Politics

[Cackalacky]

We've been doubling down Reagan era economic policies since Reagan. Bill Clinton and George H.W. Bush raising taxes on rich people a tiny bit is not a significant deviation from Reaganomics.

Bill Clinton contrary the Democrats belief didn't do anything ultraprogressive. He cut capital gains taxes which has helped the super rich build an aerosticracy. He brought us NAFTA. He double down on the banking deregulation by ending Glass Steigal.

So yes Obama did double down on Bush Jr policies.

We've been doing the pretty much the same stuff economically for the last 33 years.

Orwell wrote a book called 1984. I wrote a book called 1978. Reps sir.

 

[chicago51]

D.C. Needs a Grassroots Fix That Will Come When Left and Right Find Common Ground - The Daily Beast

D.C. Needs a Grassroots Fix That Will Come When Left and Right Find Common Ground by Lawrence Lessig Feb9,20146:45amEST Citizens on the left and right agree that the government is in dire need of reform. So why are the political parties, including the Tea Party, of so little help when it comes to working for legitimate reform?

Walking across New Hampshire last month, recruiting citizens in the “Live Free” state to the cause of fundamental reform—a 185 mile walk that we just finished, with about a hundred crossing the finishing line: read more here—I met a man who told me he was a “conservative Republican,” which, as he explained is “spelled ‘T E A P A R T Y.’” “What’s the chance,” he asked me, “of getting one of us to take this issue on? What Tea Party candidates are with you?”

His question reminded me of just how different New Hampshire is—at least from the world within the beltway of D.C. Because within New Hampshire, there are plenty from the right who look at the “system of corruption in Washington,” as John McCain described it in 1999, and are open to the sort of fundamental reform that would actually fix it. Andrew Hemingway, a young leader of the Tea Party in New Hampshire, and the likely Republican nominee for governor, marched with us on the walk. So too did Republican Jim Rubens, a former state senator now in the Republican primary for the United States Senate. These Republicans are not afraid to talk about real reforms that would actually address this “corruption.” They agree Washington is broken, and they are serious about finding a way to fix it.

But when you look to the standard bearers of the Tea Party Right—even those who, as the Daily Kos described, are “strategically adopting positions to triangulate … left and right flank” (read: Rand Paul)—the substance of their reforms is pretty weak tea. Though they insist (and they are right) that “crony capitalism” is corrupting both government and capitalism, their remedies seem more designed to avoid offending the large funders of Republican campaigns than to actually changing anything fundamental. I get how “repeal(ing) the 17th Amendment!” sounds really tough. I don’t get how it does anything to solve the corruption that is Washington. And as far as I’ve seen, none within the cabal has yet to explain just how their dream—of a smaller government, not infected with the cronyism that now reigns—gets built so long as congressman profit from a larger, and more invasive government (just ask Peter Schweitzer: more targets for “extortion”), and so long as “corporate welfare,” as the Cato Institute reminds us, is the easiest way for congressmen to recruit loyal funders.

But if you take a step outside of D.C.’s beltway, you can begin to find thinkers from the libertarian right who are talking about the sort of reform that would radically change the way Washington “works,” so to speak. And more intriguingly, people who talk about it in away that suggests a platform that could genuinely unite Right and Left.

Take David Stockman—the former Republican congressman from Michigan, and Ronald Reagan’s budget director (until a “friend” betrayed his confidences and Stockman’s true views about the Reagan administration became public). At an event at Harvard last fall, Stockman spoke about his latest book, The Great Deformation, a work practically architected to be hated by everyone. There are no heroes in Stockman’s book—or at least none that any ordinary American is likely to recall. Keynes was wrong, Friedman was wrong, Reagan was wrong, Obama is wrong, Larry Summers is the devil, and both FDR and the Reagan supply-siders were frauds. Even Stockman gets attacked in Stockman’s book. The book is depressing on steroids. The meme is the inverse of Harvey Milk: you gotta take away all their hope.

Yet at a workshop after his talk, we pressed Stockman to craft a Left/Right platform—one that didn’t pretend to be comprehensive (no one thinks true believers on the Right and Left believe the same things), but one that might still mobilize a political movement that would fundamentally reorient American politics, and offer some real hope for reform.

The resulting five planks were pretty interesting.

1. For Peace: “Empire America,” as Stockman calls it, must end. No longer can we serve as the world’s policeman. And to staunch our Superman urges, we must radically reduce our military budget so that any urge to intervene takes affirmative action by Congress.

2. For Compassion: The government’s number one job, Stockman believes, is an “appropriate defense.” Number two is to care for those who can’t care for themselves. Yet only a tiny fraction of the transfer payments within our government today actually benefit the poor or needy. Whether or not we can afford entitlements for the middle-class or rich, in Stockman’s view, we must at least guarantee proper support for those who need our help.

3. For Liberty: Both the Big Brother and Nanny State must go. Prohibition (aka, the “war on drugs”) is an illiberal failure. We should declare peace, and call our troops home. And the perpetual surveillance of us by our government is not the America of our Founders. If the police want to invade our privacy, let them get a warrant.

4. Against Corruption—of the Democracy: Congress, Stockman believes, is a failed state. The economy of campaign fundraising has driven the institution to the brink of collapse. Nothing serious will get done so long as this system survives. And no reform, whether from the Left or Right, will get passed so long as the number one job of members is raising money from the especially interested to get reelected. The only way to fix this corruption is to radically change the economy of fundraising. Stockman therefore supports full and exclusive public funding of public elections, term limits and the end to any revolving door to K St.

5. Against Corruption—of the Economy: Our government has been seduced (this former Wall Street executive tells us) by the Wall Street economy. It needs to refocus on the Main Street economy. Government policy systematically tilts towards Wall Street growth. In the process, it tilts against Main Street growth. Stockman would enact a super-Glass-Steagall, separating banks from investment banks, and breaking up the big banks. He would level the taxes between capital and labor (no more special capital gains tax), and put an end to the “Greenspan put”. (Suffice it: Wall Street wouldn’t like the policies of its former executive.)

There’s lots to quibble with here, and some that’s probably too obscure. It takes real work to understand plank five, and most liberals or progressives will be against it (though not me). And I’m as anti-corruption as anyone, but I don’t think we need to eliminate all private funding of elections (small contributions—$100 or less) are fine and valuable, though we do need a form of bottom up public funding—such as Congressman Sarbanes’s Government By the People Act. Finally, I don’t think single terms make sense. California tried term limits; the result is that it’s the lobbyists who know best how to get things done.

But what is striking is just how much there is to agree upon, and yet how little of this agreement is even utterable by lame-stream politicians (to remix that slogan just a bit). Exactly why is it that 25 years after the end of the Cold War, our defense budget is larger (PDF) than it was then? Even if Social Security should be expanded (a view the Left holds but not the Stockman Right), why isn’t our first priority to make sure the poor and the helpless have the support that any decent society would give? Who really is for the NSA-state? Or the war on drugs? Whatever a “financialized economy” means, is there any non-campaign-fundraising-related reason why Democrats and Republicans continue to fall over themselves to keep Wall Street happy? And with 96 percent of Americans believing it “important” to “reduce the influence of money in politics,” why is this even a question to debate?

The striking fact about American politics today is the gap between America and its politics. If this were a market, entrepreneurs would quickly fill that gap. If this were a democracy, a new generation of leaders would claim it.

We’ll soon see just what we are—and who the real “reformers” are.

 

[Wild Bill]

The thread is a mini example of whats going on in DC.... nothing productive. 282 pages where I doubt one of the posters has said since their first post in this thread "Hmm, that guy is right, I agree with his point of view now". This is a peter pull to the T.

It's a mini example of how divisive our society has become. And this is my problem with Obama, he's been nothing but divisive. He ran his campaign on uniting the country. Independents, even right leaning, fell in love with his campaign and wanted desperately to come together as a nation. IMO, he could have united this country and put it on the right path. He owned the left, nobody can argue with that. Had he governed more towards the center, he would have owned independent voters and he would have swayed some republicans. Instead, he spent his first team dividing citizens, i.e., 99% vs 1%. He was elected to a second term, in large part, by "dividing and conquering" - he really killed it with his war against women bit - and he's been governing his second term with the same divisive style he used in his first.

His presidency will best be remembered as a time when the country was completely divided, republican vs democrat, rich vs poor, man vs woman, gay vs straight, black vs white, etc.

I'm sure his supporters will defend him by pointing the finger at the right wing obstructionists. He created the obstructionists. Had he governed more to the center and had the support of the majority, the right wing would have had two choices: 1) work with him to solve problems, or 2) obstruct him and lose voters and credibility.

He could have been a great leader and united the country. He chose division and failed. His presidency is a failure.

 

[wizards8507]

D.C. Needs a Grassroots Fix That Will Come When Left and Right Find Common Ground - The Daily Beast

Lolololol. 2 and 3 are in direct conflict with one another. 2 promotes the Nanny State and then 3 says "the Nany State must go."

 

[Jebediah Springfield]

It's a mini example of how divisive our society has become. And this is my problem with Obama, he's been nothing but divisive. He ran his campaign on uniting the country. Independents, even right leaning, fell in love with his campaign and wanted desperately to come together as a nation. IMO, he could have united this country and put it on the right path. He owned the left, nobody can argue with that. Had he governed more towards the center, he would have owned independent voters and he would have swayed some republicans. Instead, he spent his first team dividing citizens, i.e., 99% vs 1%. He was elected to a second term, in large part, by "dividing and conquering" - he really killed it with his war against women bit - and he's been governing his second term with the same divisive style he used in his first.

His presidency will best be remembered as a time when the country was completely divided, republican vs democrat, rich vs poor, man vs woman, gay vs straight, black vs white, etc.

I'm sure his supporters will defend him by pointing the finger at the right wing obstructionists. He created the obstructionists. Had he governed more to the center and had the support of the majority, the right wing would have had two choices: 1) work with him to solve problems, or 2) obstruct him and lose voters and credibility.

He could have been a great leader and united the country. He chose division and failed. His presidency is a failure.

 

[Cackalacky]

Love it. Classic. Top to bottom.

 

[GoIrish41]

It's a mini example of how divisive our society has become. And this is my problem with Obama, he's been nothing but divisive. He ran his campaign on uniting the country. Independents, even right leaning, fell in love with his campaign and wanted desperately to come together as a nation. IMO, he could have united this country and put it on the right path. He owned the left, nobody can argue with that. Had he governed more towards the center, he would have owned independent voters and he would have swayed some republicans. Instead, he spent his first team dividing citizens, i.e., 99% vs 1%. He was elected to a second term, in large part, by "dividing and conquering" - he really killed it with his war against women bit - and he's been governing his second term with the same divisive style he used in his first.

His presidency will best be remembered as a time when the country was completely divided, republican vs democrat, rich vs poor, man vs woman, gay vs straight, black vs white, etc.

I'm sure his supporters will defend him by pointing the finger at the right wing obstructionists. He created the obstructionists. Had he governed more to the center and had the support of the majority, the right wing would have had two choices: 1) work with him to solve problems, or 2) obstruct him and lose voters and credibility.

He could have been a great leader and united the country. He chose division and failed. His presidency is a failure.

Too busy laughing at the bolded to give the rest of the post any serious thought. lol

 

[chicago51]

Lolololol. 2 and 3 are in direct conflict with one another. 2 promotes the Nanny State and then 3 says "the Nany State must go."

How are they related?

#2 is helping the poor

#3 is ending the NSA spying and the war on drugs

Not saying I agree with everything but I thought it was a good read. I'm not sure how those two are in anyway conflicting with each other.

 

[T Town Tommy]

It's a mini example of how divisive our society has become. And this is my problem with Obama, he's been nothing but divisive. He ran his campaign on uniting the country. Independents, even right leaning, fell in love with his campaign and wanted desperately to come together as a nation. IMO, he could have united this country and put it on the right path. He owned the left, nobody can argue with that. Had he governed more towards the center, he would have owned independent voters and he would have swayed some republicans. Instead, he spent his first team dividing citizens, i.e., 99% vs 1%. He was elected to a second term, in large part, by "dividing and conquering" - he really killed it with his war against women bit - and he's been governing his second term with the same divisive style he used in his first.

His presidency will best be remembered as a time when the country was completely divided, republican vs democrat, rich vs poor, man vs woman, gay vs straight, black vs white, etc.

I'm sure his supporters will defend him by pointing the finger at the right wing obstructionists. He created the obstructionists. Had he governed more to the center and had the support of the majority, the right wing would have had two choices: 1) work with him to solve problems, or 2) obstruct him and lose voters and credibility.

He could have been a great leader and united the country. He chose division and failed. His presidency is a failure.

Great post. And spot on Irish19. Reps to you.

 

[wizards8507]

Too busy laughing at the bolded to give the rest of the post any serious thought. lol

The government helping the poor (through coercion, i.e. taxation) is the very definition of the Nanny State, i.e. "we'll take care of you." Helping the poor is virtuous and necessary, but can't be the job of the government if we're to be a society built on liberty. Read Locke. Private property rights are fundamental, and that includes the right to NOT help the poor if you're so inclined. I'm a supporter of voluntaryism, which advocates private charity to the point where government welfare is no longer necessary.

Sent from my Samsung Galaxy S III using Tapatalk 4

 

[Ultimate Penn St. Hater]

The government helping the poor (through coercion, i.e. taxation) is the very definition of the Nanny State, i.e. "we'll take care of you." Helping the poor is virtuous and necessary, but can't be the job of the government if we're to be a society built on liberty. Read Locke. Private property rights are fundamental, and that includes the right to NOT help the poor if you're so inclined. I'm a supporter of voluntaryism, which advocates private charity to the point where government welfare is no longer necessary.

Sent from my Samsung Galaxy S III using Tapatalk 4

I suppose we should let the poor starve or freeze to death on the streets. There's not enough private charity to help the many who need it.

 

[Polish Leppy 22]

I suppose we should let the poor starve or freeze to death on the streets. There's not enough private charity to help the many who need it.

Could've seen that one coming. Continue on the road we're on or poor people will be dying in the streets and big metro cities will like look Europe during the plague.

 

[Ultimate Penn St. Hater]

Could've seen that one coming. Continue on the road we're on or poor people will be dying in the streets and big metro cities will like look Europe during the plague.

You talk like our poor are animals and that they're poor because they want to be.

 

[Polish Leppy 22]

You talk like our poor are animals and that they're poor because they want to be.

Ya really wanna get into a conversation about the causes of poverty?

 

[RallySonsOfND]

Ya really wanna get into a conversation about the causes of poverty?

Please Please Please

 

[ACamp1900]

Please Please Please

Bush.

Honestly though Private Charity couldn't handle the true motivation behind today's welfare state:

If private charity handled it, the Democrat party wouldn’t be able to extort hard working American tax payer dollars and funnel it to their happy union, investor and corporate buddies via the welfare state. They would also lose out on a nice secure, check collecting, voting base…

We couldn’t allow either of those to end.

 

[GoIrish41]

The government helping the poor (through coercion, i.e. taxation) is the very definition of the Nanny State, i.e. "we'll take care of you." Helping the poor is virtuous and necessary, but can't be the job of the government if we're to be a society built on liberty. Read Locke. Private property rights are fundamental, and that includes the right to NOT help the poor if you're so inclined. I'm a supporter of voluntaryism, which advocates private charity to the point where government welfare is no longer necessary.

Sent from my Samsung Galaxy S III using Tapatalk 4

OK if you sayso but that has nothing to do with what I said . You may have responded to the wrong post.

 

[chicago51]

So we eliminate food stamps, housing assistant, Medicaid, and federal unemployment insurance. Middle class families save $650-$700 a year and that is supposed fix everything?

You eliminate Medicare that's another $1000 or so. But insurance rates will skyrocket because elderly are not profitable to insure. Having everyone over 65 back on the insurance would esculate health cost.

Plus any effects of a tax cut is only temporary at least for middle class families. The after tax income typically stabalizes within 3 years and take home pay is the same as it was before the tax cut. Tax rules typically work opposite for the middle class as tax cuts have been shown to lead to wage growth slower than inflation while low rates for the rich will increase their income.

 

[GoIrish41]

Bush.

Honestly though Private Charity couldn't handle the true motivation behind today's welfare state:

If private charity handled it, the Democrat party wouldn’t be able to extort hard working American tax payer dollars and funnel it to their happy union, investor and corporate buddies via the welfare state. They would also lose out on a nice secure, check collecting, voting base…

We couldn’t allow either of those to end.

Just curious what motivates people to be poor.

 

[yankeehater]

If the welfare program is such a great program, then why hasn't it worked? It has been around for nearly a century yet more people are on it today than ever. Maybe I am misunderstanding what the ultimate outcome of the program was supposed to provide. It sure does not seem to be weaning people off the program.

 

[chicago51]

If the welfare program is such a great program, then why hasn't it worked? It has been around for nearly a century yet more people are on it today than ever. Maybe I am misunderstanding what the ultimate outcome of the program was supposed to provide. It sure does not seem to be weaning people off the program.

Welfare as it was pretty much got killed during the Clinton years.

If you referring to food stamps and other programs that are still around that help the working poor then yes more people are on those now. More people are on employment insurance now too.

More people are on those programs not because they don't work but because we have 33 years of failed economical policies we gave away our government away to the corporations during the greed machine years of the 1980s. We' have booms, bubbles, and bust as opposed to the 30 some years of prosperity we had during the late 40s, 50s, 60s, and 70s where GDP grew by 4-5 percent, wages rose with productivity, and we didn't have any big crashes.

 

[T Town Tommy]

If the welfare program is such a great program, then why hasn't it worked? It has been around for nearly a century yet more people are on it today than ever. Maybe I am misunderstanding what the ultimate outcome of the program was supposed to provide. It sure does not seem to be weaning people off the program.

Teaching kids to keep their britches up and to get an education is the start.

Our current "nanny" state doesn't inspire kids today. It allows them to grow up and be just like mommy and daddy. Mommy with little to no education, three kids by three different men, and can't work because she can't afford child care due to her not getting any education. And all the while, "daddy" is out making more babies with more "moms." He don't work... mainly because he can't keep his britches up either. But don't let that stop them from having the latest iPhone or Galaxy S3. Gotta stay in contact ya know.

 

[Black Irish]

Seriously wizards. Do not take me seriously. I am extremely disenchanted with our so-called democracy. Until people realize that we live in a quasi-fascist state controlled by the uber rich and they can buy politicians of any ilk, there will be little to no change whatsoever.

We can more or less agree on this. And I think it's depressing that so many people will lament how corrupt, inefficient, and unrepresentative our government is today then turn right around and give you a self-righteous earful if you don't vote and participate in this rigged game.

 

[wizards8507]

OK if you sayso but that has nothing to do with what I said . You may have responded to the wrong post.

You're right. I was replying to chicago51.

 

[Ndaccountant]

General question - With the whole Sam thing going on with the NFL draft, I read some articles that listed voting results for state level gay marriage initiatives during the last election. In almost every state, African Americans were the largest demographic opposed to the measures.

This strikes me as being odd considering the fight African Americans had over the last half century. If nothing else at all, I assumed this demographic would be the most sympathetic.

Why do you think this is the case?

 

[connor_in]

General question - With the whole Sam thing going on with the NFL draft, I read some articles that listed voting results for state level gay marriage initiatives during the last election. In almost every state, African Americans were the largest demographic opposed to the measures.

This strikes me as being odd considering the fight African Americans had over the last half century. If nothing else at all, I assumed this demographic would be the most sympathetic.

Why do you think this is the case?

 

[GoIrish41]

Teaching kids to keep their britches up and to get an education is the start.

Our current "nanny" state doesn't inspire kids today. It allows them to grow up and be just like mommy and daddy. Mommy with little to no education, three kids by three different men, and can't work because she can't afford child care due to her not getting any education. And all the while, "daddy" is out making more babies with more "moms." He don't work... mainly because he can't keep his britches up either. But don't let that stop them from having the latest iPhone or Galaxy S3. Gotta stay in contact ya know.

Wow! This really lumps a lot of people into the same dismal category, doesn't it? Are there cases that follow this script? Sure there are. I would contend that there are far more people who want a way out of poverty and accepting handouts as there are people who are playing the system. As in every ever facet of society, there are as many reasons for the way things are as their are situations. It does not promote any productive discussion or solution to pigeonhole everyone who requires help to survive into a stereotype of deviant "drain on society."

 

[T Town Tommy]

Wow! This really lumps a lot of people into the same dismal category, doesn't it? Are there cases that follow this script? Sure there are. I would contend that there are far more people who want a way out of poverty and accepting handouts as there are people who are playing the system. As in every ever facet of society, there are as many reasons for the way things are as their are situations. It does not promote any productive discussion or solution to pigeonhole everyone who requires help to survive into a stereotype of deviant "drain on society."

We could discuss welfare and all it's abuses,etc for years. It hasn't worked for the better part of the last 60 years so why would anyone expect it to work for the next 60 in its' current state. I do know this. There is a severe lack in an overwhelming majority of people who are on welfare to better themselves. It cuts across every state in this country. And the abuses of the welfare system are rampent. Until this country changes its moral compass back to an honest days pay for an honest days work, we will forever see welfare increase.

It does start at home. And it does start with education. And it does start with keeping your pants up and not having kids you can't take of yourself. I have always been a proponent of welfare as it was meant to be - a temporary fix till a person can get back up on their feet. But generational welfare has to stop.

 

[GoIrish41]

I don't disagree about generational welfare, but the answer isn't to demonize people who have required help or currently require help. I have suggested a few times on here that the FDR programs that matched people to work needed in the society would be a great start to correcting this problem, and the problem of our aging infrastructure. Looking forward is where we should be as a nation, not looking back and looking for someone to blame.

 

[Wild Bill]

General question - With the whole Sam thing going on with the NFL draft, I read some articles that listed voting results for state level gay marriage initiatives during the last election. In almost every state, African Americans were the largest demographic opposed to the measures.

This strikes me as being odd considering the fight African Americans had over the last half century. If nothing else at all, I assumed this demographic would be the most sympathetic.

Why do you think this is the case?

Religions plays a huge part.

Why black church culture rejects homosexuality - CNN.com

Many blacks take exception to the comparison because they draw a distinction between the two movements - race is an immutable characteristic and sexuality is a mutable characteristic (debatable, of course).