The Power of SCOTUS V: The Final Frontier

[Rover]

Re: The Power of SCOTUS V: The Final Frontier

Then I dunno what to say. Either you or Thomas Frank is right.

Duh, I'm right obviously. Frank is probably one of those pundits who's constantly ripping off my analysis out here.

 

[FreshFish]

Re: The Power of SCOTUS V: The Final Frontier

(2) People typically vote culture, not pocketbook. This is suggested when wealthy and upper middle class people vote (D) and painfully obvious when lower middle class and poor people vote (R). If voting was typically pocketbook each would be rare.

There is an alternate explanation for your # 2 in which people actually ARE voting for their wallets and purses. There is so much crony capitalism these days that there are a LOT of 'wealthy' people who derive their living from government, either directly or indirectly:
-- university professors (who is the largest payor of college tuition in the US? why, the federal government! and who supports more aid to college students? why, the Democrat party!)
-- government employees (lots of them make over $100,000 annually)
-- people in the financial services industry (who is the largest issuer of government bonds in the world? who brings them to market and trades them? and who benefits from lots of liquidity sloshing around in the financial system?)
-- entertainers
-- tax attorneys and CPAs (who get very well paid for interpreting complicated tax laws, a specialty of the Democrats in particular).
-- trial attorneys (who make lots of money from D-supported 'causes' and not only to most of them vote D, quite a few of them are actual D candidates! 'Tort reform' is NOT a big D priority, eh?)

So there are plenty of reasons for the wealthy to vote D, since so many of them benefit from the D administration (hint: which class has seen their income and net worth grow the most over the past six years?)


Regarding lower middle class and poor people voting R, that's also obviously because they are indeed voting with their wallets and purses: do you think they want to stay that way forever? if they want upward mobility, which party is more likely to offer it to them? (hint: it's NOT the D!)

So your glib facile thesis isn't quite so "obvious" after all.

 

[ScoobyDoo]

Re: The Power of SCOTUS V: The Final Frontier

FF,

If you honestly think either party is involved in the upward mobility of the average constituent then I want to know what drugs you're on cause I could use some.

Scooby

 

[FreshFish]

Re: The Power of SCOTUS V: The Final Frontier

FF,

If you honestly think either party is involved in the upward mobility of the average constituent then I want to know what drugs you're on cause I could use some.

Scooby

Well, I'm pretty sure it is NOT the party that says, "be quiet, collect your check, don't ask for anything more, and remember to vote for us: that's our quid pro quo, we give you subsistence living, you keep us in office."

I merely said which party offers a greater opportunity of advancement: the one that cut taxes for the poor and middle class (if you care about factual accuracy, most of the "Bush tax cuts" actually went to lower- and middle income americans), one that says "there is too much government interference in your life holding you back", the one that says "economic growth is the highest priority"? Whether they actually care about it or not is one thing, whether that kind of platform would have an appeal to an ambitious poor person is another thing.


Some people (ahem) seem to think that there is a direct link between intelligence and income level. There are different kinds of intelligence: lots of "smart" people do really dumb things, and quite a few "average" people are pretty shrewd. Most people I know realize when they are being talked down to, and don't like it, even if they are "poor".

 

[Jimjamesak]

Well, I'm pretty sure it is NOT the party that says, "be quiet, collect your check, don't ask for anything more, and remember to vote for us: that's our quid pro quo, we give you subsistence living, you keep us in office."

I merely said which party offers a greater opportunity of advancement: the one that cut taxes for the poor and middle class (if you care about factual accuracy, most of the "Bush tax cuts" actually went to lower- and middle income americans), one that says "there is too much government interference in your life holding you back", the one that says "economic growth is the highest priority"? Whether they actually care about it or not is one thing, whether that kind of platform would have an appeal to an ambitious poor person is another thing.


Some people (ahem) seem to think that there is a direct link between intelligence and income level. There are different kinds of intelligence: lots of "smart" people do really dumb things, and quite a few "average" people are pretty shrewd. Most people I know realize when they are being talked down to, and don't like it, even if they are "poor".

So, they're improving their upward mobility by limiting the ability for unions to collectively bargain better wages, keeping their job opportunities limited to low wage, dead end jobs, slashing education budgets to deny them education, and depriving them of healthcare benefits and retirement benefits? Yup, really helping that upward mobility.

 

[burd]

Re: The Power of SCOTUS V: The Final Frontier

Over the years I've been following this board, the only poster I've ever seen change his politics as a result of these discussions was Old Pio, who recently said he would support Hillary if she runs.


Whether that has anything to do with Happy Acres adjusting his meds is an other question, but he's really been giving it to the boys of the Swollen Prostate Club.

 

[joecct]

Re: The Power of SCOTUS V: The Final Frontier

Over the years I've been following this board, the only poster I've ever seen change his politics as a result of these discussions was Old Pio, who recently said he would support Hillary if she runs.


Whether that has anything to do with Happy Acres adjusting his meds is an other question, but he's really been giving it to the boys of the Swollen Prostate Club.

Kepler and I are on opposite sides of many things (including two college teams residing in NYS), yet both of us have an extreme dislike of Mrs. Clinton.

However, if there was a Republican Congress and Slick was really running things with the Mrs. out there just for show, then maybe (and it's a weak maybe).

 

[unofan]

Re: The Power of SCOTUS V: The Final Frontier

if they want upward mobility, which party is more likely to offer it to them? (hint: it's NOT the D!)

(citation needed)

 

[Kepler]

Re: The Power of SCOTUS V: The Final Frontier

(citation needed)

His Cato Word Of The Day calendar read "facile." Don't ask him to provide documentation -- all the data shows the exact opposite. But remember the first precept of the right is you don't pay any attention to empirical data because your theory "must be" correct.

Liberal policies grow the median income; conservative policies grow the mean income because the top 1% shoot up while everyone else is stagnant. That's how since the Reagan revolution of 1980 American inflation-adjusted middle class income is flat, despite a period of unparalleled increase in worker productivity and corporate profits.

But in the GOP zeitgeist, you just repeat a mythic, nice-sounding epigram without reference to any data until it becomes a thought-terminating cliche. Truth is, at best, optional. If the data contradict your talking point then it's the data's fault.

This seems to be a new (?) and very commonplace method of conservative history-telling. Come up with some historical event, claim that the truth is completely different because you are a history-minded genius uncovering truths that all the real historians have never been able to suss out, sell a book saying so, repeat. The Founding Fathers were all Roman Catholic priests, why not; the Civil War was not about slavery, but about northern attempts to stifle southern business entrepreneurship; the Nazis were far-left communists because c'mon, fellow conservatives, doesn't it feel so good to say so? And look how hard we worked on the cover art!

 

[ScoobyDoo]

Re: The Power of SCOTUS V: The Final Frontier

Well, I'm pretty sure it is NOT the party that says, "be quiet, collect your check, don't ask for anything more, and remember to vote for us: that's our quid pro quo, we give you subsistence living, you keep us in office."

I merely said which party offers a greater opportunity of advancement: the one that cut taxes for the poor and middle class (if you care about factual accuracy, most of the "Bush tax cuts" actually went to lower- and middle income americans), one that says "there is too much government interference in your life holding you back", the one that says "economic growth is the highest priority"? Whether they actually care about it or not is one thing, whether that kind of platform would have an appeal to an ambitious poor person is another thing.


Some people (ahem) seem to think that there is a direct link between intelligence and income level. There are different kinds of intelligence: lots of "smart" people do really dumb things, and quite a few "average" people are pretty shrewd. Most people I know realize when they are being talked down to, and don't like it, even if they are "poor".

You should really look at what Kansas has done. You really should. Maybe it will knock some brain cells hard enough to kick in.

 

[Kepler]

Re: The Power of SCOTUS V: The Final Frontier

You should really look at what Kansas has done. You really should. Maybe it will knock some brain cells hard enough to kick in.

It won't matter. The data doesn't matter to him, only the ideology. Republican policies are simply designed to preserve and increase the concentration of wealth at the top. They promote feudalism. The rhetorical devices they deploy are empty statements, but they sound "tough" so they attract boys who are insecure about their toughness and they sound "subtle" so they attract men who are insecure about their cleverness.

Harry Truman had their number 50 years ago. "If you want to live like a Republican, you have to vote for the Democrat."

 

[Rover]

Re: The Power of SCOTUS V: The Final Frontier

I always wondered: do you become a Republican and then start spouting off nonsensical economic policies from 1980 that have long since been disproven, or are you a believer in these failed policies to begin with, and then find a home with likeminded individuals in the GOP? Perhaps somebody on the right can enlighten us.

 

[joecct]

Re: The Power of SCOTUS V: The Final Frontier

Ethics and morality have fled the Public Square. If it had not, we would not have CEO's making a bazillion times the average wage of their employees. Nor would we believe that it's OK to lie, cheat and steal.

We've always had excessive consumption in our society (just follow the train tracks from NYC to Albany). Yet now there seems to be a lack of duty to society as part of that wealth.

 

[Kepler]

Re: The Power of SCOTUS V: The Final Frontier

Ethics and morality have fled the Public Square. If it had not, we would not have CEO's making a bazillion times the average wage of their employees. Nor would we believe that it's OK to lie, cheat and steal.

That's why regulation happened in the first place. Without an external check on business, it has always degenerated into a racket.

"People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices." -- Adam Smith

 

[ScoobyDoo]

Re: The Power of SCOTUS V: The Final Frontier

That's why regulation happened in the first place. Without an external check on business, it has always degenerated into a racket.

And that's why the Republicans favor deregulation so much. They really are on the right side of history ALL the time. It's amazing.

 

[SJHovey]

Re: The Power of SCOTUS V: The Final Frontier

Harry Truman had their number 50 years ago. "If you want to live like a Republican, you have to vote for the Democrat."

Of course, Truman also said:

"The fundamental basis of this nation's laws was given to Moses on the Mount. The fundamental basis of our Bill of Rights comes from the teachings we get from Exodus and St. Matthew, from Isaiah and St. Paul. I don't think we emphasize that enough these days." http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=13707

 

[Kepler]

Re: The Power of SCOTUS V: The Final Frontier

Of course, Truman also said:

"The fundamental basis of this nation's laws was given to Moses on the Mount. The fundamental basis of our Bill of Rights comes from the teachings we get from Exodus and St. Matthew, from Isaiah and St. Paul. I don't think we emphasize that enough these days." http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=13707

The Sermon on the Mount is excellent folk wisdom. Take inspiration from wherever you can find it.

 

[Slap Shot]

Ethics and morality have fled the Public Square. If it had not, we would not have CEO's making a bazillion times the average wage of their employees. Nor would we believe that it's OK to lie, cheat and steal.

We've always had excessive consumption in our society (just follow the train tracks from NYC to Albany). Yet now there seems to be a lack of duty to society as part of that wealth.

Yet you continue to promote an unwavering GOP agenda here despite your observations.

 

[FreshFish]

Re: The Power of SCOTUS V: The Final Frontier

A court ruling in California that could have enormous implications nationwide, if it stands:

Out in California, a bankruptcy judge has just dropped a public-pension bombshell.

The prevailing orthodoxy is that when a municipality goes bankrupt, pension obligations get paid first.

But US bankruptcy Judge Christopher Klein this week ruled that federal law trumps state pension protections. In other words, the pension funds have to get in line with everyone else.

The case involved the city of Stockton, which was driven into bankruptcy in large part because of its mounting pension obligations.

Up until now, the prevailing thinking was that municipal bond-holders would be completely hosed, and pensioners would skate. Perhaps not.


If I'm a public sector employee, my first priority would be to make sure current pension obligations are fully funded. Forget about offering the same package to any new hires until after existing promises can be kept. Don't make any new promises until then.

This sets up a huge conflict of interest between members of the unions and the union leaders.

 

[Kepler]

Re: The Power of SCOTUS V: The Final Frontier

This sets up a huge conflict of interest between members of the unions and the union leaders.

I didn't follow that last sentence. Can you explain?