Some election observations (long winded)

?? All looks normal here (running IE8)

John Boehner had an interesting comment:

"The real winners tonight are the American People"

I thought that was particularly insightful. That's the kind of new thinking we need in Washington. I'm kind of surprised we've never heard this before on election night.

You know, I should be fair. I did find this quote from Boehner:

"The people's priorities will be our priorities, and the people's agenda will be our agenda," he said. "We are humbled by the trust that the American people have placed in us. And we recognize that with this trust comes the responsibility to listen, and listen we will."

That's not bad. Very different from the bombastic "Contract on America" we got from Newt. I think he gets what's going on. People voted for Republicans because they weren't Democrats. But it wasn't long ago that they voted for Democrats because they weren't Republicans. This is more a call for course correction than an endorsement of Republicans. It kind of puts him in a tough spot politically. Much easier to be the "party of no" than the party with power that has to offer up some solutions. Easy to bash the President for not creating jobs, but what do you do when your party has people like Rand Paul saying "the government can't create jobs". Okay, then how will you answer the poeple clammoring for you to do something about unemployment? Will be an interesting couple of years.

Tim Baxter wrote: Try living in Kansas City. I get to pay Missouri income tax, plus the ridiculous Earned Income Tax (an extra tax I have to pay for the privilege of having my paycheck originate in Missouri above and beyond normal state taxes), and then I get hammered by Kansas. It's crap, every year.

Move across the river.

In reply to wcelliot:

It was a joke. I support neither ammoral leftists nor tea partiers. Distilled a bit, I suspect that your average Democrat politician wants to control your wallet and your average Republican politician wants to control the rest of your life. They both just want power. They are two sides of the same coin.

Ok.. Election is over. Thank God no more Linda McMahon ads on the airwaves.

Now, can we do something about campaign finance reform and these stupid groups that keep spending money on the elections. I will reach across the aisle and fully support Hess' law. Great Idea Hess. If you can't vote, you can't contribute money(no corps). If you can't vote in an area you can't donate to that politician.

ignorant wrote: Ok.. Election is over. Thank God no more Linda McMahon ads on the airwaves. Now, can we do something about campaign finance reform and these stupid groups that keep spending money on the elections. I will reach across the aisle and fully support Hess' law. Great Idea Hess. If you can't vote, you can't contribute money(no corps). If you can't vote in an area you can't donate to that politician.

I'm all about campaign finance reform. Why is it that democrats don't seem to embrace the idea? The only politician to ever make any noise about the issue has been John McCain.

So John McCain reperesents all of the GOP? I think it's a DNC/GOP problem.

wcelliot wrote: Despite her platform being libertarian (with no suggestion of anyone infringing on liberties) you find the fact that she is religious and has personal opinions about morality... means that she is anti-liberty.

Because...she is. The problem most freedom loving people have with the mixing of religion and politics is how quickly it becomes a method to force religion on the populace via public office.

Example: Bush II didn't like sex before marriage because of his religious beliefs. We then had 8 years of abstinence only sex ed. That was his administrations way of forcing religion on people. Baring any argument about the effectiveness of this approach to stemming teen pregnancy or STD's.

Religious law, by definition, takes away your choices. Less choices to be made by an individual = less liberty.

wcelliot wrote: While at the same time, a Dem who is completely ammoral personally and is anti-religion is considered pro-liberty, even as they take actual action using the force of Government to infringe basic rights (seize property, outlaw firearms, regulate speech, etc).

Got any links to back up your opinions?

I'd say it's perfectly reasonable to say someone is pro-liberty when they aren't legislating to take away your choices as an individual. Gay? No problem! (Gay rights debate) Need an abortion? Ok, your choice! (Right to abortion debate) Don't want to pray to anything? Right on! No need unless you want to. (Prayer in schools debate) All the issues just listed are issues right wing politics would like to legislate against. I'd say that's anti-liberty.

I do agree in that Democrats have some substantial distance to go on this. The TSA should be abolished. Security theater does not make us safer as we travel. It just makes us knuckle under to more and more governmental intrusion. We should strenghten, not weaken, our laws against unlawful search and seizure. We also shouldn't allow domestic spying. Law enforcement should be less militarized and citizen oversight committee's should be in place for every police dept. Oversight committees with teeth like subpoena power and the ability to take corrupt cops to criminal court. These are all things both parties are falling down on.

wcelliot wrote: The public (and you apparently) seem to think that if a person finds some action "wrong" they automatically think it should be illegal. Ironically, that's much more true of the left vice the right (excepting the big Government right who have much in common with the big government left).

I see this happening on either side of politics. Already stated above.

wcelliot wrote: The Dems have shed the last vestiges of even pretending to be "liberal"... they are completely and thoroughly leftist now with a vast majority no longer thinking that capitalism is the superior economic system.

Capitalism is still being debated as "the best thing EVAR". It remains to be determined. What is proven is that it doesn't work for all social constructs. Maybe you didn't mean to make such a broad statement? The norse countries aren't capitalists and have, in some ways, a higher standard of living than we do.

They have demonstrably better healthcare than we do. They live longer. They are happier. They're educational system is more efficient at creating educated citizens.

I'm using Sweden as a yard stick in that comparison. Hold on. I can hear it now. "But Xceler8! Isn't Sweden a capitalist country?" Sure, but not by any right wing standard. It has taxation rates around 50%. It has socialized medicine and education. Not just until the 12th grade either...but into college. 80% of it's workforce is unionized. They also enjoy quite a bit of vacation and sick time off from work. On average they get 24 days off for sickness.

oldsaw wrote: The "Tea Party" is a movement that (I, personally) hope has great and positive impact on politicians by forcing them to understand they answer to the people and the Constitution - nothing else.

I was really hoping for a viable third party. What I'm seeing is the second string guys on the Republican side given another chance.

I think it's vitally important that government and religion not mix. Therefore social conservatives, of any stripe, I instantly reject. I'm not a social conservative and don't need someone in office who will not legislate as I want them to. Those are the candidates I see in the Tea Party. Except for Rand Paul.

Therefore I can't see the Tea Party as anything but a right wing spear carrier. O'Donnell was a kook. Miller hired thugs before he even won a race and sic'ed them on a reporter trying to ask him questions. I'm sure he respects a citizens' right to free speech and protection from illegal search and seizure. (sarcasm) Palin is so ignorant it's scary. If that's what the Tea Party has to offer....no thanks.

I also agree with Keith about the immigration debate in the beginning of this thread. Make legal immigration a more efficient process and you'll see illegal immigration drop to nil. Also, go after the people wealthy enough to hire illegal immigrants to under pay. Go after them HARD. Once the jobs dry up for illegals you'll see illegal immigration drop even further.

fast_eddie_72 wrote: You know, I should be fair. I did find this quote from Boehner: "The people's priorities will be our priorities, and the people's agenda will be our agenda," he said. "We are humbled by the trust that the American people have placed in us. And we recognize that with this trust comes the responsibility to listen, and listen we will." That's not bad. Very different from the bombastic "Contract on America" we got from Newt. I think he gets what's going on. People voted for Republicans because they weren't Democrats. But it wasn't long ago that they voted for Democrats because they weren't Republicans. This is more a call for course correction than an endorsement of Republicans. It kind of puts him in a tough spot politically. Much easier to be the "party of no" than the party with power that has to offer up some solutions. Easy to bash the President for not creating jobs, but what do you do when your party has people like Rand Paul saying "the government can't create jobs". Okay, then how will *you* answer the poeple clammoring for you to do something about unemployment? Will be an interesting couple of years.

All good points.

1988RedT2 wrote: I'm all about campaign finance reform. Why is it that democrats don't seem to embrace the idea? The only politician to ever make any noise about the issue has been John McCain.

Not many Republicans complaining about it either.

You hear that deafening shout? Exactly. I don't either.

1988RedT2 wrote:

ignorant wrote: Ok.. Election is over. Thank God no more Linda McMahon ads on the airwaves. Now, can we do something about campaign finance reform and these stupid groups that keep spending money on the elections. I will reach across the aisle and fully support Hess' law. Great Idea Hess. If you can't vote, you can't contribute money(no corps). If you can't vote in an area you can't donate to that politician.

I'm all about campaign finance reform. Why is it that democrats don't seem to embrace the idea? The only politician to ever make any noise about the issue has been John McCain.

Yeah, cept the law was frought with loopholes. Loophole #1 started with the NRA. They were exempt from any sort of reporting of who their donors were or where the money was going. Once you developed that loophole, everyone else wanted one and the wheels fell off the wagon.

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/2010/0618/Did-Democrats-deal-with-the-NRA-kill-campaign-finance-reform

http://www.csmonitor.com/Commentary/the-monitors-view/2010/0618/Congress-can-t-play-favorites-with-the-NRA-in-campaign-reform

I like guns, I dislike the NRA.

Interesting commentary... always good to see how the other side thinks... and especially how they value individual liberty versus collective liberty and how they measure US freedoms against a society like Sweden.

I had a political science professor from the USSR once explain to me (in the same basic terms) how citizens in the USSR had far more freedoms than those in the US.

I trust you do realize why a closed society like Sweden does seem to compare so well against an open society like the US? It wasn't that long ago that the US looked lovingly at the facsict economic systems in Italy and German for the same reasons....

Oh, and what can the Government do to "create jobs"? It can get out of the way... that's what Paul meant.

Government can't directly create jobs. Government doesn't make profit,is seizes taxes as revenue, and any leftover money they dont call profit, they call a surplus. So government can only directly take jobs out of the private sector by taking the tax revenues out of the economy and putting them into the government.

also xcelerate; none of those figures are anything but johnny-come-latelys, particularly Palin (who is really just building a war-chest for her 2012 run). Political opportunists aren't the reality of the tea party movement. But they can be currently the tools of the movement. And if a tool doesn't do its job, u put it back in the toolbox and get another tool...

madmallard wrote: Government can't directly create jobs.

speaking of Palin..

When does that gold digging celeb-itician go away? Miller lost. her relevance is gone.

ignorant wrote: Yeah, cept the law was frought with loopholes. Loophole #1 started with the NRA.

That just makes me sick. A good idea and someone had to let their buddy in the back door. The fuc....

wcelliot wrote: Interesting commentary... always good to see how the other side thinks... and especially how they value individual liberty versus collective liberty and how they measure US freedoms against a society like Sweden.

Am I really "the other side" because I don't agree with you?

Also, care to explain your views in the current discussion of individual liberty vs. collective liberty? You're like a prom date. You're alluding to something but not quite delivering.

wcelliot wrote: I had a political science professor from the USSR once explain to me (in the same basic terms) how citizens in the USSR had far more freedoms than those in the US.

In Soviet Russia freedoms oppress you!

wcelliot wrote: I trust you do realize why a closed society like Sweden does seem to compare so well against an open society like the US? It wasn't that long ago that the US looked lovingly at the facsict economic systems in Italy and German for the same reasons....

Because Sweden is known to be such an oppressive society

Care to explain how Sweden is a "closed" society vs. the US's "open" society? I'm not saying you don't have a case but I'd like to learn and I'm asking you to teach me. Also, post some links with verifiable data backing your claims and position(s). That will go a long way to adding to the legitimacy of what you're saying. Without data to back you up you're just talking about how you "feel" about a subject. "Feelings" are so nebulous and....lefty liberal. You don't want to be a lefty liberal do ya?

madmallard wrote: none of those figures are anything but johnny-come-latelys, particularly Palin (who is really just building a war-chest for her 2012 run). Political opportunists aren't the reality of the tea party movement. But they can be currently the tools of the movement. And if a tool doesn't do its job, u put it back in the toolbox and get another tool...

Dood. I'd love to see someone bring out the sharp tools from the shed. I'd love a third or a fourth option. Like I said in another thread, we keep going to where the grass is greener by changing controlling party in each election. It's really not getting us anywhere. I'd love to see the Tea Party come out with some guy who says "I don't care what you do in your own house. Be gay, polygamist, or shoe marrying. Now, we're fixing the budget. We're also rolling back all the personal freedoms lost since 9/11 to the great boogeyman aka terrorism."

In reply to ignorant:

I don't get the point of posting those images, all of those things are paid for by money collected/seized as taxes from individual wealth.

The government isn't creating jobs by doing this, its taking money out of the economy and moving it into the government. Thats just moving a job out of the private sector, not creating a new job.

madmallard wrote: In reply to ignorant: I don't get the point of posting those images, all of those things are paid for by money collected/seized as taxes from individual wealth. The government isn't creating jobs by doing this, its taking money out of the economy and moving it into the government. Thats just moving a job out of the private sector, not creating a new job.

1. why are taxes bad? You talk about seizing money, which indicates you have demonized taxes. I like roads, bridges, policemen, firemen.. etc. You are paying for services with your tax money.

2. So these jobs weren't created? So that person who didn't have a job and then works for the CCC isn't really working? How can you prove that if that money stayed in the private sector it would have been used to create a job. Please prove me wrong.

wcelliot wrote: I had a political science professor from the USSR once explain to me (in the same basic terms) how citizens in the USSR had far more freedoms than those in the US.

And you actually belive that? Sure, maybe a citizen of USSR could dump all the diesel he wants into the water stream, but how would that be better?

Can a soviet start a small business? Nope. Can a soviet speak ill will of their govenment? Nope... Can a soviet freely practice religion? Nope. Hold guns? no vote with any real impact? no...

I could go on....

Oh, and what can the Government do to "create jobs"? It can get out of the way... that's what Paul meant.

So, had NASA not participated in the Space Race, do you think we would have satillite TV, and ALL of the expansion of entertainment (read sports) that has followed?

Had the DOD not developed the interent- well- there's a whole other business.

Had the Atomic Energy Commission not supported the research and development, the ENTIRE WORLD would be without nuclear power.

Threre have been tons of offshoots of technology that STARTED with funding from our Govenment.

OTOH, if you are happy paying a toll everytime you drive to work.... There's a lot of infrustructure that we are better off sharing.

Then again, if you REALLY belive that soviets had more freedoms than we do, well, there's not much point in trying to convice you otherwise. Since the USA is obviously so inferior... wait, we won the cold war, didn't we? Darn, there goes that argument.

Eric

In reply to ignorant:

1: You've drawn a fallacious pre-supposition on your own. I never said taxes are bad. (i'm still trying to decide if that was a plurium or a straw man statement)

And yes, taxes are collected, confiscated, seized and otherwise taken hold of by force of law. These are all correct definitions representing the act of taxation at the application side, and if you feel invoking any of these words as a description represents demonization of taxation as a whole, then you probably have a pre-disposition to sensitivity about the idea of taxation, or have an unknown pre-disposition to the person (in this case me) who used these terms.

If I were demonizing taxes, I would have invoked some type of moral imagery at the same time. Ex: " All of those taxes are 'wrongly' 'stolen' from individual wealth."

2: I already made my point on facts in an attempt to persuade you, which I failed to do because your perspective doesn't seem to be congruous with ideas on how individual wealth in a free economy works and moves thru a cycle. To go any further would require a ridiculous volume of explanation for a car forum to analyse why this isn't a "new" job.

madmallard wrote: 2: I already made my point on facts in an attempt to persuade you, which I failed to do because your perspective doesn't seem to be congruous with ideas on how individual wealth in a free economy works and moves thru a cycle. To go any further would require a ridiculous volume of explanation for a car forum to analyse why this isn't a "new" job.

Sorry, didn't recognize any "facts" above. No references, just some vague "law of conservation of private wealth" notions that you are trying to string along.

Never said anything about new.. You said government cannot create jobs. This is incorrect. The government can easily create jobs by hiring someone for a position that has never been in existence before. Simple as that.

Please be more careful with your language.

ignorant wrote:

madmallard wrote: 2: I already made my point on facts in an attempt to persuade you, which I failed to do because your perspective doesn't seem to be congruous with ideas on how individual wealth in a free economy works and moves thru a cycle. To go any further would require a ridiculous volume of explanation for a car forum to analyse why this isn't a "new" job.

Never said anything about new.. You said government cannot create jobs. This is incorrect. The government can easily create jobs by hiring someone for a position that has never been in existence before. Simple as that. Please be more careful with your language.

Orrrrrrr-you could just argue the point instead of trying to win arguments by picking on grammar errors.

Every expansion of government reduces individual liberty. Every new tax, every new regulation, every new Government expenditure reduces individual liberties, property, etc.

Some of those reductions are reasonable and appropriate. Others are not. But reasonable or not, the loss of individual liberties, freedoms, etc is still accurate.

Our Founding Fathers very strictly limited the power of the Federal Government to a very few, clearly defined functions. They saw how the welfare state worked (Geogre Washington was extremely critical of the English system) and wanted none of it. The idea of "social justice" isn't missing from the Constitution by accident; it was by design. That was not seen as a valid role for the federal Government.

They wanted the most intrusive aspects of Government closest to the individual... because the closer the intrusive power is, the more accountable it is to the individual.

Establishing a speed limit takes away individual freedoms but will save some lives from traffic accidents. Making the speed limit 55mph takes away even more freedoms but will save more lives. Making the speed limit 35mph is extremely intrusive, but will save even more. Not allowing anyone to drive at all is the safest of all, but completely infringes the driver's freedoms.

Our founding fathers (metaphorically) wanted the Federal government setting no speed limits at all ... leaving that to the states. The current Federal government (metsphorically) wants that speed limit around 35mph (about what it is in Europe) to protect us from oursevles...

As to Sweden, they became a very wealthy country due to rampant capitalism from the late 1800's forward... combined with extremely restrictive immigration policies. By the 1960's, they had a per captia income near that of the US. Then they created the welfare state.

In just a few years, Sweden was a tax and regulatory nightmare. Economic growth nearly stopped, they fought massive inflation, their currency was nearly worthless, etc. In the 1980's they liberalized their policies, reducing taxes, doing privatization of numerous Government functions, etc.

But still economic growth has been poor. Opportunity and investment is one of the lowest in the western world. Yes, you can pretty much be assured of a nice steady Government job and a reasonable lifestyle (similar to what the "poor" in the US have). But there is little opportunity to do more.

As to their health, as a culture, the Swedes live an acitve lifestyle, eat healthy, don't tend to smoke, and don't drink that much. They also take more sick leave than just about any other country. This is not a "melting pot" like the US is...

Opportunity is one of the United State's most valuable assets... and why millions of people are willing to leave their homes and come here (often illegally). That opportunity comes at a price... income inequality between producers and non-producers, freedom to make poor lifestyle choices, etc The more you correct those "costs", the more you reduce the opportunity.

But as alluded to before, the poor in this country live a lifestyle that most of the rest of the world would consider pretty darn comfortable. (The vast majority of poverty comes from irresponsible breeding and failure to work (in the homes of children living in "poverty" (which doesn't count all the Govt assistance they get), the average work hours per week is 18. That's not per person, that's per household. )

Many people would gladly trade opportunity for security... but millions of people a year put their lives on the line to come to the US to make the opposite trade.

MrJoshua wrote:

ignorant wrote:

madmallard wrote: 2: I already made my point on facts in an attempt to persuade you, which I failed to do because your perspective doesn't seem to be congruous with ideas on how individual wealth in a free economy works and moves thru a cycle. To go any further would require a ridiculous volume of explanation for a car forum to analyse why this isn't a "new" job.

Never said anything about new.. You said government cannot create jobs. This is incorrect. The government can easily create jobs by hiring someone for a position that has never been in existence before. Simple as that. Please be more careful with your language.

Orrrrrrr-you could just argue the point instead of trying to win arguments by picking on grammar errors.

winning is winning

wcelliot wrote: Every expansion of government reduces individual liberty. Every new tax, every new regulation, every new Government expenditure reduces individual liberties, property, etc.

Wait, I get your point, but i don't think this is true. The second amendment. The Thirteenth amendment. That's just off the top of my head. But many new "expansions of government" were enacted specifically to expand liberty.