zibazinski
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 24, 2010 16:12:50 GMT -5
Posts: 47,869
|
Post by zibazinski on Nov 21, 2017 20:51:08 GMT -5
Yup. Maybe other posters ought to learn from your expertise.
|
|
tallguy
Senior Associate
Joined: Apr 2, 2011 19:21:59 GMT -5
Posts: 14,193
|
Post by tallguy on Nov 21, 2017 20:59:45 GMT -5
Nice explanation, tallguy . (Did you study econ in college, too? I did. Remember having to make those "supply & demand" graphs? That was the easy part...) Yeah, I had some Econ in my background. It would be nice. Maybe they would be able to see through the GOP's "voodoo economics" as George Bush Sr. CORRECTLY called it in the 1980 primary and not force us to suffer through that nonsense again.
|
|
zibazinski
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 24, 2010 16:12:50 GMT -5
Posts: 47,869
|
Post by zibazinski on Nov 21, 2017 21:05:10 GMT -5
Yeah okay. Just when I think you can post something without bias. Never happens. Too bad. But of course you can’t stop the party line. Everything lib good everything else bad.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Nov 21, 2017 21:26:04 GMT -5
If that is the case it proves even more that trickle-down doesn't work. How does putting more than half in savings do anything to help the economy? You are actually hurting the economy by taking money out of it. Tax cuts for the wealthy do the same thing on a huge scale. Well, gee wiz. I'm damned if I do and damned if I don't. Of course if nothing fits in with your mantra, it's got to be wrong. if the mantra is time tested economics, with literally overwhelming proof, why on EARTH would you want to argue with it? seriously- what purpose does it serve to believe something that is VERITABLY false? i am genuinely interested.
|
|
busymom
Distinguished Associate
Why is the rum always gone? Oh...that's why.
Joined: Dec 25, 2010 21:09:36 GMT -5
Posts: 28,458
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"https://cdn.nickpic.host/images/IPauJ5.jpg","color":""}
Mini-Profile Name Color: 0D317F
Mini-Profile Text Color: 0D317F
|
Post by busymom on Nov 21, 2017 21:31:30 GMT -5
I LOVED studying all that stuff in college. We also had classes in the psychology of consumer behavior, like, why is it that no one wants to buy the last item on the shelf? And, we looked at how customers behave in groups, compared to someone shopping alone. DD isn't interested in the mechanics of how the economy works, but IS interested in the best ways to stretch the money she makes, so I do my best to explain things to her in a way that doesn't make her eyes glaze over. (Poly sci & music are her "nerd" categories, while I am the family business nerd.)
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 17, 2024 23:50:25 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 21, 2017 21:31:46 GMT -5
The problem isn't "how the parties work" though, that's the disconnect you have from what I said in the last sentence... The problem is the voters that vote for irrelevant/stupid reasons. Until voters wise up, nothing will really change.But... for the record, it IS how the parties work now... at least on the Federal Level, which was the only "level" that I was talking about.If people would clamor for other than "R's and D's", trust me... some other than "R's and D's" would appear. We need a few elections where "None of the Above" wins ("Brewster's Millions"... anyone? Anyone?). Richard, we don't agree and I am beginning to understand this at a level you aren't even close to. Voters can only vote for candidates who run. That's a really important thing to be clear about. All the political parties in the US are organizations that run for their own reasons, visions. Some effectively do little but tilt at windmills in federal and sometimes other elections. The Green Party would be an example of this.
Voters getting smarter helps, but does not fix the problem unless more than a few of these voters start running for office themselves. NJ 101.5 IMO explained beautifully the dilemma of running for certain offices and some thoughts on candidates, parties, and primaries. Parties do put forth candidates for races often at local and state levels so the other party does not win unopposed. But there are costs associated with that. Not just financial, not just pr & image. Political parties do not have infinite resources so sometimes choosing *NOT* to put up a sacrificial lamb as a candidate is the best course of action.
Yes, perhaps something would change if "None of the Above" won, but highly unlikely it would be the change you wanted. I do not find much value in change for change's sake. That kind of attitude is the reason we have Trump.
Wrong. Enough states have a "Write in" option on the ballot that if they were used, the few seats in federal government from states that don't allow it would be outmatched in representation by independents. Only NINE states (out of FIFTY) do not allow "write-in" votes: Nevada, New Mexico, South Dakota, Oklahoma, Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, South Carolina, and Hawaii. ( SOURCE). I don't suggest "change for change's sake" I suggest "change because what we have now doesn't work".
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Nov 21, 2017 21:34:10 GMT -5
Well, gee wiz. I'm damned if I do and damned if I don't. Of course if nothing fits in with your mantra, it's got to be wrong. It is a pretty simple concept. The economy depends on spending. If more money is spent, the economy does better and more jobs are created. If money is saved instead, the amount of spending goes down and the economy is harmed. Poor people have to spend all the money they get, so tax cuts for them make good economic sense. The economy is helped by them spending whatever they get. Middle-class people will save some and spend some. Tax cuts for them are less beneficial but can still help if they spend enough of it. Tax cuts for the wealthy mostly get saved instead of spent. That harms the economy by taking money out of spending. Even worse, the money gets taken from people who would have spent it instead. That is consequently a double hit to the economy. this is precisely it. and this raises the next, obvious, question: if this is true- why do so many people seem to have this upside down? and the answer is "a 35 year PR campaign". it really is that simple. ask any Republican what he thinks on this subject, and he will repeat these tropes as if they were the absolute truth, verifiable and incontrovertible. in fact, it was a very sketchy theory to start with (Laffer himself is a Keynsian. he is not overly committed to even his own nonsense, and he has made a complete ass of himself far more often than he has been right about anything). nothing more or less. it is just like the BS thought that "Al Gore said he invented the internet", and a thousand other falsehoods that have been repeated so often that many people believe them. the answer to why they did it is obvious. it is worth Trillions to them. no exaggeration. if the 1% can convince the 99% to pay their taxes, then they can almost literally build castles in the sky. if you don't think that is the goal, and if you don't think the GOP has become their willing accomplices, then you are not paying attention.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Nov 21, 2017 21:37:55 GMT -5
Yeah okay. Just when I think you can post something without bias. Never happens. Too bad. But of course you can’t stop the party line. Everything lib good everything else bad. you're quite correct in thinking that many Democrats believe this nonsense, too. they are not immune to the constant flogging of these old tropes, either. they just weren't the folks that started them.
|
|
tallguy
Senior Associate
Joined: Apr 2, 2011 19:21:59 GMT -5
Posts: 14,193
|
Post by tallguy on Nov 21, 2017 21:45:05 GMT -5
Yeah okay. Just when I think you can post something without bias. Never happens. Too bad. But of course you can’t stop the party line. Everything lib good everything else bad. Read it again. George Bush Sr., in his 1980 primary battle with Ronald Reagan, correctly called it "voodoo economics." The Republicans historically believed in fiscal responsibility prior to that. That ended with Reagan. He was either a supply-side theorist from the start, or he was persuaded to be one when he entered politics. Reagan's greatest assets were that he looked and sounded presidential, and that he made people feel good. He was also believable to a large percentage of the population, and way too many believed him when he said that we could simultaneously increase defense spending, cut taxes, and decrease the deficit (or whatever his third claim was.) What resulted was that instead of creating the supply-side utopia that had been envisioned, Reagan tripled the national debt. The United States went from being the largest creditor nation in the world to the largest debtor nation in the world in under eight years. What resulted was that we went from being a country that avoided debt as much as possible to a country that considered debt "no big deal." Worse, the fact that he was such a popular president caused rank-and-file Republicans to confuse his personal appeal with his policies. Republicans to this day worship Reagan, and fail to recognize how detrimental the supply-side theory is. George W. Bush, whether by his own desires or having been persuaded himself, doubled down on the "tax cuts are a panacea for everything" bullsh** and enacted his own tax cuts. He doubled the debt at a time when we had a balanced budget and could possibly have paid down the debt itself. Those cuts are a direct descendant of Reagan's. There are too many still who either believe in supply-side theory or will lie to the public merely to enact more tax cuts to further enrich themselves and their donors. The traditional Republican party would not have done this. Presidents like Eisenhower and Nixon would not have done this. If George Bush had won in 1980 he would not have done this. Those men recognized the dangers of deficits, and the value of fiscal responsibility. Republicans since Reagan have for the most part ignored both. There are certainly a few who still believe in fiscal responsibility but most think that deficits are only bad when Democrats are in power. One even admitted so a few months ago. It is not conservatism that I am against. It is the economic damage being brought about by those who believe this nonsense. For the Republican Party, it goes back to Reagan. That was the real beginning of this country's downfall, and I will hold him and his administration accountable until the day I die. If there were people in today's GOP that were willing to defy the pressure, do what is best for the country, and tell the donors to STFU, I would give them credit. Happily. There aren't. Or to be more precise, there are very few. I just hope there are enough to derail this tax plan. And for the record, Democrats also spend too much. The difference between the two parties is not how much they spend but what they spend on. I do give Democrats some credit for being more honest about it and at least trying to pay for part of it through taxes. Republicans fund theirs by borrowing, which is far worse in the long run.
|
|
zibazinski
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 24, 2010 16:12:50 GMT -5
Posts: 47,869
|
Post by zibazinski on Nov 21, 2017 21:46:31 GMT -5
Dems are also bought and paid for. If you think they’re any different than the Pubs in that regard too bad.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Nov 21, 2017 21:52:32 GMT -5
Even George W. Bush, both after 9/11 and again with the economic downturn of 2007-2009, encouraged people to do what? Go out shopping. I think he even stated once that the most patriotic thing people could do was go shopping. Within the limited context of helping the economy, that advice was correct. If people facing economic hardship choose to react by saving money instead of spending, that is reasonable. If people who are able to spend also choose not to do that, it worsens the spiral. It goes like this: Business is bad because people are not spending enough. That causes people to become afraid so they spend less. That decreases demand and worsens business, which in turn causes more fear and another drop in spending which then compounds again. this has profound impacts on employment, as well. during down cycles, business will see decreased demand, and as a result, lay people off. this in turn, decreases demand (since unemployed people have NO disposable income), which causes more unemployment. this is a "vicious cycle". the "virtuous cycle" is where business rewards productivity by raising wages, which leads to more disposable income, and increases demand. this has not happened for the bottom 50% since 1973. this is about the same time that supply siders came to power (not a coincidence). if you want to learn more about this stuff (not you, tallguy, everyone else), you can listen to avowed socialist Richard Wolfe explain it in a very educated and funny way. our system is currently broken, but it is fixable. we just need leadership that understands the problem, which is not very likely. the current leadership is about as far from understanding it as i have ever seen in any administration other than the periodic despots that crop up in Africa. i am not even sure they want to. i can't blame people for voting for the business guy. we had a business problem, and it seems like a business guy can solve it. unfortunately, we chose a really crappy business guy. he can't even fix his own mess, let alone ours.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Nov 21, 2017 21:54:40 GMT -5
Yeah okay. Just when I think you can post something without bias. Never happens. Too bad. But of course you can’t stop the party line. Everything lib good everything else bad. Read it again. George Bush Sr., in his 1980 primary battle with Ronald Reagan, correctly called it "voodoo economics." The Republicans historically believed in fiscal responsibility prior to that. now they don't even pay lip service to it. when confronted with the $1.5T deficit that is to be produced by the latest tax bill, Paul Ryan suggested that we should "take up revenue generation" later. in other words, never. the GOP is responsible for over 60% of all deficit spending since WW2. it appears to be getting worse.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Nov 21, 2017 21:56:35 GMT -5
Dems are also bought and paid for. If you think they’re any different than the Pubs in that regard too bad. so, did you choose either of those parties in the last election? if so, why?
|
|
tallguy
Senior Associate
Joined: Apr 2, 2011 19:21:59 GMT -5
Posts: 14,193
|
Post by tallguy on Nov 21, 2017 22:10:07 GMT -5
Dems are also bought and paid for. If you think they’re any different than the Pubs in that regard too bad. I am not a Democrat, so don't really care what you say about them. I am an independent, primarily because I don't "like" either party. I have been forced to vote Democratic much more often than I did when younger, simply because the Republicans as a whole made a mad dash for the crazy end the last twenty years or so. I have said that the best thing Bill Clinton did was to move the Democratic Party closer to the center. The Republicans BADLY need someone to do the same thing or they will eventually marginalize themselves out of existence. It has been said by many that Barack Obama actually is or governed as a moderate conservative. I would say that is fairly accurate, but he is demonized as "far-left" mostly because the ones judging him are so far to the right. I will say that Democrats in Congress have probably moved further left, and there is a progressive wing to the party now that is further left, but Obama himself is not. ETA: It is somewhat worrying that you posted this only a minute after I posted several paragraphs. That indicates to me that you did not even attempt to read and understand the post, if this was indeed a response to that one.
|
|
tallguy
Senior Associate
Joined: Apr 2, 2011 19:21:59 GMT -5
Posts: 14,193
|
Post by tallguy on Nov 21, 2017 22:13:33 GMT -5
Even George W. Bush, both after 9/11 and again with the economic downturn of 2007-2009, encouraged people to do what? Go out shopping. I think he even stated once that the most patriotic thing people could do was go shopping. Within the limited context of helping the economy, that advice was correct. If people facing economic hardship choose to react by saving money instead of spending, that is reasonable. If people who are able to spend also choose not to do that, it worsens the spiral. It goes like this: Business is bad because people are not spending enough. That causes people to become afraid so they spend less. That decreases demand and worsens business, which in turn causes more fear and another drop in spending which then compounds again. this has profound impacts on employment, as well. during down cycles, business will see decreased demand, and as a result, lay people off. this in turn, decreases demand (since unemployed people have NO disposable income), which causes more unemployment. this is a "vicious cycle". the "virtuous cycle" is where business rewards productivity by raising wages, which leads to more disposable income, and increases demand. this has not happened for the bottom 50% since 1973. this is about the same time that supply siders came to power (not a coincidence). if you want to learn more about this stuff (not you, tallguy , everyone else), you can listen to avowed socialist Richard Wolfe explain it in a very educated and funny way. our system is currently broken, but it is fixable. we just need leadership that understands the problem, which is not very likely. the current leadership is about as far from understanding it as i have ever seen in any administration other than the periodic despots that crop up in Africa. i am not even sure they want to. i can't blame people for voting for the business guy. we had a business problem, and it seems like a business guy can solve it. unfortunately, we chose a really crappy business guy. he can't even fix his own mess, let alone ours. Very true. (As is the ignorance of the current administration.)
|
|
zibazinski
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 24, 2010 16:12:50 GMT -5
Posts: 47,869
|
Post by zibazinski on Nov 21, 2017 22:20:51 GMT -5
Dems are also bought and paid for. If you think they’re any different than the Pubs in that regard too bad. I am not a Democrat, so don't really care what you say about them. I am an independent, primarily because I don't "like" either party. I have been forced to vote Democratic much more often than I did when younger, simply because the Republicans as a whole made a mad dash for the crazy end the last twenty years or so. I have said that the best thing Bill Clinton did was to move the Democratic Party closer to the center. The Republicans BADLY need someone to do the same thing or they will eventually marginalize themselves out of existence. It has been said by many that Barack Obama actually is or governed as a moderate conservative. I would say that is fairly accurate, but he is demonized as "far-left" mostly because the ones judging him are so far to the right. I will say that Democrats in Congress have probably moved further left, and there is a progressive wing to the party now that is further left, but Obama himself is not. Obama is out for Obama. Just like any other professional politician. The professional politician pretends to be representing their voters but really isn’t. Smooth talking bull shitters. Trump is just crude about the same goal.
|
|
tallguy
Senior Associate
Joined: Apr 2, 2011 19:21:59 GMT -5
Posts: 14,193
|
Post by tallguy on Nov 21, 2017 22:27:45 GMT -5
I am not a Democrat, so don't really care what you say about them. I am an independent, primarily because I don't "like" either party. I have been forced to vote Democratic much more often than I did when younger, simply because the Republicans as a whole made a mad dash for the crazy end the last twenty years or so. I have said that the best thing Bill Clinton did was to move the Democratic Party closer to the center. The Republicans BADLY need someone to do the same thing or they will eventually marginalize themselves out of existence. It has been said by many that Barack Obama actually is or governed as a moderate conservative. I would say that is fairly accurate, but he is demonized as "far-left" mostly because the ones judging him are so far to the right. I will say that Democrats in Congress have probably moved further left, and there is a progressive wing to the party now that is further left, but Obama himself is not. Obama is out for Obama. Just like any other professional politician. The professional politician pretends to be representing their voters but really isn’t. Smooth talking bull shitters. Trump is just crude about the same goal. Obama's goals were not even in the same hemisphere as Trump's. Nor is he in any way similar. Your cynicism appears to lead you to some very wrong conclusions.
|
|
zibazinski
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 24, 2010 16:12:50 GMT -5
Posts: 47,869
|
Post by zibazinski on Nov 21, 2017 22:35:23 GMT -5
So does bias.
|
|
tallguy
Senior Associate
Joined: Apr 2, 2011 19:21:59 GMT -5
Posts: 14,193
|
Post by tallguy on Nov 21, 2017 23:05:26 GMT -5
I am ruled by logic, not emotion. Even when I was in grade school kids called me Spock. They may have thought it was an insult. I didn't. There is no room for bias in my decision-making. Observation and applied logic do a far better job. There is no bias in calling out the Reagan administration for the debt. There is no bias in criticizing Bush for that and many other things. There is no bias in criticizing Trump for just about everything. He really is that bad. Even the few things where he ends up at the right position (such as the deportation of illegal immigrants) he appears to have bumbled his way there through a number of wrong turns rather than having a clear and direct logical path. At the same time, I am not an apologist for Clinton or Obama, and certainly not for the Democratic Party, but far too often I have to defend them against the clearly inaccurate portrayals from far-right posters.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Nov 21, 2017 23:05:48 GMT -5
I am not a Democrat, so don't really care what you say about them. I am an independent, primarily because I don't "like" either party. I have been forced to vote Democratic much more often than I did when younger, simply because the Republicans as a whole made a mad dash for the crazy end the last twenty years or so. I have said that the best thing Bill Clinton did was to move the Democratic Party closer to the center. The Republicans BADLY need someone to do the same thing or they will eventually marginalize themselves out of existence. It has been said by many that Barack Obama actually is or governed as a moderate conservative. I would say that is fairly accurate, but he is demonized as "far-left" mostly because the ones judging him are so far to the right. I will say that Democrats in Congress have probably moved further left, and there is a progressive wing to the party now that is further left, but Obama himself is not. Obama is out for Obama. Just like any other professional politician. The professional politician pretends to be representing their voters but really isn’t. Smooth talking bull shitters. Trump is just crude about the same goal. i didn't vote for the guy, and disagreed with many of his policies, but i never thought he was "out for Obama". i don't think Bush was out for Bush, either, or Clinton before him. they were mainstream partisans running on mainstream platforms. they believed in the platforms, they ran from them, and then they governed from those platforms. it might be worthwhile to mention that there is no visible difference between the GOP and Democrats on literally dozens of issues. neither party has any interest in cutting spending, for example (except on the other parties priorities). foreign policy is interventionist for both parties and has been the most consistent facet of every administration since WW2- it is completely non-partisan as far as i can tell. you don't need to talk smooth bullshit when you are running for platform. it is all scripted out, and has been since Edward Bernays.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Nov 21, 2017 23:07:55 GMT -5
that's true. your bias is also to blame for your bad conclusions.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 17, 2024 23:50:25 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 21, 2017 23:16:48 GMT -5
I am ruled by logic, not emotion. Even when I was in grade school kids called me Spock. They may have thought it was an insult. I didn't. There is no room for bias in my decision-making. Observation and applied logic do a far better job. There is no bias in calling out the Reagan administration for the debt. There is no bias in criticizing Bush for that and many other things. There is no bias in criticizing Trump for just about everything. He really is that bad. Even the few things where he ends up at the right position (such as the deportation of illegal immigrants) he appears to have bumbled his way there through a number of wrong turns rather than having a clear and direct logical path. At the same time, I am not an apologist for Clinton or Obama, and certainly not for the Democratic Party, but far too often I have to defend them against the clearly inaccurate portrayals from far-right posters. Please warn me next time you are going to say something so obviously ludicrous. It's a bitch to clean soda out of my laptop's keyboard.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Nov 22, 2017 11:34:30 GMT -5
Richard, we don't agree and I am beginning to understand this at a level you aren't even close to. Voters can only vote for candidates who run. That's a really important thing to be clear about. All the political parties in the US are organizations that run for their own reasons, visions. Some effectively do little but tilt at windmills in federal and sometimes other elections. The Green Party would be an example of this.
Voters getting smarter helps, but does not fix the problem unless more than a few of these voters start running for office themselves. NJ 101.5 IMO explained beautifully the dilemma of running for certain offices and some thoughts on candidates, parties, and primaries. Parties do put forth candidates for races often at local and state levels so the other party does not win unopposed. But there are costs associated with that. Not just financial, not just pr & image. Political parties do not have infinite resources so sometimes choosing *NOT* to put up a sacrificial lamb as a candidate is the best course of action.
Yes, perhaps something would change if "None of the Above" won, but highly unlikely it would be the change you wanted. I do not find much value in change for change's sake. That kind of attitude is the reason we have Trump.
Wrong. Enough states have a "Write in" option on the ballot that if they were used, the few seats in federal government from states that don't allow it would be outmatched in representation by independents. Only NINE states (out of FIFTY) do not allow "write-in" votes: Nevada, New Mexico, South Dakota, Oklahoma, Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, South Carolina, and Hawaii. ( SOURCE). I don't suggest "change for change's sake" I suggest "change because what we have now doesn't work". amen, brother. furthermore, there is GENERALLY an independent on the ballot. if independents VOTED INDEPENDENT, we would have an INDEPENDENT MAJORITY in Congress. that would be a beautiful thing, right?
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 17, 2024 23:50:25 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 22, 2017 21:10:09 GMT -5
Wrong. Enough states have a "Write in" option on the ballot that if they were used, the few seats in federal government from states that don't allow it would be outmatched in representation by independents. Only NINE states (out of FIFTY) do not allow "write-in" votes: Nevada, New Mexico, South Dakota, Oklahoma, Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, South Carolina, and Hawaii. ( SOURCE). I don't suggest "change for change's sake" I suggest "change because what we have now doesn't work". amen, brother. furthermore, there is GENERALLY an independent on the ballot. if independents VOTED INDEPENDENT, we would have an INDEPENDENT MAJORITY in Congress. that would be a beautiful thing, right? I honestly think that it would be. Especially since most of the independents wouldn't be worried about "group think" because it's not like they are "the Independent Party"... they are separate from all others, even each other.
|
|
tallguy
Senior Associate
Joined: Apr 2, 2011 19:21:59 GMT -5
Posts: 14,193
|
Post by tallguy on Nov 22, 2017 22:08:59 GMT -5
Wrong. Enough states have a "Write in" option on the ballot that if they were used, the few seats in federal government from states that don't allow it would be outmatched in representation by independents. Only NINE states (out of FIFTY) do not allow "write-in" votes: Nevada, New Mexico, South Dakota, Oklahoma, Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, South Carolina, and Hawaii. ( SOURCE). I don't suggest "change for change's sake" I suggest "change because what we have now doesn't work". amen, brother. furthermore, there is GENERALLY an independent on the ballot. if independents VOTED INDEPENDENT, we would have an INDEPENDENT MAJORITY in Congress. that would be a beautiful thing, right? Don't be too sure. You don't always get a John Anderson. Sometimes you get a Ross Perot. Or a George Wallace. Or you can have Ralph Nader help put GWB in office. Yes, those are presidential candidates rather than congressional but the theory holds. You still need a good candidate. I was down in Mexico in the early '80's. In the 1982 election, the PRI (Partido Revolucionario Institucional) won to extend their streak of holding the presidency to 53 years. They further extended it to 71 years before losing in 2000. 71 years with the same party in power. I remember being told that it wasn't as bad as it sounded. Because of their dominance, it was pretty much understood that any good politician would join the PRI because they would not have a chance any other way. I am on record here that I would like to abolish both parties and start over, with a minimum of five more tightly focused parties to take their place. Instead of the fracturing and "civil wars" within each party now, voters might be able to find someone who actually represents them, and parties could actually hold true to their core beliefs. Even better, no party would ever be able to "ram something through." Legislation would pass based on what was a good idea, not on whose idea it was. To borrow a phrase, "that would be a beautiful thing, right?"
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 17, 2024 23:50:25 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 22, 2017 23:25:15 GMT -5
You want "a beautiful thing"? I think it would be "a beautiful thing" if no Party could have more than 33% of total available power in either the House or the Senate. Even if it had to be divided up into 33% to Republicans, 33% to Democrats, 33% to "everyone else".
That way, no one Party could ram legislation down the throats of the rest of the country. They would AT LEAST have to convince the non-Republicans and non-Democrats... and likely need to convince all of them.
Either that or a "NO single Party can have a Majority" rule/law... If your party ends up with more than 49.9% of the seats, they have to "vote off" members down to being less than 50%, and a special election can be held with anyone from that specific Party barred from running.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Nov 23, 2017 13:35:11 GMT -5
You want "a beautiful thing"? I think it would be "a beautiful thing" if no Party could have more than 33% of total available power in either the House or the Senate. Even if it had to be divided up into 33% to Republicans, 33% to Democrats, 33% to "everyone else". That way, no one Party could ram legislation down the throats of the rest of the country. They would AT LEAST have to convince the non-Republicans and non-Democrats... and likely need to convince all of them. Either that or a "NO single Party can have a Majority" rule/law... If your party ends up with more than 49.9% of the seats, they have to "vote off" members down to being less than 50%, and a special election can be held with anyone from that specific Party barred from running. i agree completely. i like coalition governing. it forces compromises on issues of public concern. i know that people love to make fun of England and places like Venezuela, but having 22 parties running for office without the heavy filtration of national organized parties through a primary system creates a much more vibrant, public, and democratic environment for governance. it is one of the things i am looking for in an alternative to living here.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Nov 24, 2017 11:57:33 GMT -5
this is a good overview of the tax plans. to summarize: a) tax plan will hurt lower class and not benefit middle class b) tax plan will put tens of thousands in my pocket, which i will use to buy real estate in Europe or Central America c) tax plan will balloon the deficit d) tax plan will NOT create economic growth www.npr.org/2017/11/21/565767058/study-finds-republican-tax-bills-directly-benefit-businesses-not-the-middle-clasbuh bye, USA. there are only two reasons for this plan. one is payback to all of the businesses that put our lovely government in office, and the other is to destroy government. USA!USA!!!
|
|
thyme4change
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 26, 2010 13:54:08 GMT -5
Posts: 40,439
|
Post by thyme4change on Nov 24, 2017 14:08:15 GMT -5
Wrong. Enough states have a "Write in" option on the ballot that if they were used, the few seats in federal government from states that don't allow it would be outmatched in representation by independents. Only NINE states (out of FIFTY) do not allow "write-in" votes: Nevada, New Mexico, South Dakota, Oklahoma, Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, South Carolina, and Hawaii. ( SOURCE). I don't suggest "change for change's sake" I suggest "change because what we have now doesn't work". amen, brother. furthermore, there is GENERALLY an independent on the ballot. if independents VOTED INDEPENDENT, we would have an INDEPENDENT MAJORITY in Congress. that would be a beautiful thing, right? I think once on every ballot there isn't even a Democrat on the ballot. Just a Republican and a blank line. I could write someone in, but they would have to have a massive campaign for enough people to know to write that person in to beat the single candidate printed on the ballot.
|
|
kadee79
Senior Associate
S.W. Ga., zone 8b, out in the boonies!
Joined: Mar 30, 2011 15:12:55 GMT -5
Posts: 10,807
|
Post by kadee79 on Nov 24, 2017 14:12:35 GMT -5
My local & state offices and a lot of the federal offices only have one candidate running...GOP. There isn't a blank, but a space to write in any name you want. My DH has written in his own name many times. I told him he better be careful or he will end up electing himself to something.
|
|