So here is my quandary

[nonlnear]

But the Republic isn't lost...it's been bought and paid for by the corporations...and is firmly in their pockets.

There are a thousand connotations to the word lost. We could split hairs all week about who is reading the figure of speech the right way, but it's a meaningless exercise. Let me just say that whatever I meant by "lost", I didn't mean that hope is lost too. I also didn't mean it was lost accidentally. We probably agree on the mechanism...

You seem to think that by "throwing the baby out with the bath water" you'll make things better...when in reality, the new folks elected are stepping into the same slime pit that corrupted the old folks. You'll never change the system without getting rid of the money...the lobbyists, the campaign contributions, the PAC's, etc.
The business of politics pays far better than being a politician.

What exactly do you think I advocate? Just throwing fresh meat into the arena without changing the rules? I started talking about voting practices because the OP was about choosing representatives. I never took the thread to be about comprehensive political reform. If it were, you would probably find we were saying the same things for the most part.

 

[BoomerD]

There are a thousand connotations to the word lost. We could split hairs all week about who is reading the figure of speech the right way, but it's a meaningless exercise. Let me just say that whatever I meant by "lost", I didn't mean that hope is lost too. I also didn't mean it was lost accidentally. We probably agree on the mechanism...
What exactly do you think I advocate? Just throwing fresh meat into the arena without changing the rules? I started talking about voting practices because the OP was about choosing representatives. I never took the thread to be about comprehensive political reform. If it were, you would probably find we were saying the same things for the most part.

Unfortunately, the system is so firmly entrenched that changing it would be nearly impossible without killing it and starting anew...and we all know that ain't-a-gonna happen. No one really wants to see a revolution of the kind that it would take to change our system. Our legislative branch, our judicial branch, and our executive branch have all been corrupted by the money of politics...and that also applies to our military branches. Too many generals go on the payrolls of the "Military Industrial Complex," too many senators and representatives become lobbyists for their "friends," and help perpetuate the very corrupt system from which they were spawned.

Throwing "new meat" into that system would only continue the carnage...and rape.

 

[werepossum]

I do try my best to look at all candidates and parties before voting, yet here is something I've noticed. I tend to value substantive policy positions over a candidates moral positions (unless they are trying to legislate morals).

In the national elections, I have absolutely no idea what the Democrats are planning to do if they hold onto their majorities. None. They seem to have little, if any, plan for going forward. The only argument I'm hearing from them basically boils down to "don't turn back the clock!"

On the other side I've got blatant hypocrisy. The Republicans have this new proposal that just reads like a bunch of platitudes and empty promises. I do not see them being serious about tackling deficits when they mention wanting to spend $4 trillion on tax cuts while avoiding any type of changes to the major programs driving deficits(military, Medicaire/SS). Repealing health care reform is not going to happen as long as Obama is President, and underfunding it so the executive branch can't enforce the law strikes me as potentially unconstitutional...or at least very snake like.

Right now I find myself in a situation where I'm going to vote on candidates based on what they won't do. Pretty much any who've stated a desire to repeal health care isn't getting my vote, even though I think the reform that was passed does need further work.

In terms of state elections, I've pretty much decided who I will vote for governor. On a more local level, I'm totally lost. Both Democrats and Republicans in NYS Assembly/Senate are more or less incompetent, so I find myself looking for a third party.

Anyway, it's hard to find anything to get excited about right now. I like policy and both parties seem bereft of it.

Carmen, I love and respect you man, but if you believe tax cuts are spending then you should vote a straight American Communist Party ticket. Government does NOT automatically own every dollar produced; government not taking something from me is not spending anymore than a mugger who passes me by has given me a gift. This attitude places us all in the position of chattel, slaves, the product of whose labor belongs not to us but to our owner who graciously deigns to allow us to retain some portion. Certainly it's possible to argue the fiscal and even moral wisdom of tax cuts, but I cannot think of a position more dangerous to freedom and liberty than equating tax cuts with government spending.

 

[soulcougher73]

Just dont vote until someone is worthy of it. That is my new motto.

 

[Carmen813]

Carmen, I love and respect you man, but if you believe tax cuts are spending then you should vote a straight American Communist Party ticket. Government does NOT automatically own every dollar produced; government not taking something from me is not spending anymore than a mugger who passes me by has given me a gift. This attitude places us all in the position of chattel, slaves, the product of whose labor belongs not to us but to our owner who graciously deigns to allow us to retain some portion. Certainly it's possible to argue the fiscal and even moral wisdom of tax cuts, but I cannot think of a position more dangerous to freedom and liberty than equating tax cuts with government spending.

I understand the conservative mantra that calling tax cuts "spending" is the work of the devil. However, my view is that if we aren't offsetting lost revenues by cutting spending, then cutting taxes leads directly to new spending. It creates a position where government is required to borrow money to pay for services, which increases the national debt, which increases the interest on the national debt, which in turn means our required spending each year goes up even further. We create a situation where future taxes will need to be even higher than they would have been if we had simply gotten spending under control.

We are not slaves, we've voted in politicians who promise us large social programs, a truly enormous military, and low taxes. The current budget deficits are a result of our own duplicity.

A part of me actually believes taxes should rise for everyone. It is only once we all start paying the actual cost for the government, instead of using a credit card, that people will realize how desperately federal spending needs to be addressed. Once people feel it in their wallet they will begin to actually pay attention to issues of substance in the politicians they elect, instead of all these stupid side issues that eat up all our campaigns.

Note that I'm not one of those who doesn't think government can do things well, I believe it can, we just need to be more efficient about how our tax dollars are being utilized.

Drebo,
That $70 bill a year in reduced revenue isn't the actual loss in revenues due to the cuts. That is the loss in revenue due to the tax cut for top income earners. The total loss in revenue by making all cuts permanent is $400 billion a year. Right now the difference between Republicans and Democrats on this matter is fairly tiny: The Democrats plan would reduce revenues by around $3.2 trillion over 10 years, the Republican plan by $ 4 trillion over 10 years. Neither party has made substantial policy statements that would offset that lost revenue. We're looking at essentially two sides of the same coin.

Obviously a 100% tax rate wouldn't solve the problem, there is a curve upon which tax revenues begin to decline because taxes stifle economic growth. My personal feeling is that we aren't actually near that line. The current economic problems are not due to high taxes, but rather due to irresponsible business practices.

 

[Carmen813]

Nonlnear,
I don't really support the idea of voting for the party who isn't in power out of habit...or just tossing out who is an incumbent. I actually think government functions better (at least in an ideal world) when we have some experienced people in office, that gives them time to form relationships which allows them to get things done.

That said, too often nowadays the relationships that are being formed are with special interests or lobbyists. Actually, that isn't true. The relationship that is being formed is one with money, because there really isn't anything wrong with lobbying for your beliefs. However campaigns are costing so much money nowadays that it is basically impossible for anyone to seek elected office without becoming corrupted.

 

[Craig234]

I understand the conservative mantra that calling tax cuts "spending" is the work of the devil. However, my view is that if we aren't offsetting lost revenues by cutting spending, then cutting taxes leads directly to new spending. It creates a position where government is required to borrow money to pay for services, which increases the national debt, which increases the interest on the national debt, which in turn means our required spending each year goes up even further. We create a situation where future taxes will need to be even higher than they would have been if we had simply gotten spending under control.

Yes, the right doesn't understand the simple idea explained many times.

From a business's point of view, if they decide to lower prices, they can view that as 'spending' money for those lower prices.

It's not that it's 'their money' - that's an irrational and false play on emotions to use the language that 'they think it's their money not the consumers to say they spend on a price cut'. But from their side that's just what it is. Whether they 'spend' money on paying their workers more, or advertising, or store redesign, or a price cut, it's all the same in terms of their books on income versus spending. A thousand dollars is a thousand dollars whether it's spent, or prices are reduced.

The government similar, from their point of view, understands that for their books, taking in less revenue adds to their deficit just like spending money does.

The attacks adds nothing to the discussion of the issue. It's merely a child-like temper tantrum designed to anger the ignorant.

Your point on interest is well taken. Reportedly about 9% of our budget is already interest - this is obscene and we need to get it under control, taxes and spending cuts.

We need stimulus in the short term, but deficit reduction before long. This is why it's so bad to not have surpluses in the good times, when the Republicans blew the deficit.

 

[werepossum]

I understand the conservative mantra that calling tax cuts "spending" is the work of the devil. However, my view is that if we aren't offsetting lost revenues by cutting spending, then cutting taxes leads directly to new spending. It creates a position where government is required to borrow money to pay for services, which increases the national debt, which increases the interest on the national debt, which in turn means our required spending each year goes up even further. We create a situation where future taxes will need to be even higher than they would have been if we had simply gotten spending under control.

We are not slaves, we've voted in politicians who promise us large social programs, a truly enormous military, and low taxes. The current budget deficits are a result of our own duplicity.

A part of me actually believes taxes should rise for everyone. It is only once we all start paying the actual cost for the government, instead of using a credit card, that people will realize how desperately federal spending needs to be addressed. Once people feel it in their wallet they will begin to actually pay attention to issues of substance in the politicians they elect, instead of all these stupid side issues that eat up all our campaigns.

Note that I'm not one of those who doesn't think government can do things well, I believe it can, we just need to be more efficient about how our tax dollars are being utilized.

Drebo,
That $70 bill a year in reduced revenue isn't the actual loss in revenues due to the cuts. That is the loss in revenue due to the tax cut for top income earners. The total loss in revenue by making all cuts permanent is $400 billion a year. Right now the difference between Republicans and Democrats on this matter is fairly tiny: The Democrats plan would reduce revenues by around $3.2 trillion over 10 years, the Republican plan by $ 4 trillion over 10 years. Neither party has made substantial policy statements that would offset that lost revenue. We're looking at essentially two sides of the same coin.

Obviously a 100% tax rate wouldn't solve the problem, there is a curve upon which tax revenues begin to decline because taxes stifle economic growth. My personal feeling is that we aren't actually near that line. The current economic problems are not due to high taxes, but rather due to irresponsible business practices.

Since we're currently borrowing almost half of every dollar we spend, achieving parity through tax increases would require doubling current tax receipts. Note that doubling tax rates would not accomplish this, as money confiscated by the government is not available to generate additional economic activity (which is then taxed in turn.) I don't know there is any credible way to calculate exactly how much taxes would have to go up to achieve parity, but certainly it's more than double. Your point about tax cuts requiring additional future spending on interest payments is certainly valid though.

Yes, the right doesn't understand the simple idea explained many times.

From a business's point of view, if they decide to lower prices, they can view that as 'spending' money for those lower prices.

It's not that it's 'their money' - that's an irrational and false play on emotions to use the language that 'they think it's their money not the consumers to say they spend on a price cut'. But from their side that's just what it is. Whether they 'spend' money on paying their workers more, or advertising, or store redesign, or a price cut, it's all the same in terms of their books on income versus spending. A thousand dollars is a thousand dollars whether it's spent, or prices are reduced.

The government similar, from their point of view, understands that for their books, taking in less revenue adds to their deficit just like spending money does.

The attacks adds nothing to the discussion of the issue. It's merely a child-like temper tantrum designed to anger the ignorant.

Your point on interest is well taken. Reportedly about 9% of our budget is already interest - this is obscene and we need to get it under control, taxes and spending cuts.

We need stimulus in the short term, but deficit reduction before long. This is why it's so bad to not have surpluses in the good times, when the Republicans blew the deficit.

I assure you that every business which lasts more than a couple seasons is exquisitely aware of the difference between spending and not receiving money. Likewise, no such business considers a 5% increase in a line item as a cut, even if it planned on a 10% increase. And of course every business knows that automatically increasing any particular budget line item beyond the total average growth of income will eventually result in bankruptcy. These sorts of insanity are completely restricted to government.

 

[drebo]

From a business's point of view, if they decide to lower prices, they can view that as 'spending' money for those lower prices.

No, a business does NOT view that as "spending money". At all.

The income and cashflow statements are laid out in a very specific manner which clearly indicates reduced revenue as just that: reduced revenue. It's not spending. It's never considered spending. It never will be considered spending. It never has been considered spending.

A reduction of revenue (for whatever reason) is NOT SPENDING!

In fact, it can only be considered "spending" if you work under the assumption that the money was the government's to begin with. If you consider the amount of money that the workforce gets to be a "gift" from the government, then, yes, "giving" them more of that money would be considered spending. That is, thankfully, not the way it works.

 

[Craig234]

The ignorant ideologues are not going to get it if it's explained repeatedly.

Oh, well.

No, a business does NOT view that as "spending money". At all.

The income and cashflow statements are laid out in a very specific manner which clearly indicates reduced revenue as just that: reduced revenue. It's not spending. It's never considered spending. It never will be considered spending. It never has been considered spending.

A reduction of revenue (for whatever reason) is NOT SPENDING!

In fact, it can only be considered "spending" if you work under the assumption that the money was the government's to begin with. If you consider the amount of money that the workforce gets to be a "gift" from the government, then, yes, "giving" them more of that money would be considered spending. That is, thankfully, not the way it works.

I'll explain it yet again.

There is revenue, and there is expenditure. That's for business, that's for government.

You can either discuss this in terms of the informal language used by some in some situations, including the propaganda; or you can discuss the accounting details.

Pick one, but you mix them for your convenience to make a false point.

If we're talking accounting, business and the government each understand the difference. Each has the books you bring up only for business.

The government's accountants know what a tax reduction is and what spending is. For you to say otherwise is wrong - I won't say lie, idiocy is still an explanation.

The discussion here is about the propaganda and the topic of politicians informally talking about tax cuts as 'spending' or 'expenses'.

And informally, they're exactly right, as I explained, and all this hot air about 'they think every dollar is theirs' is a lie. A lie. Designed to get you to respond with anger.

As I've posted before, a business could easily have the following discussion:

"We have $X for investing in any of a number of options: advertising, store enhancement, price cuts, more staff."

Yes, price cuts are on that list, as an 'expenditure', a 'cost', from the store's view they are. That's not accounting, and politicians are talking similarly.

When you are talking deficit, you can say 'we should build new schools, but how are we going to PAY FOR IT to not borrow' and also 'we should reduce taxes, but how are we going to PAY FOR IT (in terms of not increasing the deficit, by either cutting spending or raising other revenue). This is perfectly reasonable and misrepresented in propaganda as I described.

We're done - you're not going to get it, so it's a waste of time to say it more.

 

[Craig234]

Note that doubling tax rates would not accomplish this, as money confiscated by the government is not available to generate additional economic activity (which is then taxed in turn.)

Of course it does.

The government doesn't burn the tax money. It sends it out, somewhere, with varying degrees of economic stimulus.

The money it sends to poor people is 100% put into the economy, buying consumer goods, paying rent and utilities etc.

The money is spends on, say education, has return as well - as does money investigating crime, testing food safety any any number of other functions.

Not every dollar is about economic activity - some are about other priorities of society. But the tax money overall has a huge return - some dollars well over 100%.

I assure you that every business which lasts more than a couple seasons is exquisitely aware of the difference between spending and not receiving money.

So is government.

Likewise, no such business considers a 5% increase in a line item as a cut, even if it planned on a 10% increase.

Yes, it can. If a business has been increasing its prices to match inflation annually, and a meeting is held saying 'for competitive reasons, we have decided lower prices are a good approach, and for the next five years we will reduce price increases to half the inflation rate', the people can consider that a 'cut' to what they would have received and normally had received, affecting how much they have to spend, requiring possible staff reductions etc. But there are no propagandists screaming about the business.

 

[IndyColtsFan]

Vote for some third party candidate or not at all. It doesn't make you patriotic to not vote in an election when you hate all options.

This is the approach I use.

 

[IndyColtsFan]

The ignorant ideologues are not going to get it if it's explained repeatedly.

Yeah, I know. I wish they'd stop trying to explain it to you, because you're not getting it.

 

[drebo]

And informally, they're exactly right, as I explained, and all this hot air about 'they think every dollar is theirs' is a lie. A lie. Designed to get you to respond with anger.

To say that tax cuts are spending is propaganda of the highest order. You cannot argue otherwise.

Yes, spending and tax cuts both reduce the available funds a government has (which in our particular case would increase the deficit). However, they are NOT the same thing, under any circumstances. To imply that they are is to lie to the public.

 

[MotF Bane]

The ignorant ideologues are not going to get it if it's explained repeatedly.

Speaking of ignorant ideologues, it's Craig!

 

[werepossum]

Of course it does.

The government doesn't burn the tax money. It sends it out, somewhere, with varying degrees of economic stimulus.

The money it sends to poor people is 100% put into the economy, buying consumer goods, paying rent and utilities etc.

The money is spends on, say education, has return as well - as does money investigating crime, testing food safety any any number of other functions.

Not every dollar is about economic activity - some are about other priorities of society. But the tax money overall has a huge return - some dollars well over 100%.



So is government.



Yes, it can. If a business has been increasing its prices to match inflation annually, and a meeting is held saying 'for competitive reasons, we have decided lower prices are a good approach, and for the next five years we will reduce price increases to half the inflation rate', the people can consider that a 'cut' to what they would have received and normally had received, affecting how much they have to spend, requiring possible staff reductions etc. But there are no propagandists screaming about the business.

Granted, to a degree that is true. But a lot of the money taken in taxes is figuratively burned. Government must hire people to decide how much money each person owes. Government must hire people to collect the money. Government must hire people to allocate the money inside the program. Government must hire people to actually disburse the money. Government must hire people to audit how the money is spent, both to make sure it was disbursed correctly and to make sure that the people and corporations receiving it were actually entitled to receive it. All these people are better compensated than are their private sector equivalents too, and all of them require multiple layers of supervision. There's a reason why there are as many workers in the Department of Agriculture as there are full-time farmers, and it's NOT the blinding efficiency of government.

Money isn't abstract; every dollar taken in taxes represents a portion of someone's life, some number of minutes of someone's labor - literally a part of someone's life. That money is taken in trade for their labor, and in return they trade it for the goods and services they want. When government takes in tax money and disburses it in programs, a huge portion of that money (two-thirds is not unusual) is actually spent in overhead, on all the people I mentioned and in the materials things (buildings, computers, automobiles, etc.) that they need to do their jobs. That is the cost to society for government to take that money and spend it on, or increasingly just give it to, someone other than he who earned it. That portion of the GDP that would have been spent on goods and services is instead spent on goods and services that no one wants, but are necessary to administer the program. Even though the money itself doesn't disappear, a big portion of the wealth it represents is wasted in overhead.

If the circulation of money was all that mattered, then North Korea, where the government owns all real property, would be the richest nation on Earth, as North Korea has an ability unmatched in the world to tax and spend. Wealth production is what is important in determining standard of living, and the amount of overhead (government, as well as the private sector's overhead like accounting) directly reduces society's standard of living. Every dollar spent on a government worker is a dollar the private sector can't spend on the goods and services it wants, be it caviar or a new milling station to increase widget production.

 

[Fern]

I do try my best to look at all candidates and parties before voting, yet here is something I've noticed. I tend to value substantive policy positions over a candidates moral positions (unless they are trying to legislate morals).

I suggest you start by composing a list of those issues most important to you. I think you'll then readily see the differences between the two parties and can choose the one most in line with your position(s).

On some issues there are glaring differences. Illegal immigration is one, or heck, just immigration. Both speak of immigration reform. Seems to me one party leans more toward enforcing the laws, a goal of reducing illegal immigration. The other, seems to me to lean more toward an open-type policy with mostly some flavor of amnesty to make the 'illegal' part go away. These are very distinct differences.

On some issues, both espouse (in broad terms) the same goal. E.g., deficit reduction. So, it's more of a matter how they want to reach that goal.

-snip-
Repealing health care reform is not going to happen as long as Obama is President, and underfunding it so the executive branch can't enforce the law strikes me as potentially unconstitutional...or at least very snake like.

I don't know if it will be repealed or not. But "underfunding" something Obama wants in order to prevent has already been done IIRC. This Congress (the one controlled by Dems) has already killed his GITMO closing by refusing to fund the prisoner transfer etc to the USA.

So, make a list; see who is better (or least worst) according to your concerns/positions.

As far as national elections go, I think you should do that even if you're planning to support a 3rd party candidate. If elected, any 3rd party candidate is going to caucus with one of the 2 big parties if they wanna have any input whatsoever. So, they'll pretty much end up as a member of one of those parties anyway.

Fern

 

[xj0hnx]

To say that tax cuts are spending is propaganda of the highest order. You cannot argue otherwise.

Yes, spending and tax cuts both reduce the available funds a government has (which in our particular case would increase the deficit). However, they are NOT the same thing, under any circumstances. To imply that they are is to lie to the public.

All your moneys are belong to government. The left has repeated that tax cuts are spending so many times they think it's true.

 

[woolfe9999]

Carmen, it seems your biggest problem is that you believe that an election is an effective mechanism for influencing policy. Just stop believing that and your life will become a lot simpler. One possible place to go after abandoning the belief in elections as effective is to always vote against the incumbent. This is an especially important voting strategy for anyone who believes that power and seniority in Congress should not automatically go hand in hand. There are other strategies which can make voting seem more effective, like voting blindfolded, voting for the candidate with the plainest signs, or voting for the most viable non-lawyer. Just have fun with it, and don't let anyone tell you that only informed voters who sincerely believe they are voting for the best candidate (as judged by whatever meaningless criteria) should cast a ballot. Voters have power one day per term; lobbyists own all the others. Just sit back and enjoy the show.

Carmen, I had struggled for a few moments with what advice to give you until I read this. Now I'm in clearer focus. Do NOT do anything said here. Study the candidates and vote for the best one.

- wolf

 

[Craig234]

Granted, to a degree that is true.

That's something.

But a lot of the money taken in taxes is figuratively burned.

Now we get into the unnecessary, tedious, unhelpful splitting of hairs about 'burned'.

The point is, the government doesn't burn the money, it uses it for things that have some return on investment - some small, some that generate more than they cost.

You can get into how this worker does this and that, just as you can in the private sector.

Soda companies 'burn' money on advertising to try to beat each other for market share that doesn't improve the taste or cost of the cola one bit.

(Indeed, their whole industry, while counting as 'economic productivity', is arguably a negative on the economy considering it's selling a harmful product diverting money).

There's a reason why there are as many workers in the Department of Agriculture as there are full-time farmers, and it's NOT the blinding efficiency of government.

Actually, the government is 'blindingly efficient' far more than you suggest, contrary to popular myth.

Look at its biggest departments - social security last I heard is administered for less than a 1% overhead by the government - a figure that Bush's own organization estimated would be over five times hire if run by the private sector, other estimates are higher. Medicare/VA are run for a fraction of the cost of private insurance healthcare systems. with higher patient satisfaction rates as I've heard.

On and on - function after function - I see the government being pretty 'efficient' compared to its private counterparts in a lot of ways.

They may not make a better iPod - they're not supposed to.

No, you are just being an ideologue who can rant all day about the topic, but doesn't make it so. You hate government - that's emotional, not rational.

I hate a lot of government too, just about everyone does, and I view it as often a 'necessary evil' - the difference being you see evil more and I see necessary more.

Take for example jails. Definitely evil. They hurt people badly and cost us a fortune. But what's the alternative? I might have some suggestions, but let's keep it simple: crime.

What a waste. If people would just not commit crimes, we wouldn't have to pay so many people to walk up and down halls counting heads. But not doing to is expensive.

I really shouldn't include the things I called ranting against government, but they're such a textbook example of ideological blather, let's use them to show that I mean:

Money isn't abstract; every dollar taken in taxes represents a portion of someone's life, some number of minutes of someone's labor - literally a part of someone's life. That money is taken in trade for their labor, and in return they trade it for the goods and services they want. When government takes in tax money and disburses it in programs, a huge portion of that money (two-thirds is not unusual) is actually spent in overhead, on all the people I mentioned and in the materials things (buildings, computers, automobiles, etc.) that they need to do their jobs. That is the cost to society for government to take that money and spend it on, or increasingly just give it to, someone other than he who earned it. That portion of the GDP that would have been spent on goods and services is instead spent on goods and services that no one wants, but are necessary to administer the program. Even though the money itself doesn't disappear, a big portion of the wealth it represents is wasted in overhead.

The funny thing is, that some of the government spending that is the most 'efficient' at helping the citizens is the most hated by the right.

They seem to have a bottomless appetite for an improved fighter jet or bigger nuclear carrier that produces nothing and takes people out of the more productive areas, apparently in the name of some mythical pursuit of 'power' that will apparently let us limit the choices of others to exploit them more than we can now, but increase education, provide for the elderly, offer medical care, and they're furious.

If the circulation of money was all that mattered, then North Korea, where the government owns all real property, would be the richest nation on Earth, as North Korea has an ability unmatched in the world to tax and spend. Wealth production is what is important in determining standard of living, and the amount of overhead (government, as well as the private sector's overhead like accounting) directly reduces society's standard of living. Every dollar spent on a government worker is a dollar the private sector can't spend on the goods and services it wants, be it caviar or a new milling station to increase widget production.

If the concentration of money - the top result of the right's policies - was all that mattered then countries like the nations of Africa would be the richest nations on Earth.

You are in hate with (similar but opposite, if that makes sense, to love with) government versus private spending, as I noted.

Selling more chia pets is wonderful for you, while the government researching a cure to cancer is a moral crime.

I don't say that as a general comment on the economy - the private sector is the engine of our wealth and provides most good goods and services, relatively efficiently.

I say it to highlight the delusional level of ideology you have on the matter.

You have an ideology. It's flawed, and harmful, but like other flawed and harrmful ideologies (communism, fascism, etc.) there's enough to it to keep you happy.

Unfortunately, it blinds you to the actual issues in the economy, what works and what doesn't.

You have an endless spiel on the horrible faceless government worker counting other government workers, that is a waste of time.

You seem to base your political views on the hate of that faceless government workers, always pushing for 'less government' with no real rational views on issues.

You are not able to pick out a 'less evil', you have a fixation on one evil.

I understand it - the word 'government' is a sort of cooties, and if you are like some others, the very idea of that 'government worker' fills you with rising bile and a red face. The ideological part is why you rush so much to the 'extreme' versions - the 'government owns everything', Stalinist Russia type stuff, instead of rational. It's a bit like the 'new John Birch Society', who felt about communism about like you do about government.

Here's where I'd set you right if I knew how, but I can no more convince you of any of your ideology being bad than I convince Al Queda their ideology is flawed.

I'm not saying it can't be done - I've seen classes where Al Queda recruits are deprogrammed over time - but I haven't seen it in a message board post.

So, all this will go off you like water off a duck's back, water you did not drink after being led to since the segue to that second metaphor is so convenient, and all this really does is help show why you and I are not going to get anywhere discussing the issue. No hard feelings about that.

Save234

 

[nonlnear]

Carmen, I had struggled for a few moments with what advice to give you until I read this. Now I'm in clearer focus. Do NOT do anything said here. Study the candidates and vote for the best one.

- wolf

Wolf, it was mostly tongue in cheek.
Take the "secret decoder ring" bit in one of my later posts and run with it:

And just in case you needed a secret decoder ring to understand the gist of my first post, every voting strategy I suggested except for voting blindfolded actually contains a grain of insight into how to avoid voting for the candidate with the most special interests in their pocket. It wasn't just cynical claptrap.

There was just no point in fessing up when Craig latched on like a pit bull on meth. It was more fun to just roll with it. What was I supposed to do? Pretend to have a sane debate with Craig?!

In reality I do have an anti-incumbent bias, but readily vote for worthwhile incumbent candidates on the rare occasion they present themselves.

 

[woolfe9999]

Wolf, it was mostly tongue in cheek.
Take the "secret decoder ring" bit in one of my later posts and run with it:There was just no point in fessing up when Craig latched on like a pit bull on meth. It was more fun to just roll with it. What was I supposed to do? Pretend to have a sane debate with Craig?!

In reality I do have an anti-incumbent bias, but readily vote for worthwhile incumbent candidates on the rare occasion they present themselves.

Yeah, I know. You were playing the iconoclast again. I'm afraid that not everyone is well versed in your sense of humor, especially when there is generally a grain of intended truth in these posts and people have to separate that grain from the rest of it.

I think that excessive cynicism about politics is actually part of our problem. Which is why I tend not to let it stand.

One of these days, I am just going to start playing the pie-eyed optimistic about American politics and just let people jeer at me as a naive idiot. It's too easy to be cynical these days. It's the path of least resistance.

- wolf

 

[Craig234]

Wolf, it was mostly tongue in cheek.
Take the "secret decoder ring" bit in one of my later posts and run with it:There was just no point in fessing up when Craig latched on like a pit bull on meth. It was more fun to just roll with it. What was I supposed to do? Pretend to have a sane debate with Craig?!

In reality I do have an anti-incumbent bias, but readily vote for worthwhile incumbent candidates on the rare occasion they present themselves.

Wow, that's weak, and a false attack to boot.

You should reall be ashamed.

And it's rare for me to question when someone says they meant something sarcastically, but you qualify.

Whether or not you meant it sarcastically, the following is too serious a case for something wrong to attack someone who rebuts it for that.

Carmen, it seems your biggest problem is that you believe that an election is an effective mechanism for influencing policy. Just stop believing that and your life will become a lot simpler. One possible place to go after abandoning the belief in elections as effective is to always vote against the incumbent. This is an especially important voting strategy for anyone who believes that power and seniority in Congress should not automatically go hand in hand. There are other strategies which can make voting seem more effective, like voting blindfolded, voting for the candidate with the plainest signs, or voting for the most viable non-lawyer. Just have fun with it, and don't let anyone tell you that only informed voters who sincerely believe they are voting for the best candidate (as judged by whatever meaningless criteria) should cast a ballot. Voters have power one day per term; lobbyists own all the others. Just sit back and enjoy the show.

 

[woolfe9999]

Wow, that's weak, and a false attack to boot.

You should reall be ashamed.

And it's rare for me to question when someone says they meant something sarcastically, but you qualify.

Whether or not you meant it sarcastically, the following is too serious a case for something wrong to attack someone who rebuts it for that.

A key to understanding many of his posts, particularly where he pops into a thread with a highly provocative opinion that runs way against the grain, is to understand that he vaguely means what he says, but he is hyperbolizing and you shouldn't take it too literally. Many of his posts are interesting and worth a read but don't get into a twist over any of it.

- wolf

 

[Carmen813]

Honestly, it's very difficult for me to find any information about local races for State Senate and Assembly. I can't even determine what district I'm in, let alone who is on the ballot. Granted I only looked at the elections webpage for about 5 minutes, so I'm sure it's there somewhere.

Fern,
Difference between GITMO and HC Reform is that closing Gitmo was never made law by Congress. The legislative branch underfunding the executive branch to prevent it from enforcing law strikes me as unconstitutional due to a violation of separation of powers. If for some reason it isn't, I think it sets a very poor precedent. Do we really want laws being selectively enforced based on who is in power in Congress?