Hey Than, you should check this thing out called Farm-21, its this new farm reform bill.
It would get rid of the subsidy system in 6-7 years (Depends on senate or house version)
It would replace them essentially with IRA's, only they're for emergencies (Called RMA's)
It would cut farm subsidies by 20 billion over the the next 5 years and 55 bil over the next 10.
The president's got a plan that would reduce subsidies by 11.4 bil per year by just not giving subsidies to rich farmers, but he's so politically irrelevant that I don't think it will make a dent.
I read this out of the Chicago Tribune in the commentaries, the June 22 issue.
Who are the sponsors?
I really doubt it'll ever make it out of committee.
Richard Lugar (R-Ind) is a pretty good as a sponsor, I think. At least I've heard of him.
Hey Than, you should check this thing out called Farm-21, its this new farm reform bill.
It would get rid of the subsidy system in 6-7 years (Depends on senate or house version)
It would replace them essentially with IRA's, only they're for emergencies (Called RMA's)
It would cut farm subsidies by 20 billion over the the next 5 years and 55 bil over the next 10.
The president's got a plan that would reduce subsidies by 11.4 bil per year by just not giving subsidies to rich farmers, but he's so politically irrelevant that I don't think it will make a dent.
I read this out of the Chicago Tribune in the commentaries, the June 22 issue.
Who are the sponsors?
I really doubt it'll ever make it out of committee.
Richard Lugar (R-Ind) is a pretty good as a sponsor, I think. At least I've heard of him.
What about Thompson or Gingrich (assuming one or both run)?
Gingrich is a right wing thug and Thompson is unknown, but I do not believe that either of them are any more socially conservative than McCain.
(Funny, I was about to just say that they were more conservative, but thats not true considering that true conservatism means smaller government, and smaller government means government not being interested in the uteruses of women and their contents.)
Damn, you guys need to get yourself a preference system. Double your vote!
No, because I'd rather the other guys running get NO votes whatsoever.
Although I kinda wish we'd actually follow the rule of the consitution and have the president be the guy that gets the most electoral votes and the vice president is second place.
Damn, you guys need to get yourself a preference system. Double your vote!
No, because I'd rather the other guys running get NO votes whatsoever.
Although I kinda wish we'd actually follow the rule of the consitution and have the president be the guy that gets the most electoral votes and the vice president is second place.
Funny that. I'd rather we amend the Constitution and get rid of the electoral college entirely.
Of course, I don't live in a shithole of a state, and the shithole states are the ones that will have a problem with that.
Damn, you guys need to get yourself a preference system. Double your vote!
No, because I'd rather the other guys running get NO votes whatsoever.
Although I kinda wish we'd actually follow the rule of the consitution and have the president be the guy that gets the most electoral votes and the vice president is second place.
Funny that. I'd rather we amend the Constitution and get rid of the electoral college entirely.
Of course, I don't live in a shithole of a state, and the shithole states are the ones that will have a problem with that.
You know, of the four times the electoral college has actually counteracted the popular vote, three of those times have been to prevent the candidate backed by the South from winning.
Damn, you guys need to get yourself a preference system. Double your vote!
No, because I'd rather the other guys running get NO votes whatsoever.
Although I kinda wish we'd actually follow the rule of the consitution and have the president be the guy that gets the most electoral votes and the vice president is second place.
That system screwed up two times out of three.
I consider having a president and a VP from different parties to be a screw up, considering it creates an executive branch thats more interested in internal affairs then enforcing the law.
And Jefferson/Burr is a worst case scenario that happened on the third time around.
I don't think that a system that screwed up 2 times out of 3 is a good system.
Damn, you guys need to get yourself a preference system. Double your vote!
No, because I'd rather the other guys running get NO votes whatsoever.
Although I kinda wish we'd actually follow the rule of the consitution and have the president be the guy that gets the most electoral votes and the vice president is second place.
Funny that. I'd rather we amend the Constitution and get rid of the electoral college entirely.
Of course, I don't live in a shithole of a state, and the shithole states are the ones that will have a problem with that.
You know, of the four times the electoral college has actually counteracted the popular vote, three of those times have been to prevent the candidate backed by the South from winning.
Jackson, Tilden, Cleveland - Fuck those guys.
The EC didn't let us down until Al Gore.
Shinto, are you honestly going to argue it doesn't affect the dynamic of the election?
Damn, you guys need to get yourself a preference system. Double your vote!
No, because I'd rather the other guys running get NO votes whatsoever.
Although I kinda wish we'd actually follow the rule of the consitution and have the president be the guy that gets the most electoral votes and the vice president is second place.
Funny that. I'd rather we amend the Constitution and get rid of the electoral college entirely.
Of course, I don't live in a shithole of a state, and the shithole states are the ones that will have a problem with that.
You know, of the four times the electoral college has actually counteracted the popular vote, three of those times have been to prevent the candidate backed by the South from winning.
Jackson, Tilden, Cleveland - Fuck those guys.
The EC didn't let us down until Al Gore.
Shinto, are you honestly going to argue it doesn't affect the dynamic of the election?
I wouldn't say it does so in a bad way.
Come on Thanatos - our union has always had the threat of breaking apart into regions laying over it. Pure popular voting would only increase the centrifugal force.
Which is exactly why the first three instance of EC use were to block the candidate from the Solid South.
Shinto on
0
Options
Irond WillWARNING: NO HURTFUL COMMENTS, PLEASE!!!!!Cambridge. MAModeratormod
Come on Thanatos - our union has always had the threat of breaking apart into regions laying over it. Pure popular voting would only increase the centrifugal force.
Which is exactly why the first three instance of EC use were to block the candidate from the Solid South.
I'm not convinced, Shinto. The variations between urban/ rural are much stronger than the variation between regions at this point, and it's not as though the countryside can really secede.
The electoral college system basically lets presidential candidates focus on like 6 states instead of trying to appeal to them entire nation.
I was about to try to be really indignant at this, but I realize that its true.
For instance, I live in a solid blue state (Illinois), and we had very few presidential ads.
Also, we had Barack Obama beat Alan Keyes in an election 80% to 20%, which I find very funny.
Regionalism tends to be exaggerated by the media- the difference between a "red state" and a "blue state" is often only a few percentage points.
But the difference between a "city" and "rural" vote is significant.
Also, the percentage difference in the presidential election between, say, Massachusetts or Rhode Island and say Alabama or Texas or Utah were in the vicinity of 40%. I mean if you're looking at something like New Mexico versus Colorado I'd agree but you have to admit that the regional variation between the coastal states and the interior and South is significant, and it's largely a function of % urban population.
Hah, if you want to bitch about swing states and the focusing upon thereof, move to a solely representative democracy like Britain. If I remain living where I am, my vote will never, ever make a difference. 52% to 27% isn't going anywhere. When I was younger I always used to think the US had a proper voting system, where you simply vote for which candidate you want and then see who has the most. You don't even have MPs; the electoral college system is completely asinine. :?
On a slight aside, How The Gingrich Stole Congress would make a great children's book.
"And when Clinton came forth with 'it depends on what the definition of is is' The Gingrich's heart grew three times that day and stepped down as speaker of the house."
Alexan Drite on
0
Options
Irond WillWARNING: NO HURTFUL COMMENTS, PLEASE!!!!!Cambridge. MAModeratormod
The easiest system wouldn't be to totally abolish the system but allow electoral votes to be spilt. This all or nothing crap is retarded.
The best system would be to rejigger the basic units of representation. It's ridiculous that NYC has to be saddled with upstate New York and vice versa, and it's asinine that groundfuckers in Wyoming get extra representation just for being hillbilly nobodies.
The easiest system wouldn't be to totally abolish the system but allow electoral votes to be spilt. This all or nothing crap is retarded.
The best system would be to rejigger the basic units of representation. It's ridiculous that NYC has to be saddled with upstate New York and vice versa, and it's asinine that groundfuckers in Wyoming get extra representation just for being hillbilly nobodies.
Upstate NY is funny. It's very conservative and it's got about the angriest conservatives ever because they're constnatly overridden by NYC and it's hippie rule
nexuscrawler on
0
Options
Irond WillWARNING: NO HURTFUL COMMENTS, PLEASE!!!!!Cambridge. MAModeratormod
Upstate NY is funny. It's very conservative and it's got about the angriest conservatives ever because they're constnatly overridden by NYC and it's hippie rule
It would be awesome to see the brilliant utopia that would result from giving them independence. They could rename their state "Detroitland" or maybe "New Maine".
The easiest system wouldn't be to totally abolish the system but allow electoral votes to be spilt. This all or nothing crap is retarded.
Yeah, I've had that idea before. Just have electoral votes be given by congressional district instead of by state (the winner of the state could take the extra two per state). The only problems with that would be more potential for Gerrymandering, and actually getting it done. Almost no state would want to do it without other states doing it since it breaks up their power, and the big states like California wouldn't be too pleased with their clout quartered up.
The easiest system wouldn't be to totally abolish the system but allow electoral votes to be spilt. This all or nothing crap is retarded.
Yeah, I've had that idea before. Just have electoral votes be given by congressional district instead of by state (the winner of the state could take the extra two per state). The only problems with that would be more potential for Gerrymandering, and actually getting it done. Almost no state would want to do it without other states doing it since it breaks up their power, and the big states like California wouldn't be too pleased with their clout quartered up.
That doesn't fix anything, it just makes it so that a Democrat will never, ever win a presidential election.
Because getting one vote more than a majority in California means the exact same thing as getting one vote more than a majority in Wyoming, so guess where all the money is going to go?
And Shinto, if you don't think the electoral college has anything to do with the fact that the corn industry is getting towards killing more people in this country than the tobacco industry, and nobody talks about it, you're crazy.
Posts
There aren't any right wing christian nutters running for president.
Right wing nutters, yes, but none of the christian ones are going to get close.
I wouldn't count either Huckabee or Brownback out.
(Funny, I was about to just say that they were more conservative, but thats not true considering that true conservatism means smaller government, and smaller government means government not being interested in the uteruses of women and their contents.)
No, because I'd rather the other guys running get NO votes whatsoever.
Although I kinda wish we'd actually follow the rule of the consitution and have the president be the guy that gets the most electoral votes and the vice president is second place.
Of course, I don't live in a shithole of a state, and the shithole states are the ones that will have a problem with that.
You know, of the four times the electoral college has actually counteracted the popular vote, three of those times have been to prevent the candidate backed by the South from winning.
Jackson, Tilden, Cleveland - Fuck those guys.
The EC didn't let us down until Al Gore.
I consider having a president and a VP from different parties to be a screw up, considering it creates an executive branch thats more interested in internal affairs then enforcing the law.
And Jefferson/Burr is a worst case scenario that happened on the third time around.
I don't think that a system that screwed up 2 times out of 3 is a good system.
I wouldn't say it does so in a bad way.
Come on Thanatos - our union has always had the threat of breaking apart into regions laying over it. Pure popular voting would only increase the centrifugal force.
Which is exactly why the first three instance of EC use were to block the candidate from the Solid South.
For instance, I live in a solid blue state (Illinois), and we had very few presidential ads.
Also, we had Barack Obama beat Alan Keyes in an election 80% to 20%, which I find very funny.
Also, the percentage difference in the presidential election between, say, Massachusetts or Rhode Island and say Alabama or Texas or Utah were in the vicinity of 40%. I mean if you're looking at something like New Mexico versus Colorado I'd agree but you have to admit that the regional variation between the coastal states and the interior and South is significant, and it's largely a function of % urban population.
Which results in presidents who best represent the interests of fucking Ohio instead of the entire nation
Plus we have exciting Democratic primaries for state and local candidates!
"And when Clinton came forth with 'it depends on what the definition of is is' The Gingrich's heart grew three times that day and stepped down as speaker of the house."
The best system would be to rejigger the basic units of representation. It's ridiculous that NYC has to be saddled with upstate New York and vice versa, and it's asinine that groundfuckers in Wyoming get extra representation just for being hillbilly nobodies.
Upstate NY is funny. It's very conservative and it's got about the angriest conservatives ever because they're constnatly overridden by NYC and it's hippie rule
It would be awesome to see the brilliant utopia that would result from giving them independence. They could rename their state "Detroitland" or maybe "New Maine".
What's it like to be a Democratic candidate in Texas, for any position?
I am so confused.
Yeah, I've had that idea before. Just have electoral votes be given by congressional district instead of by state (the winner of the state could take the extra two per state). The only problems with that would be more potential for Gerrymandering, and actually getting it done. Almost no state would want to do it without other states doing it since it breaks up their power, and the big states like California wouldn't be too pleased with their clout quartered up.
Because getting one vote more than a majority in California means the exact same thing as getting one vote more than a majority in Wyoming, so guess where all the money is going to go?
And Shinto, if you don't think the electoral college has anything to do with the fact that the corn industry is getting towards killing more people in this country than the tobacco industry, and nobody talks about it, you're crazy.