to the state to win. Not because they have a lazy, name-recognition constituency (although I am sure there's always some of that), but because they are involved, they represent the state well, and tehy reflect our values. They don't have to sell themselves to anyone. At least one of those two is a grass roots guy, a doctor who felt it had to be someone like him.
Maybe if I buddied up with him and got his endorsement next time around.
Oh. I got some flak in another thread because a few people seem to think you shouldn't have a contributor tag when posting about controversial issues. So I am trying to rmember to switch to a more personal nickname when talking about nongaming stuff. Better to build that habit, which I still suck at, than to ever have to hear that one again.
Both of my senators just spent almost no money on their re-election.
Source? Maybe I'm too cynical, but I find this claim rather extraordinary.
Edit: Any particular reason you keep switching between aliases?
That's my fault entirely. I was giving him a hard time elsewhere for proselytizing under a "Contributor" tag.
Look into costs of getting elected sometime. A person (other than maybe Warren Buffett) cannot GET to congress without being owned.This.
It's easy to say what kind of representative you'd be if you were elected. The reality is that if you stuck to your principles, you'll never get elected in the first place.
Once more, I respectfully submit that that's easy to assume without experience. I can't imagine being stuck on the phone being told how I'm gonna vote for something and ever saying, "yes, boss".
Maybe it's my senator of choice that makes me feel differently. Maybe I think that's just the influence of the movies talking. Probably both of those and more.
I do think we have developed a trend now that any real person that runs is going to get ruined by stupid crap. I mean, we don't want to put ourselves in a position where we all belive only polished, stately liars can get elected (and that can't be true cause we have Franken and Frank). But I think we are putting ourselves in that position by telling ourselves and others that you just can't find an honest congressman anymore.
Edit: Any particular reason you keep switching between aliases?That's my fault entirely. I was giving him a hard time elsewhere for proselytizing under a "Contributor" tag.
It's not you fault entirely. One person agreed with you, and someone had said somethign similar a couple of years ago. If having people think that makes them take their focus off german discussion, I guess I don't want to have been a distraction. Just be patient while the World's Worst Typist figures out how to look at his screen before hitting the submit button.
I can't imagine being stuck on the phone being told how I'm gonna vote for something and ever saying, "yes, boss".
Have you been elected to higher office? Walk in another man's shoes, and all that. We all assume that we're somehow morally superior beings, and it's those "evil other people" who are the only ones who aren't. Sadly, everyone on earth seems to think that, yet we're none of us perfect.
Just be patient while the World's Worst Typist figures out how to look at his screen before hitting the submit button.
Second worst, I think -- Mrs Gersen claims that I'm too used to chiseling cuneiform characters into clay tablets to easily convert to typing on a keyboard.
I don't ahve a source. I could go get one, but it is very evident. Neither Coburn nor Inhoffe were even here on election day. They ran away with some 70% of the vote. Coburn ran one commercial, not on winning the election but on restoring trust between conversatives and Americans, and getting rady to make hard choices with the budget. No debates, no real opposition. If they spent any money, I don't know which county they were afraid of losing, but it wasn't Oklahoma, Cleveland, Tulsa, Pawnee, Washington or Osage, and that's all you need to win a statewide race in Oklahoma.
I might ahve seen half a dozen signs. The real money in this state was spent on governor and state superintendent.
I can't imagine being stuck on the phone being told how I'm gonna vote for something and ever saying, "yes, boss".Have you been elected to higher office? Walk in another man's shoes, and all that. We all assume that we're somehow morally superior beings, and it's those "evil other people" who are the only ones who aren't. Sadly, everyone on earth seems to think that, yet we're none of us perfect.
Friend, I got no illusions that the tmeptations are there. And I got no misunderstandings about my imprfections. But check out my posts the last few days, if I believe in it, I am not gonna budge. I grant that a lot of people could say that. I'm not saying faced with a tight re-election my fourth term in I wouldn't have to have a gut check. But in a governemnt where more grass roots people than ever, were elected by more small donations than ever, I just think there are more exceptions thatn we are used to seeing. Look at Alan West or Sarah Palin. Who owns them? You might not want Palin in the Oval Office (I do not), but she's got honesty and she owns herself. Another tv show and she'll own WalMart. Yeesh.
I think my salient point is not, Steve is immune, but that we should hope for and recommend candidates who can represent us instead of what our opposition would call a special interest, and not jsut consign ourselves to someone we hope is a little less corrupt that the last guy.
If they spent any money, I don't know which county they were afraid of losing, but it wasn't Oklahoma, Cleveland, Tulsa, Pawnee, Washington or Osage, and that's all you need to win a statewide race in Oklahoma.
Ah, I understand now. I was automatically thinking of places with a population of over 100 -- the more people you need to reach, the more money it takes (and the more competition squeezing you out). If we could reduce the U.S. population to a managable level by vaporizing Los Angeles, Chicago, NYC, Atlanta, Austin, Houston, Dallas-Ft. Worth, Phoenix, Philadelphia, San Francisco, San Jose, Detroit, Jacksonville, Indianaopolis, Columbus, Charlotte, Memphis, Boston, Baltimore, etc., etc. (and everyone in them), then the possibility you describe would be a nationwide reality. For example, you mentioned Sarah Palin. What's the population of Alaska?
The thing is, states get more House representatives for more people, so the Constitution skews things in favor of more people -> more money needed -> harder to get elected without whoring oneself. Past a certain point, it becomes impossible.
I see some truth there, but OKC, Tulsa and Enid are sufficient populations to require some money. I just think there's no competition becasue somuch of the state is pelased with them.
And Alaska's population is smaller, but significantly spread out in little hotbeds, AND the elections are a lot more contentious. Not claiming to know exactly how much is spent there.
And I know this isn't always a party ting. There are tings I like a lot about Lieberman, and I note that his last election big money went to his opponent and he won with a good name and more loyal personal donations. I am sure conservatives donated in no small way during his general election.
Now, would it be possible to get an Illioins senate seat without giving aomething back? I guess I couldn't argue with you. But I think I clearly see a model between my state and that one, and I don't believe populationis the sole issue there.
I think instead of thinking "where can the budget cuts go", it should be "what do we still want to afford from the money we got". Ideological trench warfare won´t do no good in that discussion at all. Cuts across the board, while easy, lack a vision of what you want to develop in a country. This should only be an emergency measure, not the final solution.
I noticed some posts being concerned about what the federal government should be limited to, based on the constitution. While this is reasonable, there seems to be an underlying tone of a deep distrust against the federal government in general. Is this so, and if so, where does this come from?
Stefan
I see some truth there, but OKC, Tulsa and Enid are sufficient populations to require some money. I just think there's no competition becasue somuch of the state is pelased with them.
That's a good point -- one might look also at the relative homogeneity of the Oklahoma population, vs. that of, say, Texas, Florida, or Illinois. It's easy to please a lot of the state if most people in the state agree on a lot of things to begin with. Then you're owned by the whole of your constituency. When your constituency consists of 17 different mutually-antagonistic groups, none of which is a clear majority, then we say you're owned by "special interests" (i.e., the groups you best represent). I'm talking from experience -- in upstate New York, all of us knew the money and votes from NYC were always going to swamp our interests; any senator from the state would automatically represent NYC, not Albany. And we considered NYC to be a part of New Jersey, not New York, so why should we have to put up with that?
I think instead of thinking "where can the budget cuts go", it should be "what do we still want to afford from the money we got". Ideological trench warfare won´t do no good in that discussion at all. Cuts across the board, while easy, lack a vision of what you want to develop in a country. This should only be an emergency measure, not the final solution.
I noticed some posts being concerned about what the federal government should be limited to, based on the constitution. While this is reasonable, there seems to be an underlying tone of a deep distrust against the federal government in general. Is this so, and if so, where does this come from? Stefan
I think the distrust stems from two simple places: corruption and incomptetence. And by corruption, I guess Imean dishonesy, and not necessarily being owned. I don't knwo that Nancy Pelosi is "owned" by anyone in specific, I think she pursues power herself and reflects a lot of true belief in big government principles. But I do think she's dihonest, evidenced by her treatment of the legislative process, her habit of glib demogoguery, her hypocrisy as a member of the House Intelligence Committee, etc.
When a government tells you "I can't wait til we pass this bill so you can find out what's in it", or a congresman moves his town hall meeting to minimize the number of questions about the healthcare bill, or claims that Medicare will only cost us about $12 billion by 1980, it's easy to see trust as an initial casualty.
Before anyone jumpos me about Pelosi, I an selecting my non-contributor tag (:}), and mentioning there are supposed conservatives who don't merit trust anymore, either. Some of them are gone, and some of them still need to go. but I don't think my wife will let me move to Maine.
|
RPG Superstar 2013
|
in upstate New York, all of us knew the money and votes from NYC were always going to swamp our interests; any senator from the state would automatically represent NYC, not Albany. And we considered NYC to be a part of New Jersey, not New York, so why should we have to put up with that?
And thus the case for repeal of the 17th amendment.