Official FFA 2014 Midterms- GOP wins Senate, victories everywhere (2 Viewers)

[humpback]

Wouldn't it be sweet if people actually wanted their team to not suck, instead of wanting the other team to suck more?

Unicorns would be great too!Here on Earth we're stuck with the fact that people are fallible -- and that their elected representatives and government are going to be fallible too.

IMO (seriously, it's an opinion) all you can do is fully support the "less bad" option from your own perspective.

And if you sit out the fight or support the Unicorn Party because "both sides suck" you're implicitly supporting whichever side is winning at that moment.

What a crock of ####.

 

[timschochet]

Wouldn't it be sweet if people actually wanted their team to not suck, instead of wanting the other team to suck more?

What if both teams suck?

Been hearing that for my entire life. It gets tiresome. IMO:1. Neither party sucks.

2. Both parties govern from the center, which is a good thing.

3. Both parties support the "Establishment" which is generally a good thing.

4. The base on both sides is never going to be happy which is a good thing.

You're going to have to show your math on this assertion. If things are "good" as you suggest, I assume you are ok with the state of politics in this country, yes? Our government is the largest company in the world and it's run by lawyers and idealists (when it suits them). So, I'd like to understand why you believe things are "good"

Well- where to begin? 1. We are a prosperous nation. Our standard of living is excellent.

2. We continue to enjoy terrific freedoms.

3. Improvements to technology and health science means that in the long run our lives are only going to get better in the future.

4. Attitudes that we had in the past against minorities, women, blacks, gays, etc. are fading rapidly. We are evolving into the most prejudice free society we have ever had.

That's just a few. Obviously there's plenty of bad things- the disparity between rich and poor, the shrinking of the middle class, the global warming crisis, our failure to recognize the value of legal and illegal immigration, foreign threats, etc. etc. but I see all of these as transient problems, while the good things I listed are pretty much permanent. I'm an optimist.

 

[RhymesMcJuice]

Tim's right.

 

[MaxThreshold]

I'm out of the whole predicting-who-will-win game since I got thumped in the 2012 elections.

All I'm going to say is that it's nice to see that the GOP has a bit of an advantage but i'm sure they'll screw it up somehow- even with the dolts that are currently in power messing everything up.

 

[On The Rocks]

If the republicans get both houses, the smartest thing they could do start pushing lots of pro-business legislation onto Obama's desk for veto. When he fails to sign it, attack him for not doing enough to bring jobs back. They'll want to make sure he vetoes it to set up this line of attack, so they'll probably have to tie the legislation to social issues he opposes.

That sounds like a plan, although even as a right wing wacko - I'd hate to see them tying in additional legislation.

I know that's how Washington works, but if I were the king of the world I'd change that rule post haste.

It's such bull#### to see one side of the aisle for example say the D's put forth a bill to increase spending on veteran's health plans, and then add a line item for spending some planned parenthood project. And when the R's reject it the Dems tell the voters that the R's voted against supporting Vets Health plans. It goes both ways and I really despise it.

 

[On The Rocks]

Wouldn't it be sweet if people actually wanted their team to not suck, instead of wanting the other team to suck more?

What if both teams suck?

Been hearing that for my entire life. It gets tiresome. IMO:1. Neither party sucks.

2. Both parties govern from the center, which is a good thing.

3. Both parties support the "Establishment" which is generally a good thing.

4. The base on both sides is never going to be happy which is a good thing.

Don't you think both parties govern from the "follow the money" line of thinking?. Deep pockets get legislation passed.

I'm on the fence on term limits. On one hand I think - let them run for as many terms as they can get elected. If the people are voting for them, then let the voice of the people be heard. But on the other hand, the longer that someone stays in office the more likely they are to be less accountable to the people.

 

[oso diablo]

chart going around earlier on twitter (too lazy to go find it) that showed the ad-spend advantage by Senate race. So far, the Dems have far out-spent the GOP on media buys, and the speculation was that this is what has kept so many races competitive, despite national polls turning sharply in favor of the GOP on a generic ballot.

wondering if the GOP is keeping its powder dry for a last month ad blitz, or if they have truly been out-fund-raised to such a large extent.

 

[timschochet]

Wouldn't it be sweet if people actually wanted their team to not suck, instead of wanting the other team to suck more?

What if both teams suck?

Been hearing that for my entire life. It gets tiresome. IMO:1. Neither party sucks.

2. Both parties govern from the center, which is a good thing.

3. Both parties support the "Establishment" which is generally a good thing.

4. The base on both sides is never going to be happy which is a good thing.

Don't you think both parties govern from the "follow the money" line of thinking?. Deep pockets get legislation passed.

I'm on the fence on term limits. On one hand I think - let them run for as many terms as they can get elected. If the people are voting for them, then let the voice of the people be heard. But on the other hand, the longer that someone stays in office the more likely they are to be less accountable to the people.

1. No. There are instances of follow the money, but there are even more instances of politicians doing what they've always believed. I believe that most politicians are generally honest. Ineptitude, ignorance, and stubbornness are, IMO, much bigger problems than deliberate deceit.

2. Some times deep pockets can have an effect on legislation. But I would suggest that it's not necessarily a negative effect. And political pluralism, and even populism (though I hate it) can serve as counter-balances.

3. Our Founding Fathers imposed term limits in the form of elections. They specifically made the House terms every 2 years, so that this body would be more reflective of the public will than the Senate or Presidency. I believe the idea of Senate 6 years President 4 years House 2 years is the most brilliant political system ever created. I don't think we should mess with it, so I am opposed to mandatory term limits.

 

[timschochet]

chart going around earlier on twitter (too lazy to go find it) that showed the ad-spend advantage by Senate race. So far, the Dems have far out-spent the GOP on media buys, and the speculation was that this is what has kept so many races competitive, despite national polls turning sharply in favor of the GOP on a generic ballot.

wondering if the GOP is keeping its powder dry for a last month ad blitz, or if they have truly been out-fund-raised to such a large extent.

I think as a general rule the national polls are less important in midterm elections than they are in the Presidential ones. When you vote for a President, a large number of people simply vote down ticket for the party. But in the coming election, it's much more focused on local and state issues.

 

[joffer]

http://www.vox.com/2014/9/17/6153603/senate-election-forecasting-2014-guide-republicans-chances

 

[The Commish]

Wouldn't it be sweet if people actually wanted their team to not suck, instead of wanting the other team to suck more?

What if both teams suck?

Been hearing that for my entire life. It gets tiresome. IMO:1. Neither party sucks.

2. Both parties govern from the center, which is a good thing.

3. Both parties support the "Establishment" which is generally a good thing.

4. The base on both sides is never going to be happy which is a good thing.

You're going to have to show your math on this assertion. If things are "good" as you suggest, I assume you are ok with the state of politics in this country, yes? Our government is the largest company in the world and it's run by lawyers and idealists (when it suits them). So, I'd like to understand why you believe things are "good"

Well- where to begin?1. We are a prosperous nation. Our standard of living is excellent.

2. We continue to enjoy terrific freedoms.

3. Improvements to technology and health science means that in the long run our lives are only going to get better in the future.

4. Attitudes that we had in the past against minorities, women, blacks, gays, etc. are fading rapidly. We are evolving into the most prejudice free society we have ever had.

That's just a few. Obviously there's plenty of bad things- the disparity between rich and poor, the shrinking of the middle class, the global warming crisis, our failure to recognize the value of legal and illegal immigration, foreign threats, etc. etc. but I see all of these as transient problems, while the good things I listed are pretty much permanent. I'm an optimist.

Now, think about where we'd be in this progression scale if the gov't wasn't constantly getting in the way of this progress and I think you should be able to see the point I am making. Outside of #1 and it's fluff qualifiers that can be defined in just about any way, the rest we do in spite of our gov't. Not because of it.

 

[timschochet]

Wouldn't it be sweet if people actually wanted their team to not suck, instead of wanting the other team to suck more?

What if both teams suck?

Been hearing that for my entire life. It gets tiresome. IMO:1. Neither party sucks.

2. Both parties govern from the center, which is a good thing.

3. Both parties support the "Establishment" which is generally a good thing.

4. The base on both sides is never going to be happy which is a good thing.

You're going to have to show your math on this assertion. If things are "good" as you suggest, I assume you are ok with the state of politics in this country, yes? Our government is the largest company in the world and it's run by lawyers and idealists (when it suits them). So, I'd like to understand why you believe things are "good"

Well- where to begin?1. We are a prosperous nation. Our standard of living is excellent.

2. We continue to enjoy terrific freedoms.

3. Improvements to technology and health science means that in the long run our lives are only going to get better in the future.

4. Attitudes that we had in the past against minorities, women, blacks, gays, etc. are fading rapidly. We are evolving into the most prejudice free society we have ever had.

That's just a few. Obviously there's plenty of bad things- the disparity between rich and poor, the shrinking of the middle class, the global warming crisis, our failure to recognize the value of legal and illegal immigration, foreign threats, etc. etc. but I see all of these as transient problems, while the good things I listed are pretty much permanent. I'm an optimist.

Now, think about where we'd be in this progression scale if the gov't wasn't constantly getting in the way of this progress and I think you should be able to see the point I am making. Outside of #1 and it's fluff qualifiers that can be defined in just about any way, the rest we do in spite of our gov't. Not because of it.

i used to believe that too. But the truth is more complicated than that. And the government could very easily prevent the good things I listed from happening.

 

[The Commish]

Wouldn't it be sweet if people actually wanted their team to not suck, instead of wanting the other team to suck more?

What if both teams suck?

Been hearing that for my entire life. It gets tiresome. IMO:1. Neither party sucks.

2. Both parties govern from the center, which is a good thing.

3. Both parties support the "Establishment" which is generally a good thing.

4. The base on both sides is never going to be happy which is a good thing.

You're going to have to show your math on this assertion. If things are "good" as you suggest, I assume you are ok with the state of politics in this country, yes? Our government is the largest company in the world and it's run by lawyers and idealists (when it suits them). So, I'd like to understand why you believe things are "good"

Well- where to begin?1. We are a prosperous nation. Our standard of living is excellent.

2. We continue to enjoy terrific freedoms.

3. Improvements to technology and health science means that in the long run our lives are only going to get better in the future.

4. Attitudes that we had in the past against minorities, women, blacks, gays, etc. are fading rapidly. We are evolving into the most prejudice free society we have ever had.

That's just a few. Obviously there's plenty of bad things- the disparity between rich and poor, the shrinking of the middle class, the global warming crisis, our failure to recognize the value of legal and illegal immigration, foreign threats, etc. etc. but I see all of these as transient problems, while the good things I listed are pretty much permanent. I'm an optimist.

Now, think about where we'd be in this progression scale if the gov't wasn't constantly getting in the way of this progress and I think you should be able to see the point I am making. Outside of #1 and it's fluff qualifiers that can be defined in just about any way, the rest we do in spite of our gov't. Not because of it.

i used to believe that too. But the truth is more complicated than that. And the government could very easily prevent the good things I listed from happening.

I am fully aware that there are additional factors involved with our progression. There's no question about that. What is not in question is the influence our gov't does have on our progression. There are some positives they contribute, but there are more negatives. You don't have to look any further than the recovery of our economy as one of the big places our gov't has significant influence. In the midst of their political bickering we are crawling out of the recession. There are many other financial situations where they are a significant hindrance, but this is one that we can see in our every day lives. The blatant "top heaviness" of the gov't is another that's obvious to see.

 

[timschochet]

Commish, I'm not going to argue on the point you raise because it's one of political philosophy and in many ways I agree with you. But you challenged me on my argument that it is generally a good thing that both parties govern from the center. I believe that it is, and that any other combination would be far worse. By any other combination I mean:

1. Democrats govern from the center; Republicans govern from the right.

2. Democrats govern from the left; Republicans govern from the center.

3. Democrats govern from the left; Republicans govern from the right.

Obviously those are our 3 other options, and I hold that anyone of these would be worse than what we have now. Incidentally, the partisans on both sides are firmly convinced, and always will be, that their own party governs from the center (regrettably) while the other party governs from the right or left (usually the far right or left). So I expect to hear denunciations of my analysis based on this conviction.

 

[The Commish]

Commish, I'm not going to argue on the point you raise because it's one of political philosophy and in many ways I agree with you. But you challenged me on my argument that it is generally a good thing that both parties govern from the center. I believe that it is, and that any other combination would be far worse. By any other combination I mean:

1. Democrats govern from the center; Republicans govern from the right.

2. Democrats govern from the left; Republicans govern from the center.

3. Democrats govern from the left; Republicans govern from the right.

Obviously those are our 3 other options, and I hold that anyone of these would be worse than what we have now. Incidentally, the partisans on both sides are firmly convinced, and always will be, that their own party governs from the center (regrettably) while the other party governs from the right or left (usually the far right or left). So I expect to hear denunciations of my analysis based on this conviction.

Actually, I challenge your challenging of the statement that "both parties suck". You took issue with that statement as if it weren't true. Being part of a results driven society, I was interested in how one would argue that neither of our parties suck.

 

[timschochet]

Commish, I'm not going to argue on the point you raise because it's one of political philosophy and in many ways I agree with you. But you challenged me on my argument that it is generally a good thing that both parties govern from the center. I believe that it is, and that any other combination would be far worse. By any other combination I mean:

1. Democrats govern from the center; Republicans govern from the right.

2. Democrats govern from the left; Republicans govern from the center.

3. Democrats govern from the left; Republicans govern from the right.

Obviously those are our 3 other options, and I hold that anyone of these would be worse than what we have now. Incidentally, the partisans on both sides are firmly convinced, and always will be, that their own party governs from the center (regrettably) while the other party governs from the right or left (usually the far right or left). So I expect to hear denunciations of my analysis based on this conviction.

Actually, I challenge your challenging of the statement that "both parties suck". You took issue with that statement as if it weren't true. Being part of a results driven society, I was interested in how one would argue that neither of our parties suck.

Well I don't think they do. I don't have time to defend it now (leaving for the day and won't have time here until this evening) but I really do believe that on the whole they do a very good job.

 

[TobiasFunke]

Wouldn't it be sweet if people actually wanted their team to not suck, instead of wanting the other team to suck more?

What if both teams suck?

Been hearing that for my entire life. It gets tiresome. IMO:1. Neither party sucks.

2. Both parties govern from the center, which is a good thing.

3. Both parties support the "Establishment" which is generally a good thing.

4. The base on both sides is never going to be happy which is a good thing.

You're going to have to show your math on this assertion. If things are "good" as you suggest, I assume you are ok with the state of politics in this country, yes? Our government is the largest company in the world and it's run by lawyers and idealists (when it suits them). So, I'd like to understand why you believe things are "good"

Well- where to begin?1. We are a prosperous nation. Our standard of living is excellent.

2. We continue to enjoy terrific freedoms.

3. Improvements to technology and health science means that in the long run our lives are only going to get better in the future.

4. Attitudes that we had in the past against minorities, women, blacks, gays, etc. are fading rapidly. We are evolving into the most prejudice free society we have ever had.

That's just a few. Obviously there's plenty of bad things- the disparity between rich and poor, the shrinking of the middle class, the global warming crisis, our failure to recognize the value of legal and illegal immigration, foreign threats, etc. etc. but I see all of these as transient problems, while the good things I listed are pretty much permanent. I'm an optimist.

Now, think about where we'd be in this progression scale if the gov't wasn't constantly getting in the way of this progress and I think you should be able to see the point I am making. Outside of #1 and it's fluff qualifiers that can be defined in just about any way, the rest we do in spite of our gov't. Not because of it.

Seems a little disingenuous to repeatedly demand that tim show his work and describe things as "fluff" and then throw out a statement like the bolded as your central argument without a lick of support. Care to show your work?

 

[The Commish]

Wouldn't it be sweet if people actually wanted their team to not suck, instead of wanting the other team to suck more?

What if both teams suck?

Been hearing that for my entire life. It gets tiresome. IMO:1. Neither party sucks.

2. Both parties govern from the center, which is a good thing.

3. Both parties support the "Establishment" which is generally a good thing.

4. The base on both sides is never going to be happy which is a good thing.

You're going to have to show your math on this assertion. If things are "good" as you suggest, I assume you are ok with the state of politics in this country, yes? Our government is the largest company in the world and it's run by lawyers and idealists (when it suits them). So, I'd like to understand why you believe things are "good"

Well- where to begin?1. We are a prosperous nation. Our standard of living is excellent.

2. We continue to enjoy terrific freedoms.

3. Improvements to technology and health science means that in the long run our lives are only going to get better in the future.

4. Attitudes that we had in the past against minorities, women, blacks, gays, etc. are fading rapidly. We are evolving into the most prejudice free society we have ever had.

That's just a few. Obviously there's plenty of bad things- the disparity between rich and poor, the shrinking of the middle class, the global warming crisis, our failure to recognize the value of legal and illegal immigration, foreign threats, etc. etc. but I see all of these as transient problems, while the good things I listed are pretty much permanent. I'm an optimist.

Now, think about where we'd be in this progression scale if the gov't wasn't constantly getting in the way of this progress and I think you should be able to see the point I am making. Outside of #1 and it's fluff qualifiers that can be defined in just about any way, the rest we do in spite of our gov't. Not because of it.

Seems a little disingenuous to repeatedly demand that tim show his work and describe things as "fluff" and then throw out a statement like the bolded as your central argument without a lick of support. Care to show your work?

Sure...our economy is probably the most obvious, as I already stated. Our tax code is another example. The biggest thing for me right now, is their attitude towards our food supply. Of course none of these are "political hot buttons" so they get little attention. These are all things that continue to get worse regardless of who's in office. I don't care much about the side of it (deficits, beholden to companies instead of constituents etc). I care more about the quality of life things that most don't pay close attention to.

 

[TobiasFunke]

Wouldn't it be sweet if people actually wanted their team to not suck, instead of wanting the other team to suck more?

What if both teams suck?

Been hearing that for my entire life. It gets tiresome. IMO:1. Neither party sucks.

2. Both parties govern from the center, which is a good thing.

3. Both parties support the "Establishment" which is generally a good thing.

4. The base on both sides is never going to be happy which is a good thing.

You're going to have to show your math on this assertion. If things are "good" as you suggest, I assume you are ok with the state of politics in this country, yes? Our government is the largest company in the world and it's run by lawyers and idealists (when it suits them). So, I'd like to understand why you believe things are "good"

Well- where to begin?1. We are a prosperous nation. Our standard of living is excellent.

2. We continue to enjoy terrific freedoms.

3. Improvements to technology and health science means that in the long run our lives are only going to get better in the future.

4. Attitudes that we had in the past against minorities, women, blacks, gays, etc. are fading rapidly. We are evolving into the most prejudice free society we have ever had.

That's just a few. Obviously there's plenty of bad things- the disparity between rich and poor, the shrinking of the middle class, the global warming crisis, our failure to recognize the value of legal and illegal immigration, foreign threats, etc. etc. but I see all of these as transient problems, while the good things I listed are pretty much permanent. I'm an optimist.

Now, think about where we'd be in this progression scale if the gov't wasn't constantly getting in the way of this progress and I think you should be able to see the point I am making. Outside of #1 and it's fluff qualifiers that can be defined in just about any way, the rest we do in spite of our gov't. Not because of it.

Seems a little disingenuous to repeatedly demand that tim show his work and describe things as "fluff" and then throw out a statement like the bolded as your central argument without a lick of support. Care to show your work?

Sure...our economy is probably the most obvious, as I already stated. Our tax code is another example. The biggest thing for me right now, is their attitude towards our food supply. Of course none of these are "political hot buttons" so they get little attention. These are all things that continue to get worse regardless of who's in office. I don't care much about the side of it (deficits, beholden to companies instead of constituents etc). I care more about the quality of life things that most don't pay close attention to.

Saying "our economy" is not an answer to my question. The economy is not even something the governments does, it's simply something the governments impacts and reacts to. "Our tax code" is something you can attribute to the government, of course, but it's pretty hard to run a country without one. What exactly about our tax code do you think "constantly gets in the way of progress"?

I'm asking you to show me, specifically, how the government "constantly gets in the way of progress" and how you would change things. Just a few actual examples. I would think someone who is as strongly and consistently anti-government as you are would have dozens of clear examples at his fingertips, no?

 

[igbomb]

Wouldn't it be sweet if people actually wanted their team to not suck, instead of wanting the other team to suck more?

What if both teams suck?

Been hearing that for my entire life. It gets tiresome. IMO:1. Neither party sucks.

2. Both parties govern from the center, which is a good thing.

3. Both parties support the "Establishment" which is generally a good thing.

4. The base on both sides is never going to be happy which is a good thing.

This is ridiculously wrong. The fundamental issue is that candidates have far more incentive to placate the corporate system and the funding donors than they do their constituents. I know you probably think that's ok since the populace is full of mouth-breathers, but it creates the exact financial climate we now have. A small portion of ridiculously rich people getting ever richer and a slew of people just getting by.

 

[TobiasFunke]

Wouldn't it be sweet if people actually wanted their team to not suck, instead of wanting the other team to suck more?

What if both teams suck?

Been hearing that for my entire life. It gets tiresome. IMO:1. Neither party sucks.

2. Both parties govern from the center, which is a good thing.

3. Both parties support the "Establishment" which is generally a good thing.

4. The base on both sides is never going to be happy which is a good thing.

This is ridiculously wrong. The fundamental issue is that candidates have far more incentive to placate the corporate system and the funding donors than they do their constituents. I know you probably think that's ok since the populace is full of mouth-breathers, but it creates the exact financial climate we now have. A small portion of ridiculously rich people getting ever richer and a slew of people just getting by.

Poor people's votes count exactly the same as rich people's votes, and more than corporation's votes. The reason the candidates are "incentivized to placate the corporate system and the funding donors" is because the voters let their votes be bought due to their own apathy. If people truly were as upset as they claimed to be then they woudn't be so easily swayed by whoever can spend the most on slick ads in election years.

 

[Slapdash]

 

[TobiasFunke]

Look, I don't like the overwhelming influence of money in politics either. But saying that politicians are beholden to wealth because money wins elections leaves out the most important part of the equation. The truth is that politicians are beholden to wealth because we let money win elections by being apathetic and easily swayed by ads and sound bites. If you leave that part out and let voters off the hook you're just complaining instead of lobbying for change, and the influence of money will never change if that's all you do.

 

[The Commish]

Wouldn't it be sweet if people actually wanted their team to not suck, instead of wanting the other team to suck more?

What if both teams suck?

Been hearing that for my entire life. It gets tiresome. IMO:1. Neither party sucks.

2. Both parties govern from the center, which is a good thing.

3. Both parties support the "Establishment" which is generally a good thing.

4. The base on both sides is never going to be happy which is a good thing.

You're going to have to show your math on this assertion. If things are "good" as you suggest, I assume you are ok with the state of politics in this country, yes? Our government is the largest company in the world and it's run by lawyers and idealists (when it suits them). So, I'd like to understand why you believe things are "good"

Well- where to begin?1. We are a prosperous nation. Our standard of living is excellent.

2. We continue to enjoy terrific freedoms.

3. Improvements to technology and health science means that in the long run our lives are only going to get better in the future.

4. Attitudes that we had in the past against minorities, women, blacks, gays, etc. are fading rapidly. We are evolving into the most prejudice free society we have ever had.

That's just a few. Obviously there's plenty of bad things- the disparity between rich and poor, the shrinking of the middle class, the global warming crisis, our failure to recognize the value of legal and illegal immigration, foreign threats, etc. etc. but I see all of these as transient problems, while the good things I listed are pretty much permanent. I'm an optimist.

Now, think about where we'd be in this progression scale if the gov't wasn't constantly getting in the way of this progress and I think you should be able to see the point I am making. Outside of #1 and it's fluff qualifiers that can be defined in just about any way, the rest we do in spite of our gov't. Not because of it.

Seems a little disingenuous to repeatedly demand that tim show his work and describe things as "fluff" and then throw out a statement like the bolded as your central argument without a lick of support. Care to show your work?

Sure...our economy is probably the most obvious, as I already stated. Our tax code is another example. The biggest thing for me right now, is their attitude towards our food supply. Of course none of these are "political hot buttons" so they get little attention. These are all things that continue to get worse regardless of who's in office. I don't care much about the side of it (deficits, beholden to companies instead of constituents etc). I care more about the quality of life things that most don't pay close attention to.

Saying "our economy" is not an answer to my question. The economy is not even something the governments does, it's simply something the governments impacts and reacts to. "Our tax code" is something you can attribute to the government, of course, but it's pretty hard to run a country without one. What exactly about our tax code do you think "constantly gets in the way of progress"?

I'm asking you to show me, specifically, how the government "constantly gets in the way of progress" and how you would change things. Just a few actual examples. I would think someone who is as strongly and consistently anti-government as you are would have dozens of clear examples at his fingertips, no?

Of course. Speaking to the tax code, it's sheer size is cumbersome and inefficient. There isn't another tax structure this large and costly to maintain. The loopholes buried amongst all the garbage are an issue as well. Not specific to the tax code, subsidies on corn are a huge burden as well...both financially and with respect to one's health. The bold is part of the assertion. It's foolish to ignore the decisions our gov't makes and their impacts on our economy. We are a top heavy country because of decisions our government has made.

It's clear by these few comments that we each have very different ideas about what the gov't job/role should be in our lives. I can tell this by some of your comments and that's fine. I could list specific rules all day long, but they aren't going to change your mind. I can give you link after link of our gov't impact on our food sources, and it doesn't matter until it's something that affects you. I get it. I'm not interested in rehashing all the political talking points. They get us no where. I'm sure you'll go down the "well, you get what you settle for" road again. That too falls on deaf ears as there isn't a single person in our federal government that I have voted to put there. I am but one person and I believe the issues begin at the local level and that's how we affect real change. Until we take the ground up approach and the dog and pony show that is the federal gov't very little will change and even less will change for the better. All I can do is present information to folks in my community about what I believe is to be the correct path. Some will agree, some will disagree, but it will be based on the issue itself and not the politics of it all. I don't even talk about politics or politicians any place other than here and even then, it's typically about a specific issue and not whether the democrat is "right" or the republican is "wrong".

ETA: Though, I would like to understand what is disingenuous about asking someone to show why they believe something to be true. It's a sincere, honest and truthful request. Because I didn't offer examples of my belief with said request isn't disingenuous.

 

[Todd Andrews]

Both parties do suck, IMO. One just sucks far worse.

I dont think we break the current corporate duopoly over politics in this country without full public financing of federal campaigns and I am all in favor of it.

 

[igbomb]

Look, I don't like the overwhelming influence of money in politics either. But saying that politicians are beholden to wealth because money wins elections leaves out the most important part of the equation. The truth is that politicians are beholden to wealth because we let money win elections by being apathetic and easily swayed by ads and sound bites. If you leave that part out and let voters off the hook you're just complaining instead of lobbying for change, and the influence of money will never change if that's all you do.

[SIZE=medium]You give people more credit for their ability to see through the propaganda thrown their way than human psychology suggests you should. It’s not a willful decision by people to buy into the garbage. There is a lot of very deliberate effort that goes into political advertisements and speeches. They are designed to press our buttons. We are easily swayed because of biology and brain chemistry. [/SIZE]

[SIZE=medium]I don’t think the apathy of voters is the cause of the current climate. I think the current climate of each politician being only different by degrees from the next, and the ridiculous amounts of money being thrown into the system by people with a singular agenda is what has driven the apathy. The apathy is the effect, not the cause.[/SIZE]

 

[On The Rocks]

Wouldn't it be sweet if people actually wanted their team to not suck, instead of wanting the other team to suck more?

What if both teams suck?

Been hearing that for my entire life. It gets tiresome. IMO:1. Neither party sucks.

2. Both parties govern from the center, which is a good thing.

3. Both parties support the "Establishment" which is generally a good thing.

4. The base on both sides is never going to be happy which is a good thing.

You're going to have to show your math on this assertion. If things are "good" as you suggest, I assume you are ok with the state of politics in this country, yes? Our government is the largest company in the world and it's run by lawyers and idealists (when it suits them). So, I'd like to understand why you believe things are "good"

Well- where to begin?1. We are a prosperous nation. Our standard of living is excellent.

2. We continue to enjoy terrific freedoms.

3. Improvements to technology and health science means that in the long run our lives are only going to get better in the future.

4. Attitudes that we had in the past against minorities, women, blacks, gays, etc. are fading rapidly. We are evolving into the most prejudice free society we have ever had.

That's just a few. Obviously there's plenty of bad things- the disparity between rich and poor, the shrinking of the middle class, the global warming crisis, our failure to recognize the value of legal and illegal immigration, foreign threats, etc. etc. but I see all of these as transient problems, while the good things I listed are pretty much permanent. I'm an optimist.

Now, think about where we'd be in this progression scale if the gov't wasn't constantly getting in the way of this progress and I think you should be able to see the point I am making. Outside of #1 and it's fluff qualifiers that can be defined in just about any way, the rest we do in spite of our gov't. Not because of it.

Seems a little disingenuous to repeatedly demand that tim show his work and describe things as "fluff" and then throw out a statement like the bolded as your central argument without a lick of support. Care to show your work?

Sure...our economy is probably the most obvious, as I already stated. Our tax code is another example. The biggest thing for me right now, is their attitude towards our food supply. Of course none of these are "political hot buttons" so they get little attention. These are all things that continue to get worse regardless of who's in office. I don't care much about the side of it (deficits, beholden to companies instead of constituents etc). I care more about the quality of life things that most don't pay close attention to.

Saying "our economy" is not an answer to my question. The economy is not even something the governments does, it's simply something the governments impacts and reacts to. "Our tax code" is something you can attribute to the government, of course, but it's pretty hard to run a country without one. What exactly about our tax code do you think "constantly gets in the way of progress"?

I'm asking you to show me, specifically, how the government "constantly gets in the way of progress" and how you would change things. Just a few actual examples. I would think someone who is as strongly and consistently anti-government as you are would have dozens of clear examples at his fingertips, no?

Isn't it the Gov't that keeps having the Fed Reserve print money with nothing to back it up? What other reason for the Market to be at record highs for the past 4 years?

I don't even know what the first part of that question/statement means, only to say that's how it's always been explained to me. If that's not the case then I don't know the answer to that question. I'm genuinely asking.

 

[TobiasFunke]

Of course. Speaking to the tax code, it's sheer size is cumbersome and inefficient. There isn't another tax structure this large and costly to maintain. The loopholes buried amongst all the garbage are an issue as well. Not specific to the tax code, subsidies on corn are a huge burden as well...both financially and with respect to one's health. The bold is part of the assertion. It's foolish to ignore the decisions our gov't makes and their impacts on our economy. We are a top heavy country because of decisions our government has made.

It's clear by these few comments that we each have very different ideas about what the gov't job/role should be in our lives. I can tell this by some of your comments and that's fine. I could list specific rules all day long, but they aren't going to change your mind. I can give you link after link of our gov't impact on our food sources, and it doesn't matter until it's something that affects you. I get it. I'm not interested in rehashing all the political talking points. They get us no where. I'm sure you'll go down the "well, you get what you settle for" road again. That too falls on deaf ears as there isn't a single person in our federal government that I have voted to put there. I am but one person and I believe the issues begin at the local level and that's how we affect real change. Until we take the ground up approach and the dog and pony show that is the federal gov't very little will change and even less will change for the better. All I can do is present information to folks in my community about what I believe is to be the correct path. Some will agree, some will disagree, but it will be based on the issue itself and not the politics of it all. I don't even talk about politics or politicians any place other than here and even then, it's typically about a specific issue and not whether the democrat is "right" or the republican is "wrong".

ETA: Though, I would like to understand what is disingenuous about asking someone to show why they believe something to be true. It's a sincere, honest and truthful request. Because I didn't offer examples of my belief with said request isn't disingenuous.

Sorry I missed this yesterday, was offline all afternoon. Anyway, my point was that w/r/t the bolded, I don't think you can. Although I agree with you on being anti-corn subsidies; I'm no expert but I've watched a documentary or two and read a book or two and I get that. I have this conversation around here quite a bit and when I ask for details about what regulations people actually oppose the conversation usually ends, because people are just repeating mindless anti-government rhetoric from people whose job is really just to get readers/viewers/listeners fired up so they keep reading/watching/listening. Issues with farm subsidies is probably the best response I've gotten in fact, and I don't know if that "constantly gets in the way of progress" as much as it creates some health issues and is (in our opinion) an unwise way to spend our money.

As to the last thing- disingenuous was the wrong word. Should have said hypocritical I suppose- I thought it was a little off that you demanded details from Tim to back up his sweeping statements while making your own sweeping statements without providing links or explanations or anything.

 

[The Commish]

Of course. Speaking to the tax code, it's sheer size is cumbersome and inefficient. There isn't another tax structure this large and costly to maintain. The loopholes buried amongst all the garbage are an issue as well. Not specific to the tax code, subsidies on corn are a huge burden as well...both financially and with respect to one's health. The bold is part of the assertion. It's foolish to ignore the decisions our gov't makes and their impacts on our economy. We are a top heavy country because of decisions our government has made.

It's clear by these few comments that we each have very different ideas about what the gov't job/role should be in our lives. I can tell this by some of your comments and that's fine. I could list specific rules all day long, but they aren't going to change your mind. I can give you link after link of our gov't impact on our food sources, and it doesn't matter until it's something that affects you. I get it. I'm not interested in rehashing all the political talking points. They get us no where. I'm sure you'll go down the "well, you get what you settle for" road again. That too falls on deaf ears as there isn't a single person in our federal government that I have voted to put there. I am but one person and I believe the issues begin at the local level and that's how we affect real change. Until we take the ground up approach and the dog and pony show that is the federal gov't very little will change and even less will change for the better. All I can do is present information to folks in my community about what I believe is to be the correct path. Some will agree, some will disagree, but it will be based on the issue itself and not the politics of it all. I don't even talk about politics or politicians any place other than here and even then, it's typically about a specific issue and not whether the democrat is "right" or the republican is "wrong".

ETA: Though, I would like to understand what is disingenuous about asking someone to show why they believe something to be true. It's a sincere, honest and truthful request. Because I didn't offer examples of my belief with said request isn't disingenuous.

Sorry I missed this yesterday, was offline all afternoon. Anyway, my point was that w/r/t the bolded, I don't think you can. Although I agree with you on being anti-corn subsidies; I'm no expert but I've watched a documentary or two and read a book or two and I get that. I have this conversation around here quite a bit and when I ask for details about what regulations people actually oppose the conversation usually ends, because people are just repeating mindless anti-government rhetoric from people whose job is really just to get readers/viewers/listeners fired up so they keep reading/watching/listening. Issues with farm subsidies is probably the best response I've gotten in fact, and I don't know if that "constantly gets in the way of progress" as much as it creates some health issues and is (in our opinion) an unwise way to spend our money.

As to the last thing- disingenuous was the wrong word. Should have said hypocritical I suppose- I thought it was a little off that you demanded details from Tim to back up his sweeping statements while making your own sweeping statements without providing links or explanations or anything.

I'll point you to the American Food System thread as a starting point regarding regulations that are being passed severely dampening (IMO) our society's future as it pertains to food. Most of the links there will point you to summary blogs / opinion blogs but they all list the specific laws/regulation they approve/disapprove of. Read them and decide for yourself. Monsanto thread has some good info to with respect to regulations I am talking about as well. I still hold the opinion that ACA (as it was passed) is another example of gov't legislation that is getting in the way of progress. I'd much rather had all that time, effort, money spent on figuring out how to provide health care rather than health insurance. By that, I mean getting to the root of the problem and looking at costs, looking at process etc. The goal should never be getting insurance for people as a means to "reduce" costs.

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

I'd much rather had all that time, effort, money spent on figuring out how to provide health care rather than health insurance. By that, I mean getting to the root of the problem and looking at costs, looking at process etc. The goal should never be getting insurance for people as a means to "reduce" costs.

The answer is known, and working pretty much everywhere it's been implemented. But for political reasons it's not practical here today.

 

[Rich Conway]

I'd much rather had all that time, effort, money spent on figuring out how to provide health care rather than health insurance. By that, I mean getting to the root of the problem and looking at costs, looking at process etc. The goal should never be getting insurance for people as a means to "reduce" costs.

The answer is known, and working pretty much everywhere it's been implemented. But for political reasons it's not practical here today.

If what you wrote is true (I'm not sure the first sentence is true), then that would be an excellent example of government getting in the way of progress.

 

[The Commish]

I'd much rather had all that time, effort, money spent on figuring out how to provide health care rather than health insurance. By that, I mean getting to the root of the problem and looking at costs, looking at process etc. The goal should never be getting insurance for people as a means to "reduce" costs.

The answer is known, and working pretty much everywhere it's been implemented. But for political reasons it's not practical here today.

It's still practical....won't happen though. I believe the same is true in our alternate energy arena. During Obama's reign, I believe he's opened the gates a bit, but more could be done. However, it's not politically expedient to go against big oil, so it's pushed to the back burner.

 

[TobiasFunke]

Of course. Speaking to the tax code, it's sheer size is cumbersome and inefficient. There isn't another tax structure this large and costly to maintain. The loopholes buried amongst all the garbage are an issue as well. Not specific to the tax code, subsidies on corn are a huge burden as well...both financially and with respect to one's health. The bold is part of the assertion. It's foolish to ignore the decisions our gov't makes and their impacts on our economy. We are a top heavy country because of decisions our government has made.

It's clear by these few comments that we each have very different ideas about what the gov't job/role should be in our lives. I can tell this by some of your comments and that's fine. I could list specific rules all day long, but they aren't going to change your mind. I can give you link after link of our gov't impact on our food sources, and it doesn't matter until it's something that affects you. I get it. I'm not interested in rehashing all the political talking points. They get us no where. I'm sure you'll go down the "well, you get what you settle for" road again. That too falls on deaf ears as there isn't a single person in our federal government that I have voted to put there. I am but one person and I believe the issues begin at the local level and that's how we affect real change. Until we take the ground up approach and the dog and pony show that is the federal gov't very little will change and even less will change for the better. All I can do is present information to folks in my community about what I believe is to be the correct path. Some will agree, some will disagree, but it will be based on the issue itself and not the politics of it all. I don't even talk about politics or politicians any place other than here and even then, it's typically about a specific issue and not whether the democrat is "right" or the republican is "wrong".

ETA: Though, I would like to understand what is disingenuous about asking someone to show why they believe something to be true. It's a sincere, honest and truthful request. Because I didn't offer examples of my belief with said request isn't disingenuous.

Sorry I missed this yesterday, was offline all afternoon. Anyway, my point was that w/r/t the bolded, I don't think you can. Although I agree with you on being anti-corn subsidies; I'm no expert but I've watched a documentary or two and read a book or two and I get that. I have this conversation around here quite a bit and when I ask for details about what regulations people actually oppose the conversation usually ends, because people are just repeating mindless anti-government rhetoric from people whose job is really just to get readers/viewers/listeners fired up so they keep reading/watching/listening. Issues with farm subsidies is probably the best response I've gotten in fact, and I don't know if that "constantly gets in the way of progress" as much as it creates some health issues and is (in our opinion) an unwise way to spend our money.

As to the last thing- disingenuous was the wrong word. Should have said hypocritical I suppose- I thought it was a little off that you demanded details from Tim to back up his sweeping statements while making your own sweeping statements without providing links or explanations or anything.

I'll point you to the American Food System thread as a starting point regarding regulations that are being passed severely dampening (IMO) our society's future as it pertains to food. Most of the links there will point you to summary blogs / opinion blogs but they all list the specific laws/regulation they approve/disapprove of. Read them and decide for yourself. Monsanto thread has some good info to with respect to regulations I am talking about as well. I still hold the opinion that ACA (as it was passed) is another example of gov't legislation that is getting in the way of progress. I'd much rather had all that time, effort, money spent on figuring out how to provide health care rather than health insurance. By that, I mean getting to the root of the problem and looking at costs, looking at process etc. The goal should never be getting insurance for people as a means to "reduce" costs.

Seems like those are mostly cases where you're critical of the way the government has gotten involved rather than whether it's involved. I assume you don't advocate for removal of FDA and USDA regulation but you just think it's not being done well. Similarly, without federal health care regulation there would be no effort to provide health insurance or health care for those that can't afford it. So fair to say that what you think stands in the way of progress is how the government has gotten involved rather than the decision to get involved in the first place?

 

[timschochet]

I happen to agree with The Commish on many of the specific examples he's given. I think the government can and does impede progress through too much bureaucracy and red tape, and that if some of this could be removed (for example reforming the tax code as he mentioned) society might flourish more than it does.

But that in no way contradicts my assertion that our government is good. Saying something could be better doesn't mean it's bad to begin with.

 

[timschochet]

Wouldn't it be sweet if people actually wanted their team to not suck, instead of wanting the other team to suck more?

What if both teams suck?

Been hearing that for my entire life. It gets tiresome. IMO:1. Neither party sucks.

2. Both parties govern from the center, which is a good thing.

3. Both parties support the "Establishment" which is generally a good thing.

4. The base on both sides is never going to be happy which is a good thing.

This is ridiculously wrong. The fundamental issue is that candidates have far more incentive to placate the corporate system and the funding donors than they do their constituents. I know you probably think that's ok since the populace is full of mouth-breathers, but it creates the exact financial climate we now have. A small portion of ridiculously rich people getting ever richer and a slew of people just getting by.

First off, I have always rejected the idea that corporations are somehow evil. Corporations are made up of people, which is what Mitt Romney meant to say, and when they profit it benefits Americans as a general rule: it benefits the job market, 401k plans, consumer prices, etc- all of these are tied into the well being and growth of the corporate marketplace. The old saying, what is good for General Motors still applies. It is a progressive trait to regard corporations as the enemy, which is one reason I'm not a progressive. Second, disparity in wealth is not in itself an important issue so long as the poor and middle class don't suffer. Many of them ARE suffering, and that's an issue we need to be concerned with and try to rectify. But I really don't give a #### how much some zillionaire is earning. Good for him.

 

[The Commish]

Of course. Speaking to the tax code, it's sheer size is cumbersome and inefficient. There isn't another tax structure this large and costly to maintain. The loopholes buried amongst all the garbage are an issue as well. Not specific to the tax code, subsidies on corn are a huge burden as well...both financially and with respect to one's health. The bold is part of the assertion. It's foolish to ignore the decisions our gov't makes and their impacts on our economy. We are a top heavy country because of decisions our government has made.

It's clear by these few comments that we each have very different ideas about what the gov't job/role should be in our lives. I can tell this by some of your comments and that's fine. I could list specific rules all day long, but they aren't going to change your mind. I can give you link after link of our gov't impact on our food sources, and it doesn't matter until it's something that affects you. I get it. I'm not interested in rehashing all the political talking points. They get us no where. I'm sure you'll go down the "well, you get what you settle for" road again. That too falls on deaf ears as there isn't a single person in our federal government that I have voted to put there. I am but one person and I believe the issues begin at the local level and that's how we affect real change. Until we take the ground up approach and the dog and pony show that is the federal gov't very little will change and even less will change for the better. All I can do is present information to folks in my community about what I believe is to be the correct path. Some will agree, some will disagree, but it will be based on the issue itself and not the politics of it all. I don't even talk about politics or politicians any place other than here and even then, it's typically about a specific issue and not whether the democrat is "right" or the republican is "wrong".

ETA: Though, I would like to understand what is disingenuous about asking someone to show why they believe something to be true. It's a sincere, honest and truthful request. Because I didn't offer examples of my belief with said request isn't disingenuous.

Sorry I missed this yesterday, was offline all afternoon. Anyway, my point was that w/r/t the bolded, I don't think you can. Although I agree with you on being anti-corn subsidies; I'm no expert but I've watched a documentary or two and read a book or two and I get that. I have this conversation around here quite a bit and when I ask for details about what regulations people actually oppose the conversation usually ends, because people are just repeating mindless anti-government rhetoric from people whose job is really just to get readers/viewers/listeners fired up so they keep reading/watching/listening. Issues with farm subsidies is probably the best response I've gotten in fact, and I don't know if that "constantly gets in the way of progress" as much as it creates some health issues and is (in our opinion) an unwise way to spend our money.

As to the last thing- disingenuous was the wrong word. Should have said hypocritical I suppose- I thought it was a little off that you demanded details from Tim to back up his sweeping statements while making your own sweeping statements without providing links or explanations or anything.

I'll point you to the American Food System thread as a starting point regarding regulations that are being passed severely dampening (IMO) our society's future as it pertains to food. Most of the links there will point you to summary blogs / opinion blogs but they all list the specific laws/regulation they approve/disapprove of. Read them and decide for yourself. Monsanto thread has some good info to with respect to regulations I am talking about as well. I still hold the opinion that ACA (as it was passed) is another example of gov't legislation that is getting in the way of progress. I'd much rather had all that time, effort, money spent on figuring out how to provide health care rather than health insurance. By that, I mean getting to the root of the problem and looking at costs, looking at process etc. The goal should never be getting insurance for people as a means to "reduce" costs.

Seems like those are mostly cases where you're critical of the way the government has gotten involved rather than whether it's involved. I assume you don't advocate for removal of FDA and USDA regulation but you just think it's not being done well. Similarly, without federal health care regulation there would be no effort to provide health insurance or health care for those that can't afford it. So fair to say that what you think stands in the way of progress is how the government has gotten involved rather than the decision to get involved in the first place?

It depends on the topic. I should be clear that I'm not a "get out of my life federal gov't. I'm good thanks" guy. I understand the need for gov't in our society and I'm not suggesting all gov't is bad. However, with our gov't in particular, I believe there is a lot of overreach and inefficiency they introduce as well as impediment. I base this on the results being produced in various areas. Let's take the food problem as an example. As the FDA and USDA are created today, I'd be an advocate for removing them completely. In reality, they don't provide enough value for what they cost. That's not to say there isn't a place for agencies like this. There is. However, these really are closer to "in name only" agencies than agencies that provide a vital purpose for our society. They have gotten that way because of lobbying in Washington. Words like "organic" have virtually no meaning and are held to the most minimal of standards while GMO companies are running amuck. So, as it pertains to our food system, I believe we need protection from the gov't but what they have in place isn't really helpful at all.

An example of where I don't think they need to have any place and are hindering progress would be "marriage" vs "gay marriage". They chose to insert themselves into that area by hanging rights/privs off of "marriage" creating an inequality in this country. They have provided a bigoted group a significant rock to hide behind and it's been a significant obstacle for homosexuals to overcome.

Hope these examples help explain a little better where I'm coming from.

 

[The Commish]

I happen to agree with The Commish on many of the specific examples he's given. I think the government can and does impede progress through too much bureaucracy and red tape, and that if some of this could be removed (for example reforming the tax code as he mentioned) society might flourish more than it does.

But that in no way contradicts my assertion that our government is good. Saying something could be better doesn't mean it's bad to begin with.

I don't disagree with this in theory, however, in this country, you have to look at the results to determine if it's "good" or "bad" and I see a lot more "bad" than "good". I also see a lot of "could be done MUCH better". As a matter of fact, I'd consider that to be the dominate category at 60ish%. I see bad to be 35% and all out "good" at 5%. To me, 5% is not enough to label our gov't as "good" overall. I'm hard pressed to think of anything they've gotten correct, other than our military and even that has significant warts on it with the VA. I'd include our decisions to provide food and services to third world countries as "good" as well. We do a fantastic job of helping other countries.

 

[TobiasFunke]

I happen to agree with The Commish on many of the specific examples he's given. I think the government can and does impede progress through too much bureaucracy and red tape, and that if some of this could be removed (for example reforming the tax code as he mentioned) society might flourish more than it does.

But that in no way contradicts my assertion that our government is good. Saying something could be better doesn't mean it's bad to begin with.

I don't disagree with this in theory, however, in this country, you have to look at the results to determine if it's "good" or "bad" and I see a lot more "bad" than "good". I also see a lot of "could be done MUCH better". As a matter of fact, I'd consider that to be the dominate category at 60ish%. I see bad to be 35% and all out "good" at 5%. To me, 5% is not enough to label our gov't as "good" overall. I'm hard pressed to think of anything they've gotten correct, other than our military and even that has significant warts on it with the VA. I'd include our decisions to provide food and services to third world countries as "good" as well. We do a fantastic job of helping other countries.

Really? Interesting. I assume you fly from city to city on a magic carpet? Immune to the air and water pollution problems that were increasing exponentially until they were reversed by the CAA and the CWA in the 70s? Comfortable with a return to hazardous working conditions and widespread food contamination like those described in The Jungle and reversed by OSHA and FDA/USDA?

I could go on like that all day. But I think our history, economic status, and quality of life are better evidence than any list I can make. We're an overwhelming success story in virtually every respect. Strangely enough, those few areas in which we're not among the world leaders (crime, maybe education) are primarily state and local matters, not federal matters.

 

[The Commish]

I happen to agree with The Commish on many of the specific examples he's given. I think the government can and does impede progress through too much bureaucracy and red tape, and that if some of this could be removed (for example reforming the tax code as he mentioned) society might flourish more than it does.

But that in no way contradicts my assertion that our government is good. Saying something could be better doesn't mean it's bad to begin with.

I don't disagree with this in theory, however, in this country, you have to look at the results to determine if it's "good" or "bad" and I see a lot more "bad" than "good". I also see a lot of "could be done MUCH better". As a matter of fact, I'd consider that to be the dominate category at 60ish%. I see bad to be 35% and all out "good" at 5%. To me, 5% is not enough to label our gov't as "good" overall. I'm hard pressed to think of anything they've gotten correct, other than our military and even that has significant warts on it with the VA. I'd include our decisions to provide food and services to third world countries as "good" as well. We do a fantastic job of helping other countries.

Really? Interesting. I assume you fly from city to city on a magic carpet? Immune to the air and water pollution problems that were increasing exponentially until they were reversed by the CAA and the CWA in the 70s? Comfortable with a return to hazardous working conditions and widespread food contamination like those described in The Jungle and reversed by OSHA and FDA/USDA?

I could go on like that all day. But I think our history, economic status, and quality of life are better evidence than any list I can make. We're an overwhelming success story in virtually every respect. Strangely enough, those few areas in which we're not among the world leaders (crime, maybe education) are primarily state and local matters, not federal matters.

I knew I shouldn't have said that when I was typing it I am speaking of now, going forward. I don't question our successes of the past, they are fact and cannot be disputed. Same with our failures. Those decisions along with decisions being made today have gotten us to where we are at the moment. Here and now is of what I am speaking. Positive decisions of the past, don't negate deplorable decisions of the present. I don't think you'd disagree that these agencies (the FDA and USDA) look very different now than they did in the 70s, right? If you do, then we can stop with the discussion and just agree to disagree.

On the economy front, if you believe our economic situation is evidence of more positive than negative, then we can agree to disagree and move on from that as well. I'm interested in your thoughts on the vague category of "quality of life" though. I'm not sure what is included in that as far as you're concerned. I'll reserve comment until you are a bit more specific as to what that entails.

 

[timschochet]

Getting back to the issue at hand:

http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/senate/218274-vulnerable-senators-vote-for-obamas-request-to-arm-Syrians

This is an article from The Hill, the title reads: "Vulnerable Senators back Obama on arming Syrian Rebels."

Now this is very interesting. Most on the left are opposed to what Obama's doing (as demonstrated in the House vote.) Most conservatives and Republicans in general support it. The Senate vote in favor, as the article points out, includes Landrieu, Pryor, Kay Hagen. This represents an important shift.

 

[TobiasFunke]

I happen to agree with The Commish on many of the specific examples he's given. I think the government can and does impede progress through too much bureaucracy and red tape, and that if some of this could be removed (for example reforming the tax code as he mentioned) society might flourish more than it does.

But that in no way contradicts my assertion that our government is good. Saying something could be better doesn't mean it's bad to begin with.

I don't disagree with this in theory, however, in this country, you have to look at the results to determine if it's "good" or "bad" and I see a lot more "bad" than "good". I also see a lot of "could be done MUCH better". As a matter of fact, I'd consider that to be the dominate category at 60ish%. I see bad to be 35% and all out "good" at 5%. To me, 5% is not enough to label our gov't as "good" overall. I'm hard pressed to think of anything they've gotten correct, other than our military and even that has significant warts on it with the VA. I'd include our decisions to provide food and services to third world countries as "good" as well. We do a fantastic job of helping other countries.

Really? Interesting. I assume you fly from city to city on a magic carpet? Immune to the air and water pollution problems that were increasing exponentially until they were reversed by the CAA and the CWA in the 70s? Comfortable with a return to hazardous working conditions and widespread food contamination like those described in The Jungle and reversed by OSHA and FDA/USDA?

I could go on like that all day. But I think our history, economic status, and quality of life are better evidence than any list I can make. We're an overwhelming success story in virtually every respect. Strangely enough, those few areas in which we're not among the world leaders (crime, maybe education) are primarily state and local matters, not federal matters.

I knew I shouldn't have said that when I was typing it I am speaking of now, going forward. I don't question our successes of the past, they are fact and cannot be disputed. Same with our failures. Those decisions along with decisions being made today have gotten us to where we are at the moment. Here and now is of what I am speaking. Positive decisions of the past, don't negate deplorable decisions of the present. I don't think you'd disagree that these agencies (the FDA and USDA) look very different now than they did in the 70s, right? If you do, then we can stop with the discussion and just agree to disagree.

On the economy front, if you believe our economic situation is evidence of more positive than negative, then we can agree to disagree and move on from that as well. I'm interested in your thoughts on the vague category of "quality of life" though. I'm not sure what is included in that as far as you're concerned. I'll reserve comment until you are a bit more specific as to what that entails.

I happen to agree with The Commish on many of the specific examples he's given. I think the government can and does impede progress through too much bureaucracy and red tape, and that if some of this could be removed (for example reforming the tax code as he mentioned) society might flourish more than it does.

But that in no way contradicts my assertion that our government is good. Saying something could be better doesn't mean it's bad to begin with.

I don't disagree with this in theory, however, in this country, you have to look at the results to determine if it's "good" or "bad" and I see a lot more "bad" than "good". I also see a lot of "could be done MUCH better". As a matter of fact, I'd consider that to be the dominate category at 60ish%. I see bad to be 35% and all out "good" at 5%. To me, 5% is not enough to label our gov't as "good" overall. I'm hard pressed to think of anything they've gotten correct, other than our military and even that has significant warts on it with the VA. I'd include our decisions to provide food and services to third world countries as "good" as well. We do a fantastic job of helping other countries.

Really? Interesting. I assume you fly from city to city on a magic carpet? Immune to the air and water pollution problems that were increasing exponentially until they were reversed by the CAA and the CWA in the 70s? Comfortable with a return to hazardous working conditions and widespread food contamination like those described in The Jungle and reversed by OSHA and FDA/USDA?

I could go on like that all day. But I think our history, economic status, and quality of life are better evidence than any list I can make. We're an overwhelming success story in virtually every respect. Strangely enough, those few areas in which we're not among the world leaders (crime, maybe education) are primarily state and local matters, not federal matters.

I knew I shouldn't have said that when I was typing it I am speaking of now, going forward. I don't question our successes of the past, they are fact and cannot be disputed. Same with our failures. Those decisions along with decisions being made today have gotten us to where we are at the moment. Here and now is of what I am speaking. Positive decisions of the past, don't negate deplorable decisions of the present. I don't think you'd disagree that these agencies (the FDA and USDA) look very different now than they did in the 70s, right? If you do, then we can stop with the discussion and just agree to disagree.

On the economy front, if you believe our economic situation is evidence of more positive than negative, then we can agree to disagree and move on from that as well. I'm interested in your thoughts on the vague category of "quality of life" though. I'm not sure what is included in that as far as you're concerned. I'll reserve comment until you are a bit more specific as to what that entails.

Most of it can't be quantified of course. I guess things that could be quantified would be mean/median household income, GDP per capita, life expectancy, stuff like that. If it were possible to get immigration applications + illegal immigrants minus emigration rates I'm sure that would also show that far more people want to come here than want to leave. We're towards the edge of the bell curve on pretty much any quantifiable criteria you can name except maybe crime rate, which as I said is mostly a matter of state/local jurisdiction anyway, at last directly. But of course a lot of it is also stuff that can't be quantified.

Do you not think Americans enjoy an outstanding quality of life relative to other countries?

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

The Kansas race is pretty interesting. The independent rich guy was doing so well that the Democrat dropped out of the race in the hopes that the independent could beat the Republican. Now the Republicans are arguing that the Democrats are legally obligated to put a name on the ballot. Good times.

The independent guy hasn't said if he would caucus with the Democrats or Republicans. Historically he's made contributions to both parties.

 

[The Commish]

I happen to agree with The Commish on many of the specific examples he's given. I think the government can and does impede progress through too much bureaucracy and red tape, and that if some of this could be removed (for example reforming the tax code as he mentioned) society might flourish more than it does.

But that in no way contradicts my assertion that our government is good. Saying something could be better doesn't mean it's bad to begin with.

I don't disagree with this in theory, however, in this country, you have to look at the results to determine if it's "good" or "bad" and I see a lot more "bad" than "good". I also see a lot of "could be done MUCH better". As a matter of fact, I'd consider that to be the dominate category at 60ish%. I see bad to be 35% and all out "good" at 5%. To me, 5% is not enough to label our gov't as "good" overall. I'm hard pressed to think of anything they've gotten correct, other than our military and even that has significant warts on it with the VA. I'd include our decisions to provide food and services to third world countries as "good" as well. We do a fantastic job of helping other countries.

Really? Interesting. I assume you fly from city to city on a magic carpet? Immune to the air and water pollution problems that were increasing exponentially until they were reversed by the CAA and the CWA in the 70s? Comfortable with a return to hazardous working conditions and widespread food contamination like those described in The Jungle and reversed by OSHA and FDA/USDA?

I could go on like that all day. But I think our history, economic status, and quality of life are better evidence than any list I can make. We're an overwhelming success story in virtually every respect. Strangely enough, those few areas in which we're not among the world leaders (crime, maybe education) are primarily state and local matters, not federal matters.

I knew I shouldn't have said that when I was typing it I am speaking of now, going forward. I don't question our successes of the past, they are fact and cannot be disputed. Same with our failures. Those decisions along with decisions being made today have gotten us to where we are at the moment. Here and now is of what I am speaking. Positive decisions of the past, don't negate deplorable decisions of the present. I don't think you'd disagree that these agencies (the FDA and USDA) look very different now than they did in the 70s, right? If you do, then we can stop with the discussion and just agree to disagree.

On the economy front, if you believe our economic situation is evidence of more positive than negative, then we can agree to disagree and move on from that as well. I'm interested in your thoughts on the vague category of "quality of life" though. I'm not sure what is included in that as far as you're concerned. I'll reserve comment until you are a bit more specific as to what that entails.

I happen to agree with The Commish on many of the specific examples he's given. I think the government can and does impede progress through too much bureaucracy and red tape, and that if some of this could be removed (for example reforming the tax code as he mentioned) society might flourish more than it does.

But that in no way contradicts my assertion that our government is good. Saying something could be better doesn't mean it's bad to begin with.

I don't disagree with this in theory, however, in this country, you have to look at the results to determine if it's "good" or "bad" and I see a lot more "bad" than "good". I also see a lot of "could be done MUCH better". As a matter of fact, I'd consider that to be the dominate category at 60ish%. I see bad to be 35% and all out "good" at 5%. To me, 5% is not enough to label our gov't as "good" overall. I'm hard pressed to think of anything they've gotten correct, other than our military and even that has significant warts on it with the VA. I'd include our decisions to provide food and services to third world countries as "good" as well. We do a fantastic job of helping other countries.

Really? Interesting. I assume you fly from city to city on a magic carpet? Immune to the air and water pollution problems that were increasing exponentially until they were reversed by the CAA and the CWA in the 70s? Comfortable with a return to hazardous working conditions and widespread food contamination like those described in The Jungle and reversed by OSHA and FDA/USDA?

I could go on like that all day. But I think our history, economic status, and quality of life are better evidence than any list I can make. We're an overwhelming success story in virtually every respect. Strangely enough, those few areas in which we're not among the world leaders (crime, maybe education) are primarily state and local matters, not federal matters.

I knew I shouldn't have said that when I was typing it I am speaking of now, going forward. I don't question our successes of the past, they are fact and cannot be disputed. Same with our failures. Those decisions along with decisions being made today have gotten us to where we are at the moment. Here and now is of what I am speaking. Positive decisions of the past, don't negate deplorable decisions of the present. I don't think you'd disagree that these agencies (the FDA and USDA) look very different now than they did in the 70s, right? If you do, then we can stop with the discussion and just agree to disagree.

On the economy front, if you believe our economic situation is evidence of more positive than negative, then we can agree to disagree and move on from that as well. I'm interested in your thoughts on the vague category of "quality of life" though. I'm not sure what is included in that as far as you're concerned. I'll reserve comment until you are a bit more specific as to what that entails.

Most of it can't be quantified of course. I guess things that could be quantified would be mean/median household income, GDP per capita, life expectancy, stuff like that. If it were possible to get immigration applications + illegal immigrants minus emigration rates I'm sure that would also show that far more people want to come here than want to leave. We're towards the edge of the bell curve on pretty much any quantifiable criteria you can name except maybe crime rate, which as I said is mostly a matter of state/local jurisdiction anyway, at last directly. But of course a lot of it is also stuff that can't be quantified.

Do you not think Americans enjoy an outstanding quality of life relative to other countries?

I absolutely do. I also think it could be better if the gov't wasn't involved as much or in a different way. I think you are misunderstanding my position or trying to take it in another direction...one of the two. I'm not complaining about our standing relative to other countries.

Another criteria I'd throw out there that we struggle with in a large way is individual health. We are one of, if not THE, unhealthiest nation on earth. This, I lay on the citizens more than anything, but this is another place where gov't could help if they had it's citizens in mind and that takes us back full circle to what I was talking about in our food and health care systems. This latest generation is the first in a long time that has shorter life expectancies than their parents. Obesity is skyrocketing and childhood obesity has never been as prolific. While FDA and USDA may have had some significant successes in the past, there is no question they are severely lacking at the moment.

 

[Rich Conway]

The Kansas race is pretty interesting. The independent rich guy was doing so well that the Democrat dropped out of the race in the hopes that the independent could beat the Republican. Now the Republicans are arguing that the Democrats are legally obligated to put a name on the ballot. Good times.

The independent guy hasn't said if he would caucus with the Democrats or Republicans. Historically he's made contributions to both parties.

I think they should put 'None of the above" as their entry.

 

[oso diablo]

The Kansas race is pretty interesting. The independent rich guy was doing so well that the Democrat dropped out of the race in the hopes that the independent could beat the Republican. Now the Republicans are arguing that the Democrats are legally obligated to put a name on the ballot. Good times.

The independent guy hasn't said if he would caucus with the Democrats or Republicans. Historically he's made contributions to both parties.

I think they should put 'None of the above" as their entry.

i've seen wags suggest that they should find some random guy named Pat Roberts (for those not following along, that's the name of the GOP incumbent).

 

[joffer]

I read where the NRA is targeting Pryor (D) in Arkansas even though he voted against the background checks proposal. that makes sense.

 

[timschochet]

So let's recap:

In order to win the Senate, the Republicans need 6 more seats. They've got 3 pretty well locked up:

1. Montana- Steve Daines is up by 19 points.

2. West Virginia- Shelley Moore Capito is up by 19 points.

3. South Dakota- Mike Rounds is up by 13 points.

That's leaves 3 seats. Here are the contests:

1. Louisiana- Republican Bill Cassidy leads Democrat Mary Landrieu by 5 points. (Louisiana has 2 other candidates, and requires that one person gets 50%, otherwise there will be a runoff in December.)

2. Arkansas- Republican Tom Cotton leads Democrat Mark Pryor by 2.5 points.

3. Iowa- Republican Joni Ernst and Democrat Bruce Braley are tied.

4. Alaska- Republican Dan Sullivan leads Democrat Mark Begich by 2 points.

5. North Carolina- Republican Thom Tillis and Democrat Kay Hagen are tied.

And finally in Kansas, Republican Pat Roberts is losing to Independent Greg Orman by 6 points. If Orman wins, and then chooses to caucus with Democrats, that would increase the number of seats the Republican need- they would have to win 4 out of the 5 listed directly above, instead of 3 out of 5. Fox News also seems to believe that Republicans in Kentucky (Mitch McConnell) and in Georgia could be in trouble, but I think that's highly unlikely.

Lots of moving parts here. Still, 2006 was just as close and it turned out to be a "wave" election for Democrats. This one may turn out to be the same for Republicans.

 

[Rich Conway]

The Louisiana run-off seems pretty likely. Can you imagine the money that will be spent on that election if we end up at 50 GOP and 49 Democrat for the other 99 seats?

 

[joffer]

Cotton vs. Pryor.....that's depressing

 

[Gopher State]

So let's recap:

In order to win the Senate, the Republicans need 6 more seats. They've got 3 pretty well locked up:

1. Montana- Steve Daines is up by 19 points.

2. West Virginia- Shelley Moore Capito is up by 19 points.

3. South Dakota- Mike Rounds is up by 13 points.

That's leaves 3 seats. Here are the contests:

1. Louisiana- Republican Bill Cassidy leads Democrat Mary Landrieu by 5 points. (Louisiana has 2 other candidates, and requires that one person gets 50%, otherwise there will be a runoff in December.)

2. Arkansas- Republican Tom Cotton leads Democrat Mark Pryor by 2.5 points.

3. Iowa- Republican Joni Ernst and Democrat Bruce Braley are tied.

4. Alaska- Republican Dan Sullivan leads Democrat Mark Begich by 2 points.

5. North Carolina- Republican Thom Tillis and Democrat Kay Hagen are tied.

And finally in Kansas, Republican Pat Roberts is losing to Independent Greg Orman by 6 points. If Orman wins, and then chooses to caucus with Democrats, that would increase the number of seats the Republican need- they would have to win 4 out of the 5 listed directly above, instead of 3 out of 5. Fox News also seems to believe that Republicans in Kentucky (Mitch McConnell) and in Georgia could be in trouble, but I think that's highly unlikely.

Lots of moving parts here. Still, 2006 was just as close and it turned out to be a "wave" election for Democrats. This one may turn out to be the same for Republicans.

good posting, looking very RED