Republicans: State government to protect your right to fuck with minorities, otherwise screw the government and privatize everything (except the military, for some reason)
Hate to say it, but she seems to misunderstand a fundamental point of difference between Republicans and Democrats.
Democrats = Federal Government to fix things
Republicans = Tax Cuts for the Rich
I would also point out that, Obama did in fact create several programs to help people like her get jobs. But hey, Romney sat down next to her for a couple seconds so, I guess he's the right guy to vote for.
Had to adjust your over simplification.
Preacher on
I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.
Back on the road, down the highway, and Romney arrives at another diner in the town of Derry. Same format: More jokes about the media. "I was on TV last night, and these guys keep following me!"
He sits down briefly with Ashley DelPidio, a college student who'd just nailed down a job after putting her resume on CareerBuilder.
"How is it for other people in your class," asks Romney.
"Not everyone is lucky," she says.
After Romney leaves I check in with her; she, too was impressed. "I could see myself voting for him," she says. "Obama made a lot of promises and he hasn't kept all of them." What would she want President Romney to do that Obama hasn't? "The government needs to help people more when it comes to finding jobs. I think we could use more federal aid, or a federal program for people who are unemployed."
So she expects him to do something no republican at all is or will ever propose and sees thats a good enough reason to vote for him over obama. Ok I get it people in america are fucking stupid.
Hate to say it, but she seems to misunderstand a fundamental point of difference between Republicans and Democrats.
Democrats = Federal Government to fix things
Republicans = State governments to fix things
Yeah, but the "things" that republicans like to fix usually involve "black guy drinking at the same water fountain."
Except state republicans are against the exact same shit that federal republicans are against except on a state level.
Nationally, Republicans want things to be taken care of at the state level.
At the state level, Republicans want things to be taken care of locally.
Locally, Republicans want the national and state levels to do less.
I will never understand how people think Ron Paul can be a canidate for pres. His best shot was in 2008, he certainly hasn't gotten any better since then.
Preacher on
I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.
I will never understand how people think Ron Paul can be a canidate for pres. His best shot was in 2008, he certainly hasn't gotten any better since then.
Ron Paul named John Stossel as a likely running mate if he ever got the nomination.
John Stossel.
If Paul was elected and something happened to him in office, John Stossel would take over his duties as president.
Does anyone honestly believe that Ron Paul is taking this election seriously?
Eh, I call that the Cheney strategy: make sure your VP and designated successor is 10X less appealing to your enemies and you dramatically reduce the odds that one of them decides it's a good idea to assasinate you.
The last two Republican candidates were believers, after all. Seriously if McCain had won that election I would have been praying to any god that might listen to keep him from having a coronary before 2012.
OK, I was in class and missed most of the debate, just catching the recap. Did Gingrich really say we should do loyalty test for people in government? McCarthy style?
No, he said that it doesn't matter if Muslims take loyalty oaths, because they just lie in order to carry out terrorist bombings, so we should root them out like the Nazis and Communists.
Yes, Newt Gingrich just made Joe McCarthy seem sane in comparison.
I didn't see the debate, but that's actually true (if phrased terribly poorly.) If someone is infiltrating the government to do nefarious things, lying about a loyalty oath is really no big deal. You'd be much better served by thoroughly vetting them.
GINGRICH: I just want to comment for a second. The Pakistani who emigrated to the U.S. became a citizen, built a car bomb which luckily failed to go off in Times Square was asked by the federal judge, how could he have done that when he signed -- when he swore an oath to the United States. And he looked at the judge and said, "You're my enemy. I lied."
Now, I just want to go out on a limb here. I'm in favor of saying to people, if you're not prepared to be loyal to the United States, you will not serve in my administration, period.
(APPLAUSE)
GINGRICH: We did this -- we did this in dealing with the Nazis and we did this in dealing with the communists. And it was controversial both times, and both times we discovered after a while, you know, there are some genuinely bad people who would like to infiltrate our country. And we have got to have the guts to stand up and say no.
Utterly confused. He suggests loyalty oaths right after telling a story about the futility of such things because people not inclined to take such oaths, can just lie?
And people applauded?
That whole section is absurd. Sharia Law in the US? Muslims in the administration? I mean, this is what the Republican Party is worried about?
I think the most flattering reading of Gingrich would be that Oaths mean nothing and you gotta look at a body of work. I didn't really get the idea he was supporting loyalty oaths though or that Muslims are the new Apollo Program Scientists.
mrt144 on
0
Options
mrt144King of the NumbernamesRegistered Userregular
edited June 2011
Also, how much is Bachman going to reference her vaginal fortitude throughout the race? I mean, it's like Palin all over again and I don't honestly see any of my cohorts who are swayed by appeals to motherhood.
Back on the road, down the highway, and Romney arrives at another diner in the town of Derry. Same format: More jokes about the media. "I was on TV last night, and these guys keep following me!"
He sits down briefly with Ashley DelPidio, a college student who'd just nailed down a job after putting her resume on CareerBuilder.
"How is it for other people in your class," asks Romney.
"Not everyone is lucky," she says.
After Romney leaves I check in with her; she, too was impressed. "I could see myself voting for him," she says. "Obama made a lot of promises and he hasn't kept all of them." What would she want President Romney to do that Obama hasn't? "The government needs to help people more when it comes to finding jobs. I think we could use more federal aid, or a federal program for people who are unemployed."
So she expects him to do something no republican at all is or will ever propose and sees thats a good enough reason to vote for him over obama. Ok I get it people in america are fucking stupid.
At least they're liberal, even if they keep voting for conservatives. Eventually they'll catch on.
Back on the road, down the highway, and Romney arrives at another diner in the town of Derry. Same format: More jokes about the media. "I was on TV last night, and these guys keep following me!"
He sits down briefly with Ashley DelPidio, a college student who'd just nailed down a job after putting her resume on CareerBuilder.
"How is it for other people in your class," asks Romney.
"Not everyone is lucky," she says.
After Romney leaves I check in with her; she, too was impressed. "I could see myself voting for him," she says. "Obama made a lot of promises and he hasn't kept all of them." What would she want President Romney to do that Obama hasn't? "The government needs to help people more when it comes to finding jobs. I think we could use more federal aid, or a federal program for people who are unemployed."
So she expects him to do something no republican at all is or will ever propose and sees thats a good enough reason to vote for him over obama. Ok I get it people in america are fucking stupid.
At least they're liberal, even if they keep voting for conservatives. Eventually they'll catch on.
People really are that vengeful. "I don't know how many jobs were created but I'm not one of them therefore Obama has failed."
Except state republicans are against the exact same shit that federal republicans are against except on a state level.
Nationally, Republicans want things to be taken care of at the state level.
At the state level, Republicans want things to be taken care of locally.
Locally, Republicans want the national and state levels to do less.
It's trickle down politics!
Individually, Republicans pine for the days Robber Barons flew around in Zepplins pelting the masses with silver dollars.
ethicalsean on
0
Options
HedgethornAssociate Professor of Historical Hobby HorsesIn the Lions' DenRegistered Userregular
edited June 2011
In defense of that college student, who here thinks that Romney is really a true-believer when it comes to conservative dogma? If a Pres. Romney were paired with a Democratic congress, I could see him implement some form of jobs program or fiscal stimulus.
Not that you'll ever hear him say that in the primaries, of course...
Nor will you see a Democratic Congress if Romney is elected. You'll get a Congress of Bachmanns.
enlightenedbum on
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
0
Options
HedgethornAssociate Professor of Historical Hobby HorsesIn the Lions' DenRegistered Userregular
edited June 2011
Agreed. Hence the subjunctive tense.
I suspect that the course of a Romney presidency would very much depend on the composition of Congress--even more so than most presidencies. And you're right that a 2012 Romney win almost assures Republican control of both houses of Congress.
I would actually be all for more programs being run at the state level versus the federal level. If that's actually what Republicans wanted, that would be keen. If the government was actually run strictly by people who operate in good faith, we could have the states running most assistance programs with targeted aid by the fed as necessary.
Too bad we live in the real world where politicians are mostly full of shit.
ElJeffe on
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
Also where states have to balance their budgets so the money would have to come from the feds anyway and inevitably Senators would demand control.
enlightenedbum on
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
0
Options
Dr Mario KartGames DealerAustin, TXRegistered Userregular
edited June 2011
It depends on how far you take it. Given how much federal money the conservative states already drain above what they put in, you could have a real balkanization situation going on. You let it go far enough and you'll end up with state REFUGEES.
I would actually be all for more programs being run at the state level versus the federal level. If that's actually what Republicans wanted, that would be keen. If the government was actually run strictly by people who operate in good faith, we could have the states running most assistance programs with targeted aid by the fed as necessary.
Too bad we live in the real world where politicians are mostly full of shit.
I have never heard of a good way to overcome the "race to the bottom" problem that comes with state level programs.
Why would someone who never expects to use social programs move to Vermont when they could go to Texas.
Is there anything that states can actually do better than at a federal level? All I can think of are cases where states decide that they want to do certain things worse.
Edit: Regulations, obviously, but what about services?
Services are often tied to income, and a lot of that is based on federal standards.
Minimum wage is a good example, though it's not really a "service". The cost of living varies hugely across the country. So any minimum wage you set is going to be, depending on the state, either onerous to affected businesses (if the state has a low cost of living) or so low as to be useless (if the state has a high cost of living).
Economic realities aren't constant across the country, and yet most federal programs are based on a single set of numbers for every citizen.
ElJeffe on
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
Is there anything that states can actually do better than at a federal level? All I can think of are cases where states decide that they want to do certain things worse.
Edit: Regulations, obviously, but what about services?
I have yet to see a good argument that the federal government is going to be better at deciding what the population of a state wants to do with their tax dollars than the state government. Keep in mind that most of the success stories are going to be the sort of things where no one notices until it breaks (say employing cops (yes that's likely city/county level)). Hmm, state parks might fit your request, not sure you'd qualify them as a service though. Reasonably certain large portions of the road system are going to be supplied by the states (read: all those highways with state specific backgrounds behind the number), not sure what the funding percentage is though.
I would actually be all for more programs being run at the state level versus the federal level. If that's actually what Republicans wanted, that would be keen. If the government was actually run strictly by people who operate in good faith, we could have the states running most assistance programs with targeted aid by the fed as necessary.
Too bad we live in the real world where politicians are mostly full of shit.
I have never heard of a good way to overcome the "race to the bottom" problem that comes with state level programs.
Why would someone who never expects to use social programs move to Vermont when they could go to Texas.
Have the federal government dispense the cash annually for designated purposes, and then the state administers and customizes the program. States do not therefore have the differing tax rates that cause race-to-the-bottom, but there is still competition between states (in service delivery) and an amount of local government.
It seems like whenever a politician says "this policy should be run at the state level" the unsaid second half is "because there it'll be easier for us to drag it into a back alley and kill it".
Scooter on
0
Options
KalTorakOne way or another, they all end up inthe Undercity.Registered Userregular
edited June 2011
Also states aren't allowed to legalize same-sex marriage. Or regulate guns.
It seems like whenever a politician says "this policy should be run at the state level" the unsaid second half is "because there it'll be easier for us to drag it into a back alley and kill it".
...while still getting sweet federal cash to balance the budget we fucked royally!!
And yes, federal poverty level designations are a century out of date and completely unrealistic. That doesn't mean we should just hand it over the to states and let them fuck it over 50 different ways, it means we should fix the federal standard.
Can someone explain the logic behind their notion that Sarbanes/Oxley and Frank/Dodd are somehow "killing" jobs?
Do these dolts have any clue how many people companies have hired to ensure compliance with this stuff?
What happens if Sarbanes/Oxley is gone tomorrow? How will that somehow turn into more positions now that companies ostensibly will have less work to do?
Man, our department has tripled in size since sarbanes/oxley, and thats not counting the huge amounts of people they had to hire to do sign offs because executives were crippled in their power to just change shit as they needed to. I'd really like to hear how forcing extra people to take care of/monitor/execute/check/audit business over a pres or vp just making a change at a whim is costing jobs. We have processes in place now that take dozens of people to complete, over 1 guy who just used to look at a number and go "mmmmmmmm not high enough, $2 more. changed. lets get lunch"
I would actually be all for more programs being run at the state level versus the federal level. If that's actually what Republicans wanted, that would be keen. If the government was actually run strictly by people who operate in good faith, we could have the states running most assistance programs with targeted aid by the fed as necessary.
Too bad we live in the real world where politicians are mostly full of shit.
I have never heard of a good way to overcome the "race to the bottom" problem that comes with state level programs.
Why would someone who never expects to use social programs move to Vermont when they could go to Texas.
Federal standards. That's how Canada does it afaik. (we actually have more provincial/state autonomy then you guys I believe)
The Fed says your program must be X good, the state figures out how to do it and runs everything.
That whole section is absurd. Sharia Law in the US? Muslims in the administration? I mean, this is what the Republican Party is worried about?
I think the most flattering reading of Gingrich would be that Oaths mean nothing and you gotta look at a body of work. I didn't really get the idea he was supporting loyalty oaths though or that Muslims are the new Apollo Program Scientists.
And I think the least-flattering reading of what he said there has him supporting not only McCarthyism, but also Muslim internment camps.
Ron Paul is not even a person. He's not really supposed to exist in this day and age. I guess it is not surprising that they need a messiah, but it just feels... Wrong. He's just a generic extremist who, like all prominent libertarians I know of, seems a lot less outraged over the idea of destroying women's or gay people's freedoms than about companies being denied the "right" to destroy commons or pay insignificant taxes.
Libertarianism is such a strange phenomenon. It sounds good on paper, and I still like some of it in theory, but actual libertarians are some of the craziest and most evil people I've ever heard talk. The disconnect between theory and execution is just mind boggling. It's like understanding Jesus to be a hippy and then listening to Christian fundamentalists invoking his name while advocating killing gay people.
The libertarian response to anything is, "Sure, that works fine in practice, but it doesn't fly in theory."
As someone who self-identifies as a libertarian, I've always viewed libertarianism as leaning socially liberal and economically conservative in terms of the political spectrum (which of course is a giant can of worms regarding where you think the middle of the road is.) To that end, there's going to be degrees to which people can be conservative or liberal on those two things, and I know libertarians that are extremists in terms of social and economic freedoms, but from my experience, it's not nearly as homogeneous as you guys seem to think it is. It just depends on whether you, if you're a libertarian, put more stake into social or fiscal issues. There's a metric fuckton of libertarian schools of thought though. Left libertarians would probably be pretty pissed at the notion they resemble the monopoly guy.
I guess you might be defining the Libertarian party? I'm not entirely sure.
And I think the least-flattering reading of what he said there has him supporting not only McCarthyism, but also Muslim internment camps.
When his statements are so ineptly put together, it's not all that difficult to draw those kind of conclusions. He needs to get his shit together.
Being socially left means more than wanting to legalize weed. For instance, do you think that businesses should be allowed to discriminate against minorities? The problem is that it's hard to reconcile the socially left side with the fiscally conservative side, since protecting social rights usually requires some form of regulations and taxes.
But here's the real problem. Libertarian think tanks can't survive in the free market. Most of them are non-profit organizations that can't make enough money off of readership and ads, so instead, they make their money by appealing to wealthy donors. And do you think those wealthy donors are telling them to focus their content on social issues? No. Do you think those wealthy donors are telling them how they can use the free market to address corporate abuse? No. The wealthy donors are paying them off to be mouth pieces to the corporations.
So while individual libertarians may not be corporate shills, the people at the center certainly are.
Newt made a mental recalculation that to stay relevant in the race (even for just the next couple of months to drive his book sales) he had to double down on the crazy.
Newt Gingrich is a lot of terrible things, but mostly what he is is a jaded opportunist. He has no problem saying completely reprehensible things if it helps his bottom line at the end of the night.
Posts
Republicans: State government to protect your right to fuck with minorities, otherwise screw the government and privatize everything (except the military, for some reason)
Had to adjust your over simplification.
pleasepaypreacher.net
Yeah, but the "things" that republicans like to fix usually involve "black guy drinking at the same water fountain."
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?298309-Official-Debate-Thread-(I-don-t-see-anything-else-up-yet)/page25
Even his supporters can't make sense of him.
Nationally, Republicans want things to be taken care of at the state level.
At the state level, Republicans want things to be taken care of locally.
Locally, Republicans want the national and state levels to do less.
It's trickle down politics!
pleasepaypreacher.net
Ron Paul named John Stossel as a likely running mate if he ever got the nomination.
John Stossel.
If Paul was elected and something happened to him in office, John Stossel would take over his duties as president.
Does anyone honestly believe that Ron Paul is taking this election seriously?
The last two Republican candidates were believers, after all. Seriously if McCain had won that election I would have been praying to any god that might listen to keep him from having a coronary before 2012.
How about the Palin strategy, then?
That whole section is absurd. Sharia Law in the US? Muslims in the administration? I mean, this is what the Republican Party is worried about?
I think the most flattering reading of Gingrich would be that Oaths mean nothing and you gotta look at a body of work. I didn't really get the idea he was supporting loyalty oaths though or that Muslims are the new Apollo Program Scientists.
At least they're liberal, even if they keep voting for conservatives. Eventually they'll catch on.
People really are that vengeful. "I don't know how many jobs were created but I'm not one of them therefore Obama has failed."
Individually, Republicans pine for the days Robber Barons flew around in Zepplins pelting the masses with silver dollars.
Not that you'll ever hear him say that in the primaries, of course...
I suspect that the course of a Romney presidency would very much depend on the composition of Congress--even more so than most presidencies. And you're right that a 2012 Romney win almost assures Republican control of both houses of Congress.
That's true. A Republican president is probably indicative of a conservative sweep in 2012.
Too bad we live in the real world where politicians are mostly full of shit.
I have never heard of a good way to overcome the "race to the bottom" problem that comes with state level programs.
Why would someone who never expects to use social programs move to Vermont when they could go to Texas.
Edit: Regulations, obviously, but what about services?
Minimum wage is a good example, though it's not really a "service". The cost of living varies hugely across the country. So any minimum wage you set is going to be, depending on the state, either onerous to affected businesses (if the state has a low cost of living) or so low as to be useless (if the state has a high cost of living).
Economic realities aren't constant across the country, and yet most federal programs are based on a single set of numbers for every citizen.
edit: I like eljeffe's response better
Have the federal government dispense the cash annually for designated purposes, and then the state administers and customizes the program. States do not therefore have the differing tax rates that cause race-to-the-bottom, but there is still competition between states (in service delivery) and an amount of local government.
And yes, federal poverty level designations are a century out of date and completely unrealistic. That doesn't mean we should just hand it over the to states and let them fuck it over 50 different ways, it means we should fix the federal standard.
Man, our department has tripled in size since sarbanes/oxley, and thats not counting the huge amounts of people they had to hire to do sign offs because executives were crippled in their power to just change shit as they needed to. I'd really like to hear how forcing extra people to take care of/monitor/execute/check/audit business over a pres or vp just making a change at a whim is costing jobs. We have processes in place now that take dozens of people to complete, over 1 guy who just used to look at a number and go "mmmmmmmm not high enough, $2 more. changed. lets get lunch"
Federal standards. That's how Canada does it afaik. (we actually have more provincial/state autonomy then you guys I believe)
The Fed says your program must be X good, the state figures out how to do it and runs everything.
New sig? New sig.
I guess you might be defining the Libertarian party? I'm not entirely sure.
When his statements are so ineptly put together, it's not all that difficult to draw those kind of conclusions. He needs to get his shit together.
SteamID: devCharles
twitter: https://twitter.com/charlesewise
But here's the real problem. Libertarian think tanks can't survive in the free market. Most of them are non-profit organizations that can't make enough money off of readership and ads, so instead, they make their money by appealing to wealthy donors. And do you think those wealthy donors are telling them to focus their content on social issues? No. Do you think those wealthy donors are telling them how they can use the free market to address corporate abuse? No. The wealthy donors are paying them off to be mouth pieces to the corporations.
So while individual libertarians may not be corporate shills, the people at the center certainly are.
Newt Gingrich is a lot of terrible things, but mostly what he is is a jaded opportunist. He has no problem saying completely reprehensible things if it helps his bottom line at the end of the night.
They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.