patrick.net

smaulgld says

Last elections in 2010 and 2012 the Democrats lost the house. How is that being effective? Neither party is a shoo in for 2014 or 2016

Not talking about the house.

Call it Crazy says

Don't believe everything you read... Cantor's loss WASN'T because of the immigration issue "as reported"...

It was a pogrom to get rid of the only Jewish Republican in the entire Congress!!!

smaulgld says

YOU won't take them seriously but they won't be courting your vote

True, but also important is that the GOP never REALLY was trying to "get the minority vote". They were trying to get the disaffected, moderate white voters who can increase their coalition.

I think the minority vote is largely done, and will lean strong D for the foreseeable future. They know by policy who really hates them.

But that white swing voter at least wants to HEAR that you don't hate minorities, even if the rhetoric doesn't match the policy. The moderate white voter just can't bring themselves to vote for overtly racist bastards.

But the GOP can't resist, especially in the current climate, giving a big shout out to the former Dixiecrats whenever the opportunity presents itself.

corntrollio says

Yes, the irony is that the Tea Party should love immigration, if they really had the libertarian ideals they claim to have and cared about our economy as much as they claim:

The tea party is not about ideology its about protest, that is why it won't be used by the Repubs to try and win elections. (the same reason the Dems don't embrace the Occupy Wall Street movement)
The faux libertarian ideology will be trotted out by the Repubs, the Dems will trot out Hillary

edvard2 says

Not talking about the house.

AH you mean Presidential- I think that comes down to personality. Obama would have won in 2008 probably no matter who the Repubs put up- He could have been beaten by a more able candidate in 2012 if the Repubs had one.

If Hillary wins in 2016 it won't be because she is a democrat, but because she is Hillary. Similarly if Biden is the candidate and loses in 2016 it won't be because he is a democrat but because he is Biden

Uh.. considering the TeaParty just ousted one of the most important Republicans in the country... I'm not sure I'd say they're "done".

Obio99 says

Uh.. considering the TeaParty just ousted one of the most important Republicans in the country... I'm not sure I'd say they're "done".

Not done losing contests they can easily win, that's true.

A "victory" like this will encourage them to follow their repugnant ideologies, which turns off the electorate, and forces the GOP to defend the indefensible.

smaulgld says

The tea party is not about ideology its about protest, that is why it won't be used by the Repubs to try and win elections.

Let's stop giving the "Tea Party" more credit than it deserves. It isn't a party, a political movement or a grass roots organizations. Its simply a made-up thing with a convenient faux-libertarian veneer with far-right undertones which makes its eager followers think its some legit thing just for them and their outlandish right wing ideology. That's the veneer. The bulk is simply a tool in which conservative billionaires and the umbrella of industries, trade groups, lobbys, and other outside interests hide behind them without revealing their names use as a means to funnel in loads of money and use that to create campaigns and issues that are only done so in such a way as to stir up these followers and get them to vote for things that only helps these aforementioned outside interests. Its a total manipulation of the system, plain and simple, and all anyone has to do is spend 5 minutes looking it up online to trace where the money comes from and goes.

That alone is the reason I know the tea party is done. They have a totally unsustainable model because the politicians they install are for the most part useless once they're in power since most of their positions are so far removed from reality and hence a further hindrance to the GOP as a whole.

CL says

True, but also important is that the GOP never REALLY was trying to "get the minority vote". They were trying to get the disaffected, moderate white voters who can increase their coalition.

The Cantor election proves the Repubs don't have a strategy. Tea party goes one way, the establishment part of the Reps tries to distance itself. The repubs take the tea party vote but try to distance themselves from it, the same way Democrats took the union vote in the 70's & 80's but tried to distance themselves from it.

Both parties are tired and have suffered losses for lack of positive identity

Dems used to be the champion of the working class, they are now seen as the party of the big bankers (JP Morgan, Goldman Sachs) and social elites and war (on drugs, on foreign nations).

Reps used to be seen as the party of small business/chamber of commerce, they are now seen as the party of big oil, big business and war (on drugs, foreign nations, women and immigrants)

There is generally not a positive connotation with either party.

edvard2 says

It isn't a party, a political movement or a grass roots organizations.

Agree the tea party isn't a party it's protest and well backed in most instances.
Most of the tea party candidates that make their way into the house are beholden to their masters.

There are very few independent people in the congress in recent years- Sanders, Kucinich (who caved on single payer and voted for Obama care), Paul (the elder) are but a handful. The rest- almost all owe their election to special interests not ideology or grass roots support.

smaulgld says

There is generally not a positive connotation with either party.

My follwing response isn't directed at you per say, but more my personal opinions.

I Don't know if I totally agree. As I grow older I generally grow more jaded with both parties. That said, these days there is such a HUGE delta between reality and what has become of the GOP that its ridiculous. That party has become a 3-ring circus. Their positions are not only outdated and hearken back to the 50's and McCarthyism, but they don't seem to be capable of coming up with any new ideas. Their one and only idea for the entire Obama Admin has been to be against not only healthcare, but basically anything his admin even thinks about coming up with. The only thing they have cared about from day one was how fast they could get back into the White House.

I'm not saying the Democrats are perfect angels. But seriously- they have repeatedly promoted legislation that is aimed squarely at the middle and working class ranging from everything from healthcare, a rise in the minimum wage, lower college tuitions, better workplace safety rules, and so on. Yet at EVERY step of the turn the GOP has been against ANY of those pieces of legislation making the exact same cookie-cutter argument.... that anything that would possibly serve as a potential betterment to the working or middle class would "hurt" the businesses that happen to be tied to those decisions. Never mind that the income gap is the largest in the western world and growing dramatically more so with each passing year. Never mind that college is rapidly becoming something only upper income parents can afford. Never mind that even though the largest employers in the country are all big box stores whom make untold billions and billions of dollars also happen to pay their workers poverty-level wages and work them 28 hours a week to avoid giving them any benefits. No- with each and every single piece of legislation proposed that could potentially- albeit minimally benefit people who are affected by such standards the GOP has flatly refused to vote for any of it.

Yes- I am sounding harsh and totally one-sided. But As someone who:

A: Was barely able to afford college even 20 years ago and now could in no way afford to do so now.

B: Worked for years at some of those crappy, low-paying jobs which even 20+ years after are barely paying more than what I made back then,

DO care because these things matter and if the GOP wants to be the party that doesn't want to makes things better for those who are in those situations then they will never get my vote.

There. I said it. Now I am stepping down from my stump.

edvard2 says

everything from healthcare, a rise in the minimum wage, lower college tuitions, better workplace safety rules, and so on.

The reason those stances don't resonate is government involvement in health insurance and college has been a mess making them more expensive and no better. That has nothing to do with republican obstructionism.

workplace safety rules? there are plenty of them not sure that is a burning issue for many.
minimum wage is also not a burning issue and can be handled locally if there is a groundswell for it.

San Francisco has a $10 an hour min and Seattle is going to $15*.

So if those are the issues the Dems want to hang their hat on they won't resonate with a majority.

and for the republicans it's more dismal. What exactly are their issues other than stop the above or horsetrade for parts of them?!

(btw I think there is such a discrepancy of economies across the US that one size does not fit all- eg. $50K a year salary or $15 an hour is a lot of money in Alabama but nothing in NYC or San Francisco- so national income tax brackets and national minimum wages are not suitable)

smaulgld says

The reason those stances don't resonate is government involvement in health insurance and college has been a mess making them more expensive and no better. That has nothing to do with republican obstructionism.

Now we're getting into another topic. But I don't buy that government involvement in healthcare or college doesn't work. Here's a perfect example: Post WW2 1950's America.

So here's what happened after WW2: Returning soldiers and veterans ( which was a HUGE percentage of the population. Anyway, the government handed out GI bills: low interest rate home loans, college education, and lifetime healthcare benefits.

Guess what happened? The US had a BIG boom. The middle class was at that point at its peak. The rate of people graduating from college increased at a rapid rate: The level of scientific research, technological advancement and medical innovation was also further increased.

Even as of now my 92 year old Grandmother still gets medical care from the VA because her husband fought in WW2, some 70 years ago.

So its ironic that even most conservatives would agree that the 50's were pretty damned good and on top of that, it was a great time to be in the middle class.

Now- I'm not going to say that it was all thanks to the US government. But the items I mentioned above are the very things that are imperative for a decent foundation when it comes to a sound economy and middle class.

Here is the reason why things are not working out now: the end of populism, which happened in and around the 70's with the creation of the campaign from the GOP to single out folks on social services. Those were easy targets and with that this still ever-present attitude amongst the right that not only is there a belief that people on welfare are lazy, but that the "Government can do nothing right".

So now you have a party that for all practical purposes has caused a huge swath of the population to truly believe that the government is totally incompetent and as such, any and everything proposed by it is to be seen with suspicion.

If you look back to the 30's-early 70's there was a higher degree of trust in the government. They were- afterall- an elected body of officials. And with that came more trust, more positive attitudes, and more willingness to go ahead with ideas. The thing is that just because a law is passed doesn't mean its the law forever. We have the ability to repeal laws with our votes and that's something people forget. As such these days anytime a new piece of legislation is proposed, the thing rarely makes it out in any shape or form that it started out as... and such is the case with Obamacare... a law that could have been so much better, but from the get go was mired in outright opposition by the GOP whom as I mentioned before has this attitude that any and everything proposed by the government is bad.

So- I'm not saying we should nod our heads in total agreement with everything the government proposes. Some ideas ( In fact a LOT) of ideas are actually awful. But the attitude that ANYTHING proposed must be bad is totally unproductive and it benefits nobody.

In the end its time to get back to an era where laws can be debated with intelligence, discussion, and maturity. That is what we are missing and need dearly.

edvard2 says

If you look back to the 30's-early 70's there was a higher degree of trust in the government.

I think you are hitting on a very important topic-trust in government. In the past 40 years creasingly there is less trust that elected officials are actually representing voters.

Trust loss started with Nixon (Watergate), was restored a bit with Carter (for honesty but not perceived competence), lost again under Reagan (iran Contra), Bush (read my lips) Clinton ( it depends on what your definition of is, is), Bush (weapons of mass destruction/NSA spying) Obama (I'll close guantanamo, if you like your plan, NSA spying)

Therefore government solutions are seen as not being viable and as tainted by special interests. The healthcare act seemed to have the hand of the insurance companies all over it, Sallie Mae is not the same success as the GI bill. The VA hospitals are considered a mess. More money in the past 40 years has been spent on non defensive wars, drug wars, foreign nation building and on internal surveillance than on internal infrastructure and domestic welfare. The domestic welfare programs are not stunning successes either.

Perhaps the Federal government has grown too big, too incompetent and too unwieldy. It seems if you take what Obama says at face value or congressional leaders when they hear about some major scandal at one of the many Federal agencies-"I first read about it in the news". Or Obama's rationale for the healthcare.gov website fiasco-"government procurement processes are not efficient" that government is no longer manageable or responsive and in part for that reason trusted at the same levels it once was. It's about results and they haven't been as good lately as the examples you provided.

edvard2 says

So now you have a party that for all practical purposes has caused a huge swath of the population to truly believe that the government is totally incompetent and as such, any and everything proposed by it is to be seen with suspicion.

I think the politicians of both parties are too blame for that perception and for the results.

smaulgld says

I think you are hitting on a very important topic-trust in government. In the past 40 years creasingly there is less trust that elected officials are actually representing voters.

I'm coming at it from a different angle. I don't really exactly buy that the government of today- in regards to how it is setup- is really that different from how its always been. The "government" has in fact always been "big" if we use the terms of what goes behind that word- meaning that it controls an enormous amount of assets.

For example if you look back to WW2. The single largest industrial undertaking in world history was the manhatten project. Ar the time it was larger than all of the big three US automakers combined and had a number of buildings at various facilities which were for their time the largest buildings on the planet. The cost of the program was also tremendous, costing over 2 Billion 1940's dollars. The whole thing of course was a government program and after that came the enormous military industrial complex, of which Eisenhower warned against at the close of his term.

I use that as one example. But of course there are many others. Government by nature is big. It has to be big. It has a lot of things to do, and even if any government were to be stripped down to the bare basics, which means an adequate defense, a judicial, and various legislative arms and whatnot that too is rather large.

But in regards to the belief that "What the government does nothing right", to me I see that general attitude as more of a more recent ( again- 70's) invention of the GOP. The meaning behind that of course is meant to draw attention away from their party and their actual involvement in government and onto the Democrats and the government in general.

That tactic is no different than the tactics used by Joseph McCarthy in the 50's : He would stand up and make a claim, if anyone argued against him he proclaimed they must be a communist, and if any of the period newspapers or TV news reporters came up with facts to dispute those claims, well they became the "Liberal media".

Its the very same with the GOP claiming that somehow they are the bearers of the truth and the all-knowing authority when it comes to big government and generalized government incompetence: Come a time that a piece of legislation goes in a way that is against their wishes they can simply slap that badge on it. Conveniently if the legislation is something they actually proposed and it too doesn't pan out they can play dumb and again- blame it on "the government".

Its pretty clever- both of those tactics. Its all about something that was discussed after WW2, which is the topic of " Isms". Isms are things that don't have a face, a name, or even necessarily real. But for example when McCarthy blamed Communu(ISM) on eveything, he could have said it was the boogeyman or whatever. By placing blame on an intangible and often non-existent thing the real blame never actually gets placed, problems never have to really get solved, and those making such claims never have to become responsible for their words.

So that is what I meant by the placing of blame on "Big government" or government in general: Doing so is basically a meaningless gesture meant to draw attention away from the person or persons making such a claim to start with.

jazz music says

This rhetoric completely ignores what Reagan and Bush showed us through their actions: Government cannot be big enough supporting capital ownership and enforcement and at the same time the government cannot be small enough in the ability to deliver benefit to people who have to work for money.

Does it ignore it? No, not really. I am referring to the literal terms and their meaning. The simple question is: What party and what politicians have used the term " Big government" and proclaimed the government in general to be incompetent?

I never made claim that the GOP is guiltless when it comes to the very things they go on and on about. As you pointed out the GOP has been very much all about "big government".

The meaning behind my comments above were to indicate that there is a tactic to using baseless blame when it comes to redirecting attention away from something and by the GOP using these claims they are doing as such.

jazz music says

The government is the people's only effective weapon against the broad powers of ownership and that is why they conspire for us to hate our government.

At the same king King George was the government at some point. Government isn't always on the side of the average folk, it's only when interests of big business aligns with the rest of us is when it feels about right.

edvard2 says

ut I don't buy that government involvement in healthcare or college doesn't work. Here's a perfect example: Post WW2 1950's America.

The 2 posts you made are irrelevant to the real dynamics involved.

What was relevant are regulations being gone because FDR did everyone a favor and died. This was huge business could operate on it's own without the ridiculous meddling into the economy by FDR

After WWll the baby boom drove the economy and still is.

In 1971 Nixon took us off of the gold standard and we have runaway debt every since because there was nothing preventing congress from borrowing. Nixon created a floating exchange rate based on Milton Friedman's advise that included a targeted 3% annual inflation rate. 3% compounded over 45 years...

At the same time Japan and then China started practicing mercantilism, which gave us a ton of shit but also took jobs.

The growth in government taking money out of the free market is also a huge factor which has basically meant either you work for the government or you are indigent. Today the US is the largest centrally planned country in history much bigger than the USSR ever was. This has hugely effected student loans and healthcare as their spending has nothing to do with what the market is willing to pay. ACA for instance mandates everyone have insurance because it is "affordable". Yet the deductible is $6000, how is that affordable for most people?

What we are experiencing now is the hangover from the bailouts. When the FED puts 4 trillion dollars into base money how can anyone think that is not going to have a consequence. The consequences are the stock market and housing. The main consequence is no SME growth and since that is the only job generator, no jobs.

edvard2 says

Its the very same with the GOP claiming that somehow they are the bearers of the truth and the all-knowing authority when it comes to big government and generalized government incompetence

In reality, people are only anti-big government when it suits their ideology. Unions and minimum wage = big government if you're against such things. Preventing people from having gay sex or allowing people other than physicians to give medical advice on abortion somehow isn't big government if you support it. Are you telling me the Terri Schiavo case wasn't a massive overreach by the federal government?

Similarly, people call judges judicial activists when a decision doesn't fit their agenda, and don't when it does. If you supported the Citizens United ruling or the recent ruling on the Voting Rights Act, you weren't complaining about judicial activism, even if you were complaining about judicial activism for Lawrence v. Texas or US v. Windsor.

Rhetoric is bullshit. This is why I continually suggest arguing things on their own merits, rather than trying to place them within a political philosophy and making a weak argument based on that.

edvard2 says

But in regards to the belief that "What the government does nothing right", to me I see that general attitude as more of a more recent ( again- 70's) invention of the GOP. The meaning behind that of course is meant to draw attention away from their party and their actual involvement in government and onto the Democrats and the government in general.

Your point is well taken re the recency of distrust in government spurned on by republican talking points but while the 30's gave us national work projects like dams and bridges, 40's gave us WWII victory the 50's the national highway and the 60's a man on the moon, we really haven't had the national successes like we used to have.

the 70's failure of Vietnam, water gate, 80's space shuttle challenger, 2000's Iraq/afghan war, Obama care

Since 1970's there have been arguable only three or four successes- 80's economy/cold war victory, 90's Internet economy, 1991 Gulf War

jazz music says

The government is the people's only effective weapon against the broad powers of ownership and that is why they conspire for us to hate our government.

and the most ineffective weapon when big government and big business conspire against the people

edvard2 says

As you pointed out the GOP has been very much all about "big government".

Both parties use big government to advance their corporate/special interest agendas.
The government as a force of good in the spirit of Ralph Nader has been long dead. The Federal government is now a tool of big business and special interests.

corntrollio says

In reality, people are only anti-big government when it suits their ideology.

True. Conservative use big government for military/subsidies for oil, liberals for military/subsidies for green energy and social spending.

corntrollio says

Similarly, people call judges judicial activists when a decision doesn't fit their agenda, and don't when it does.

Bingo again-judge rules in your favor he upholds the constitution , rules against you -he is a judicial activist violating the constitution.

corntrollio says

Rhetoric is bullshit. This is why I continually suggest arguing things on their own merits, rather than trying to place them within a political philosophy and making a weak argument based on that.

Not really. Do you agree or not agree that the GOP has for decades now been the undisputed kings of the over-use of the term "Big government"? The reasons they say so are precisely the reasons I mentioned above. Its a tool, albeit a form of cliche rhetoric, but rhetoric just the same.

edvard2 says

Its a tool, albeit a form of cliche rhetoric, but rhetoric just the same.

Rhetoric with some basis in truth

smaulgld says

Rhetoric with some basis in truth

Not in the way its used by the GOP. As I said a number of times the only reason the GOP mentions this is for distraction and nothing further.

FortWayne says

At the same king King George was the government at some point

Chem trails and tinfoil hats are totally real.

jazz music says

Then he grows government like it has never grown before, but the growth was in enforcement and security: E.g. War on drugs, Homeland Security, Star Wars and Orient Express X-31 etc. spaceplane research that violated fundamental physical principles of rocket propulsion. (single sage to orbit is physically impossible using rocket engines) Reagan did start starving the parts of government that deliver benefit to those who work for their money.

Yep rail against what you are doing-its classic criminal behavior

edvard2 says

Not in the way its used by the GOP. As I said a number of times the only reason the GOP mentions this is for distraction and nothing further.

The reason they do it is there is some truth in it and as jazz music points out it covers their own tracks

edvard2 says

Not really. Do you agree or not agree that the GOP has for decades now been the undisputed kings of the over-use of the term "Big government"? The reasons they say so are precisely the reasons I mentioned above. Its a tool, albeit a form of cliche rhetoric, but rhetoric just the same.

When I say "rhetoric is bullshit," I'm giving a personal opinion that it has very little merit. You are correct that gullible people do fall for it.

smaulgld says

San Francisco has a $10 an hour min and Seattle is going to $15*.

So if those are the issues the Dems want to hang their hat on they won't resonate with a majority.

and for the republicans it's more dismal. What exactly are their issues other than stop the above or horsetrade for parts of them?!

(btw I think there is such a discrepancy of economies across the US that one size does not fit all- eg. $50K a year salary or $15 an hour is a lot of money in Alabama but nothing in NYC or San Francisco- so national income tax brackets and national minimum wages are not suitable)

Vermont ups its minimum wage http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2014/06/10/vermont-pushes-minimum-wage-to-new-highs/

This is how it should work-the federal government should not set national wages or prices. Each state has a better understanding of its economy and prices. The Federal Government doesn't have all the answers

smaulgld says

The Federal Government doesn't have all the answers

Did you mean to say "any"?

HAHAHAHAHAAAAAAA!!!! Man, Nov 4th was REAAALLLL GOOOOD. I've never seen an ass-kicking so complete.

Just for fun, I tuned into MSNBC the night of the 5th, and Rachel Maddow (Mrs. Too-Tall-Jones, Auntie Goony-GooGoo herself), and she was talking about some tiny shit-stick town in northern california that re-elected a Mayor (Mr. Butts, IIRC) that will stand up to Chevron, which has a refinery in its town... REALLY Rachel? Is that all you got? It's like your house getting swept away in a tornado, but HEY! The mailbox at the curb was unharmed!!

There is NO WAY liberals can turn this shit-sandwich into cavier, in what went down Nov 4th. Obama REPEATEDLY said, that although he wasn't up for re-election, his policies were. And boy did the results show....

Finally, Edvard2, you are sadly mistaken that the Teaparty was created by billionaires. Do billionaires (Koch Bros) help out the teaparty? Sure, but billionaires (Soros, Hollywood, etal) help out the lefties too. What's next, you're gonna tell me the sun rises in the east?

Govenors being elected in Maryland, Illinois? Priceless. Black, hispanic, young, and women republicans getting elected in the house and senate? Black republicans winning in the south? Yeah, the GOP is the party of old white men... PFFFT!!!

AverageBear says

AHAHAHAHAAAAAAA!!!! Man, Nov 4th was REAAALLLL GOOOOD. I've never seen an ass-kicking so complete.

Was your head in your ass in 2006?

@edvard2

I got so excited. I thought edvard2 was back with us.

JH says

AverageBear says

AHAHAHAHAAAAAAA!!!! Man, Nov 4th was REAAALLLL GOOOOD. I've never seen an ass-kicking so complete.

Was your head in your ass in 2006?

Nope, but I'll tell you one thing JH. The boot was in the Dems ass 10 days ago.... Maybe you can help in pulling it out.... Most house reps since 1940 anyone? ...... How did it feel on Nov 5th, eh? I couldn't stop laughing myself...

AverageBear says

Most house reps since 1940 anyone? ...... How did it feel on Nov 5th, eh? I couldn't stop laughing myself...

Felt like a Republican. How did you cope for 70 years? The best 70 years our nation has ever known.

The GOP has already destroyed this country by what they did and allowed to happen 1995-2006.

blue is Gini, red is total debt / GDP ratio, right axis

They already retook the House in 2010, essentially detaching Obama from any policy levers that required new budget allocations, basically everything.

This election just cements their blocking position, as it extends to judicial appointments and treaty ratifications.

But our national prospect was FUBAR 6 years ago and nothing has changed that.

To unfuck things is not something the American people are going to be able to agree to, not without things getting a LOT worse for more people than they are now.

1932-33 style worse.

edvard2 says

which happened in and around the 70's with the creation of the campaign from the GOP to single out folks on social services.

GOP also got attached to the 30-40% of the country that are single-issue voters willing to vote against their economic interest if it means fewer babies are killed in the womb and/or minorities get less access to government programs and/or gun rights are expanded or at least aren't further infringed and/or organized Christianity's pride of place in our community is respected and protected by government.

This base made them competitive again, at least in off-cycle elections when the youth vote can't be arsed to vote.