2012 Presidential Election - The Day after the Aftermath...

[brookyone]

Re: 2012 Presidential Election - The Day after the Aftermath...

Says someone who has never had to deal with the APA... (Adirondack Park Agency)

Not unlike some of our experiences with health insurance companies...but to allude to that in response to opinion spread like so much fertilizer in clear absence of experience in that realm is merely feeling sorry for oneself.

So then, disdain per experiences of conservatards with government bodies is valuable then as legitimate complaint...while the experiences of others with whom you disagree are merely left leaning loonies whining and feeling sorry for themselves?

If I was having trouble with the APA I'd just man up and carry on. Wasn't that the mantra?

 

[FlagDUDE08]

Re: 2012 Presidential Election - The Day after the Aftermath...

Not unlike some of our experiences with health insurance companies...but to allude to that in response to opinion spread like so much fertilizer in clear absence of experience in that realm is merely feeling sorry for oneself.

So then, disdain per experiences of conservatards with government bodies is valuable then as legitimate complaint...while the experiences of others with whom you disagree are merely left leaning loonies whining and feeling sorry for themselves?

If I was having trouble with the APA I'd just man up and carry on. Wasn't that the mantra?

Health care beliefs are out of unfounded rumours told to you so many times that they became fact in your mind. The APA performing the environmental terrorism that they are performing is out of reality, and is why people don't want to live there any longer, not to mention the lack of opportunity.

 

[brookyone]

Re: 2012 Presidential Election - The Day after the Aftermath...

Health care beliefs are out of unfounded rumours told to you so many times that they became fact in your mind. The APA performing the environmental terrorism that they are performing is out of reality, and is why people don't want to live there any longer, not to mention the lack of opportunity.

More bull manure. Don't presume to tell me what I know about healthcare or how I know it.

 

[FlagDUDE08]

Re: 2012 Presidential Election - The Day after the Aftermath...

More bull manure. Don't presume to tell me what I know about healthcare or how I know it.

Says someone who thinks not providing something at no charge to the consumer means not providing it at all...

 

[Handyman]

Re: 2012 Presidential Election - The Day after the Aftermath...

Did you ever think that political leanings are merely coincidence, and that an area does not do well exclusively because of it?

That requires a level of deep thinking he has never been known for

 

[brookyone]

Re: 2012 Presidential Election - The Day after the Aftermath...

Says someone who thinks not providing something at no charge to the consumer means not providing it at all...

Nice try...not true. I'm forgetting where I championed the providing of anything at no charge.

 

[FreshFish]

Re: 2012 Presidential Election - The Day after the Aftermath...

Haven't seen the words 'I support bloated govt' anywhere. Unlike the misperception, to a point its not about the size of govt...but rather about a govt's effectiveness in using its substanital number of services to support society and business.

Okay, so you object to the connotations associated with the word 'bloated.' Find a different word with same denotation and neutral to positive connotation and we can start over.

It seems that we can make a very strong case that, not only is the federal government "too big" but we also can describe the process by how it gets that way.

Dwight Eisenhower made a brilliant and under-appreciated analysis over 50 years ago when he warned us against the "military-industrial complex" and how military spending gets hijacked by civilians so that not only do the military strategists not get the budget they want and need, they do get burdened with projects they don't want and don't need. That's worth a longer post in its own right; maybe some day in the "Strands in the Tapestry" thread I'll expound on this concept a bit more.

So progressives and conservatives can easily agree that overall the military budget indeed IS <strike>bloated</strike> [insert your word here] compared to what is "best" for us.


We've had a "war on poverty" yet more people are now in poverty than when the war started. We have 47 different federal jobs training programs and unemployment is higher than ever. If you look at results, not only are these programs not working, there is a correlation between how widespread these programs are and how much worse the conditions have become that they were intended to resolve.


more later.

 

[FreshFish]

Re: 2012 Presidential Election - The Day after the Aftermath...

Do you think that the RFK quote is one that says resign yourself to the inevitable? If anything he is saying, why not work to change the world for the better. I think that is the best part of the progressive movement.

Robert Kennedy was an old-fashioned liberal, there are hardly any left these days. I would not at all consider him to be part of "the progressive movement."

Liberals encouraged people to make the world better by voluntarily assisting those in need. Progressives use government-imposed mandates, forcing programs upon people that they think will be helpful, even when the people who are being forced to participate do not agree.

I am sympathetic to progressives' expressed goals; I do not at all like (a) their assumption that they know what is better for people than people know themselves, and (b) their never-ending regulations and mandates. You cannot write rules for every possible situation; it is very much preferable to have a sound set of basic principles and then to apply those principles to new situations as they arise to figure out what to do as you go along.

 

[Priceless]

Re: 2012 Presidential Election - The Day after the Aftermath...

We have 47 different federal jobs training programs and unemployment is higher than ever. If you look at results, not only are these programs not working, there is a correlation between how widespread these programs are and how much worse the conditions have become that they were intended to resolve.

We should note that 47 programs sounds like a lot, but it doesn’t necessarily mean programs can be combined. It might not make sense, for example, to combine the "Disabled Veterans’ Outreach Program" with the "Migrant and Seasonal Farmworkers Program," or the "Native American Employment and Training Program" with the "National Guard Youth Challenge Program."

Finally, the 47 programs are not equal in size or scope. The GAO reported that seven programs accounted for 75 percent of the $18 billion spent on job training, while two programs ("Wagner- Peyser funded Employment Service" and "Workforce Investment Act Adult") served about 77 percent of all participants.

But keep the talking point alive!

 

[Rover]

But keep the talking point alive!

? - I thought the election was over. Did Fishy not get the news yet?

 

[FlagDUDE08]

Re: 2012 Presidential Election - The Day after the Aftermath...

But keep the talking point alive!

Are you under the impression that we even have to have them at all?

 

[5mn_Major]

Re: 2012 Presidential Election - The Day after the Aftermath...

Okay, so you object to the connotations associated with the word 'bloated.' Find a different word with same denotation and neutral to positive connotation and we can start over.

It seems that we can make a very strong case that, not only is the federal government "too big" but we also can describe the process by how it gets that way.

Dwight Eisenhower made a brilliant and under-appreciated analysis over 50 years ago when he warned us against the "military-industrial complex" and how military spending gets hijacked by civilians so that not only do the military strategists not get the budget they want and need, they do get burdened with projects they don't want and don't need. That's worth a longer post in its own right; maybe some day in the "Strands in the Tapestry" thread I'll expound on this concept a bit more.

So progressives and conservatives can easily agree that overall the military budget indeed IS <strike>bloated</strike> [insert your word here] compared to what is "best" for us.


We've had a "war on poverty" yet more people are now in poverty than when the war started. We have 47 different federal jobs training programs and unemployment is higher than ever. If you look at results, not only are these programs not working, there is a correlation between how widespread these programs are and how much worse the conditions have become that they were intended to resolve.


more later.

The point is that you're painting this with way too broad of a brush by inferring that big govt is automatically bad. This is a trap that conservatives fall into frequently.

There are some programs that are important and some that aren't. I would consider myself to be (and frequently am) among the first here to say there are huge opportunities to cut the military. But even so, there are necessary programs even there.

So the point we've been making here about states...is that bigger govt is not bad by definition (as some of the most effective states out there have bigger govts). But rather larger govt that is is run not very effectively is bad...and the feds are somewhere in the middle. But regardless, they do need to balance the books.

 

[5mn_Major]

Re: 2012 Presidential Election - The Day after the Aftermath...

As if the GOP didn't have enough challenges. Norquist is going after those who pledge not to raise taxes and do. This is a common behavior for conservatives...religion, organizations like the KKK, radical Islam. Thankfully, this is almost never an issue for liberals.

"Regardless if you agree with us in principle, if you are not a 100% purist we will reject or even hurt you to make a point to others in our movement who are considering moderation."


Norquist says he'll go after pledge-breakers

CNN's Kevin Liptak

(CNN) - Anti-tax activist Grover Norquist said Monday that his group, Americans for Tax Reform, would work to unseat Republicans who break their pledge to never vote for higher taxes.

His vow came after prominent GOP lawmakers said over the weekend they would consider breaking the Taxpayer Protection Pledge in order to reach a deal with Democrats and President Barack Obama to avoid tumbling over the fiscal cliff – the combination of sweeping spending cuts and tax increases that would go into effect at the end of the year if negotiators can't reach a deal on reducing the federal debt.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.co...says-hell-go-after-pledge-breakers/?hpt=hp_t1

 

[FlagDUDE08]

Re: 2012 Presidential Election - The Day after the Aftermath...

The point is that you're painting this with way too broad of a brush by inferring that big govt is automatically bad. This is a trap that conservatives fall into frequently.

There are some programs that are important and some that aren't. I would consider myself to be (and frequently am) among the first here to say there are huge opportunities to cut the military. But even so, there are necessary programs even there.

So the point we've been making here about states...is that bigger govt is not bad by definition (as some of the most effective states out there have bigger govts). But rather larger govt that is is run not very effectively is bad...and the feds are somewhere in the middle. But regardless, they do need to balance the books.

At least we can agree that over-spending is a bad thing. The issue where many people fall into a trap, though, is that they want to have their cake and eat it, too. Sure, you can talk about cutting stuff, but the second you mention either a pet project or an entitlement you put together to get you re-elected, all hell breaks loose. This is one reason where I actually help Congress doesn't come up with a deal and we go over the fiscal cliff.

 

[FreshFish]

Re: 2012 Presidential Election - The Day after the Aftermath...

The point is that you're painting this with way too broad of a brush by inferring that big govt is automatically bad.

That is not at all what I am saying. What I actually did say is that the federal government we have now is not effective at using its revenues to advance its stated goals.

A big part of the problem is that the federal government we do have now is too big (i.e., it has too much personnel, too many layers of middle management).

I am not saying in general that "big government is automatically bad." I am saying very specific things about our government.

 

[Rover]

As if the GOP didn't have enough challenges. Norquist is going after those who pledge not to raise taxes and do. This is a common behavior for conservatives...religion, organizations like the KKK, radical Islam. Thankfully, this is almost never an issue for liberals.

"Regardless if you agree with us in principle, if you are not a 100% purist we will reject or even hurt you to make a point to others in our movement who are considering moderation."


Norquist says he'll go after pledge-breakers

CNN's Kevin Liptak

(CNN) - Anti-tax activist Grover Norquist said Monday that his group, Americans for Tax Reform, would work to unseat Republicans who break their pledge to never vote for higher taxes.

His vow came after prominent GOP lawmakers said over the weekend they would consider breaking the Taxpayer Protection Pledge in order to reach a deal with Democrats and President Barack Obama to avoid tumbling over the fiscal cliff – the combination of sweeping spending cuts and tax increases that would go into effect at the end of the year if negotiators can't reach a deal on reducing the federal debt.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.co...says-hell-go-after-pledge-breakers/?hpt=hp_t1

I'm curious how this aspect of the story plays out. For example, in WVA the GOP got their top recruit to run in 2014, but the Club for Growth is already blasting her the day after she announced over her votes in the House. One has to wonder who gets primaried if any deal raises taxes (Lindsey Graham was going to get primaried anyway, but Saxby Chambliss and Lamar Alexander could also be looking at a fight.)

 

[FlagDUDE08]

Re: 2012 Presidential Election - The Day after the Aftermath...

That is not at all what I am saying. What I actually did say is that the federal government we have now is not effective at using its revenues to advance its stated goals.

A big part of the problem is that the federal government we do have now is too big (i.e., it has too much personnel, too many layers of middle management).

I am not saying in general that "big government is automatically bad." I am saying very specific things about our government.

You know what happens when you try to champion big government by using city and state examples? You get the PPACA.

You'd think we would have learned from the USSR's mistakes... too large, too insider-ish (yes I made that up), and too much defecting. Instead, we're going down their road.

 

[5mn_Major]

Re: 2012 Presidential Election - The Day after the Aftermath...

That is not at all what I am saying. What I actually did say is that the federal government we have now is not effective at using its revenues to advance its stated goals.

A big part of the problem is that the federal government we do have now is too big (i.e., it has too much personnel, too many layers of middle management).

I am not saying in general that "big government is automatically bad." I am saying very specific things about our government.

Sounds good. Very important distinctions there. This as I am extremely happy with the way a larger than average state govt works in MN.

 

[FreshFish]

Re: 2012 Presidential Election - The Day after the Aftermath...

Sounds good. Very important distinctions there. This as I am extremely happy with the way a larger than average state govt works in MN.

According to US Census data, MN has 66,208 full-time government employees; while CT has 53,305 full-time government employees. that's from 2011.

Now, the population numbers are from 2010: MN, 5,303,925; CT, 3,574,097.

So 1.25% of MN population is a government employee (state or local); while 1.50% of CT population is a government employee (state or local); that means that CT has nearly 20% more government employees as a % of its population than MN does. You may be pleased with MN level of service relative to tax; anyone with a job in CT is not at all pleased with the level of service relative to tax. not only that, but in CT we are woefullly underfunded on our public pension obligations. CT population has been stable for 20 years while the % of people in CT who work for government has steadily increased. Basic math says that the number of people who work in CT private sector must have declined over 20 years.

Blue state nirvana? not quite. they keep raising tax rates to "close" the budget deficit yet somehow the projected revenue never materializes and the deficits persist. Imagine that.

 

[5mn_Major]

Re: 2012 Presidential Election - The Day after the Aftermath...

You may be pleased with MN level of service relative to tax; anyone with a job in CT is not at all pleased with the level of service relative to tax. not only that, but in CT we are woefullly underfunded on our public pension obligations. CT population has been stable for 20 years while the % of people in CT who work for government has steadily increased. Basic math says that the number of people who work in CT private sector must have declined over 20 years.

Its difficult to tell what's the appropriate size of government here. The Northeast has higher state tax...which is likely related to its higher GDP per capita earned. There may be in fact many reasons for that related to ports, additional strains of population or business, etc. We don't know for sure.

In Minnesota's case, we hear constantly how state taxes here are way too high. In fact, it appears that Minnesota has the highest per person state taxes outside of the northeast and california.

So to sum, there may be as you say less competent governing in the northeast. Quality of life measures in the northeast are typically better than you would find anywhere in the south. On the otherhand, there are other cases that I do believe are open and shut cases:

In addition to larger govt, MN has very effective govt.

Many of the smaller state govt states (MS, AL, TN are at the bottom)...are absolutely also ineffective at governing. These states are at or near the bottom of many measures consistently.

http://taxfoundation.org/article/state-and-local-tax-burdens-all-states-one-year-1977-2010