Midterms 2018

[southsider2k5]

2 minutes ago, StrangeSox said:

Corruption and conflicts of interest are a real issue in my opinion.

How many Benghazi investigations did the GOP launch? It paid off for them politically.

Sure if your goal is to be the GOP, waste your time on it.

[raBBit]

What is the expectation for Pritzker on a.) legalizing weed and b.) driving tax?

Hope everyone got out yesterday and took the time to vote against the intolerant, higher taxes and socialist policy.

[BigHurt3515]

Just now, Soxbadger said:

I agree tax returns are a waste. I think they should look into his business dealings after becoming President, his hotels, etc. Also look into his cabinet and other people who may be attempting to profiteer from the office of President.

What happened before he took office is the least of my concerns. 

I don't know much but I bet if investigations happened in every other Presidency, 90% of them there would be some kind of corruption or profiteering going on.

[raBBit]

2 minutes ago, StrangeSox said:

Corruption and conflicts of interest are a real issue in my opinion.

How many Benghazi investigations did the GOP launch? It paid off for them politically.

What did the poster say about the GOP? Where's the relevance?

But to your point, two wrongs do make a right. 

[StrangeSox]

11 minutes ago, Jenksismyhero said:

But the fundamental issue remains the same - small states (rural areas) will be substantially disadvantaged and underrepresented. 

If anything this "problem" highlights why the federal government has far too much power in our system. The federal government should be governing our collective concerns (foreign relations, immigration, defense, etc.) but little else.

I can only say it so many ways, but I don't care about "states." I care about people. I'm sensitive to not having purely majoritarian politics, but I don't see why Citizen A should have literally 100x more representation in the Senate than Citizen B simply because of what arbitrary state border they choose to reside in.

Big population states have plenty of rural areas. California is the largest agricultural producer in the country. Republicans still win statewide races in big population states with major metro areas. 

Small states wouldn't be underrepresented--they would be represented in rough proportion to the number of people who live there rather than being massively overadvantaged and overrepresented.

[StrangeSox]

1 minute ago, southsider2k5 said:

Sure if your goal is to be the GOP, waste your time on it.

GOP still controls one branch of Congress and the other two branches of the federal government so it seems to have worked out well for them?

You said earlier that you think they should focus on the Russia stuff. Tax returns could be directly related to that sort of corrupting influence.

[StrangeSox]

4 minutes ago, Soxbadger said:

I agree tax returns are a waste. I think they should look into his business dealings after becoming President, his hotels, etc. Also look into his cabinet and other people who may be attempting to profiteer from the office of President.

What happened before he took office is the least of my concerns. 

There's an emoluments clause lawsuit that's moved forward past a few legal hurdles relating to his business dealings as President fwiw.

 

Zinke was recently criminally referred for corruption.

[southsider2k5]

Just now, StrangeSox said:

GOP still controls one branch of Congress and the other two branches of the federal government so it seems to have worked out well for them?

You said earlier that you think they should focus on the Russia stuff. Tax returns could be directly related to that sort of corrupting influence.

Tax returns are going to be the same thing as emails, and largely more irrelevant.  It is such a waste of time, yet completely unsurprising.  Again, if the goal is to out GOP the Republican party, have at it.

[StrangeSox]

4 minutes ago, illinilaw08 said:

Jenks, IF the Senate is designed to give each state the same voice in one chamber, thereby increasing the rural voice and diluting the urban voice, then shouldn't the House be an actual proportional representation by population?

As things currently stand, urban areas vote overwhelmingly Democrat, and rural votes overwhelmingly Republican.  Yet in the House - which is designed to give proportionate representation to each state - the Democrats need an 8% edge nationally to win the House.  https://www.vox.com/2018/11/6/18068792/midterm-election-results-winners-and-losers

It seems like we can't change House districts - because won't somebody think of the rural areas.  We can't change the Electoral College - because won't somebody think of the small states.  When do urban areas get a voice proportionate with their population?

 

The Senate was designed to give equal representation to the state governments, but it wasn't over urban/rural concerns. The country was almost entirely rural in 1790, 3.929M total, 3.727M rural. We didn't stop being majority rural until 1920.

https://www.census.gov/population/censusdata/table-4.pdf

 

[StrangeSox]

4 minutes ago, southsider2k5 said:

Tax returns are going to be the same thing as emails, and largely more irrelevant.  It is such a waste of time, yet completely unsurprising.  Again, if the goal is to out GOP the Republican party, have at it.

EMAILS helped shape the narrative of Clinton as corrupt and gave a "both sides" foil to all of the scandals and corruption swirling around Trump in 2016.

The Democrats' goal should be expanding political power. If dumb House investigations are what it takes, I'm all for it. If you're concerned about Russia, there are some serious allegations about their influence/control over him and his business dealings that tax returns may reveal.

Ultimately it'll probably be a wet fart and yeah I would agree that Dems should focus on good, popular policy like expanding health care! Fortunately they can do many things at once.

 

e: or possibly the tax returns reveal and confirm what the NYT reported recently, that much of Trump's empire is based on tax crimes. Dems should run on a broader platform of enforcing laws against the wealthy and the powerful as a check, but lol they won't (because they are also wealthy and powerful).

Edited November 7, 2018 by StrangeSox

[raBBit]

1 minute ago, StrangeSox said:

Big population states have plenty of rural areas. California is the largest agricultural producer in the country. Republicans still win statewide races in big population states with major metro areas. 

This is only because democrats spend the states broke and the locals have no alternative to democrats other than republicans.

Like our state has more debt per person than any other state. So the citizens finally elect a republican because they're sick of the rampant spending and corruption. Rauner is completely neutered by the Democratic stronghold on any issues that his lack of a pulse already didn't already disqualify him from. It's almost as if two options turn into one option and that option is blatantly corrupt and has already ran the state dry. Gotta love Illinois.

[Soxbadger]

2 minutes ago, raBBit said:

What is the expectation for Pritzker on a.) legalizing weed and b.) driving tax?

Hope everyone got out yesterday and took the time to vote against the intolerant, higher taxes and socialist policy.

Illinois needs to balance the budget. Im pretty sure that no one wants to pay higher taxes, or bills or any expenses. But that is life.

 

https://www2.illinois.gov/sites/budget/Documents/Budget Book/FY 2019/Fiscal-Year-2019-Operating-Budget-Book.pdf

 

Projected budget for 2018

 

TOTAL RESOURCES 37,964

TOTAL EXPENDITURES 37,613

 

So slightly balanced, which is a good thing. But IL needs to start making a major dent in debt. The only way to do this is to 1) lower expenses or 2) increase revenue. They tried things with pensions, but that seems to have lost at the judicial level. So the easiest option is more revenue. Yes it may be painful short term, but hopefully balancing your budget today, makes it better in the future. Debt servicing and backlog are almost 10% of the expenditures. Would be amazing if we could even half that.

 

 

[Soxbadger]

Just now, raBBit said:

This is only because democrats spend the states broke and the locals have no alternative to democrats other than republicans.

Like our state has more debt per person than any other state. So the citizens finally elect a republican because they're sick of the rampant spending and corruption. Rauner is completely neutered by the Democratic stronghold on any issues that his lack of a pulse already didn't already disqualify him from. It's almost as if two options turn into one option and that option is blatantly corrupt and has already ran the state dry. Gotta love Illinois.

How did Rauner not have the ability to try new ways to raise revenue?

Refusing to pay bills isnt a policy option. If Republicans want to actually try and balance budgets, a lot of people would listen to them. But the fiscal conservatives are gone. Republicans (at least at the federal level) slash revenues while increasing spending, how does that improve debt at all?

[illinilaw08]

2 minutes ago, raBBit said:

This is only because democrats spend the states broke and the locals have no alternative to democrats other than republicans.

Like our state has more debt per person than any other state. So the citizens finally elect a republican because they're sick of the rampant spending and corruption. Rauner is completely neutered by the Democratic stronghold on any issues that his lack of a pulse already didn't already disqualify him from. It's almost as if two options turn into one option and that option is blatantly corrupt and has already ran the state dry. Gotta love Illinois.

Definitely not the case in Colorado, which is pretty blue at this point and in quite a good position fiscally.  

[Soxbadger]

Just now, illinilaw08 said:

Definitely not the case in Colorado, which is pretty blue at this point and in quite a good position fiscally.  

There is no evidence to the claim at all. California has a surplus as well, and its arguably the most blue state. 

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/06/27/californias-fiscal-risks-despite-largest-surplus-in-more-than-decade.html

[Jack Parkman]

34 minutes ago, raBBit said:

Look at the posts that precede yours you're fine.

There used to be a few things that were generally agreed on by both conservatives and liberals:

Unions, Social Security, and anti-monopoly measures.

The Italian Mob ruined Unions, but they don't exist anymore. The right wing nutjobs are going after Social Security, and that is BS. 

The libertarians and religious fundamentalists have hijacked the GOP over the last 40 years. I can understand curbing taxes, I can understand business having a seat at the table. All of those things are ok. They have lost touch with reality and have been winning elections solely on fear mongering. 

Break up the huge corporations and banks for pete's sake. It is way overdue. The last one to happen was AT&T in the 70s. 

I think there is a happy middle ground between investing in your own retirement and state pensions: 

There is a minimum amount we all pay into Social Security from our Payroll taxes

OK, you can choose to invest in the market, or you can pay into Social Security. The return would be less than investing, but at the end of the day, a worker ends up with a pension-style retirement of a percentage of your last 5 years income. That is the safe route. It requires paying 5, 10 or 15%  of your yearly income. The number of years you pay a certain percentatge affects your check in retirement. If you believe in your own investment ability, you could pay what you pay now, still get that amount but invest in the market. There is a huge potential for higher gains, but there is also a potential for huge losses. It would be interesting to see  which would win out over time. 

All I have to say is, remember the national motto, which translates to: Out of many, one. 

The US has always welcomed people from anywhere, and it makes me sick the amount of hate going around, and that politicians are channeling that hate for political gain. 

Edited November 7, 2018 by Jack Parkman

[raBBit]

1 minute ago, StrangeSox said:

EMAILS helped shape the narrative of Clinton as corrupt and gave a "both sides" foil to all of the scandals and corruption swirling around Trump in 2016.

Yeah I am sure it wasn't that she was the only FLOTUS to be under criminal investigation. It wasn't her laughing about defending child rapists and getting them off. It wasn't her litany of scandals, it wasn't her spearheading the dismantling of the most evolved African country and laughing about it, it wasn't her attacking her husband's assault victims, it was just the emails that turned people off. Everything else in her best in US history record for corruption didn't resonate with the people. It was disregard for government security protocol that turned people off. Not the countries and lives ruined by her over multiple decades.

[Jenksismyhero]

8 minutes ago, illinilaw08 said:

Jenks, IF the Senate is designed to give each state the same voice in one chamber, thereby increasing the rural voice and diluting the urban voice, then shouldn't the House be an actual proportional representation by population?

As things currently stand, urban areas vote overwhelmingly Democrat, and rural votes overwhelmingly Republican.  Yet in the House - which is designed to give proportionate representation to each state - the Democrats need an 8% edge nationally to win the House.  https://www.vox.com/2018/11/6/18068792/midterm-election-results-winners-and-losers

It seems like we can't change House districts - because won't somebody think of the rural areas.  We can't change the Electoral College - because won't somebody think of the small states.  When do urban areas get a voice proportionate with their population?

 

I don't have a problem with that in theory but at some point the membership of the House would get so big it would be problematic. 

[raBBit]

8 minutes ago, Soxbadger said:

Illinois needs to balance the budget. Im pretty sure that no one wants to pay higher taxes, or bills or any expenses. But that is life.

No it isn't. Don't vote for corrupt democrats who have bankrupted the state while they've held the entirety of the power and you don't have to increase taxes. I don't know that Republicans can or would fix the issues. Especially with Madigan still breathing. All I know is the state has done things one way during my life and they are in an awful place because of it. Make a marked change and deviate from the norm.

[Soxbadger]

Just now, Jenksismyhero said:

I don't have a problem with that in theory but at some point the membership of the House would get so big it would be problematic. 

The only option would be to cut down from 2 guaranteed house, to 1.

The problem keeps getting exacerbated because the majority of the population has less of a say in the House and Senate. That problem then becomes even worse in elections such as the last one where the President doesnt win the popular vote. It results in a situation where the minority has control of all 3 branches of govt. 

That just isnt a fair system. So at some point there has to be consideration given to 1) increasing number of house and 2) having President being popular vote.

Even 1 of those changes would help end the tyranny of the minority. 

[Soxbadger]

Just now, raBBit said:

No it isn't. Don't vote for corrupt democrats who have bankrupted the state while they've held the entirety of the power and you don't have to increase taxes. I don't know that Republicans can or would fix the issues. Especially with Madigan still breathing. All I know is the state has done things one way during my life and they are in an awful place because of it. Make a marked change and deviate from the norm.

Republicans have done nothing in my lifetime to show that they are capable at any level of balancing a budget. Bush blew up the federal defecit. Trump is doing the same.

You can keep blaming Democrats, but what exactly is the Republican position to make the budget better? You keep saying "dont raise taxes" well thats like me saying, I want more stuff, but I dont want to have to make more money.

There are 2 options in life when it comes to balancing your finances: 1) lower expenses or 2) increase your revenue.

There is no mythical option 3 where I decrease revenue and increase spending. Its tiring hearing how that magical unicorn is going to ride in. If Republicans want my vote, then come up with a plan. Maybe I dont like that Pritzker will raise my taxes, but at least its a plan. 

[raBBit]

13 minutes ago, illinilaw08 said:

Definitely not the case in Colorado, which is pretty blue at this point and in quite a good position fiscally.  

That's one state. How about a top ten worst financially run states and top ten best financially run states. 

[Jack Parkman]

15 minutes ago, raBBit said:

Yeah I am sure it wasn't that she was the only FLOTUS to be under criminal investigation. It wasn't her laughing about defending child rapists and getting them off. It wasn't her litany of scandals, it wasn't her spearheading the dismantling of the most evolved African country and laughing about it, it wasn't her attacking her husband's assault victims, it was just the emails that turned people off. Everything else in her best in US history record for corruption didn't resonate with the people. It was disregard for government security protocol that turned people off. Not the countries and lives ruined by her over multiple decades.

Rabbit, I'm not a huge fan of the Clintons either, and it really pained me to push the button for Hillary. It was made an easier decision when I see Trump as a threat to democracy. I know you might disagree, but the last 4 elections have been the epitome of the Douche and Turd episode from South Park. There have been very few candidates I can get behind at all. 

When it comes to economics, I strongly suggest Robert Reich's documentary Saving Capitalism. Even if you aren't a liberal, I suggest watching it. It is not as partisan as you'd think. I do watch programs that are more right-leaning from time to time just to get an idea where other people are coming from. From Stephen Covey's book: Seek first to understand, then to be understood. 

Edited November 7, 2018 by Jack Parkman

[illinilaw08]

2 minutes ago, raBBit said:

That's one state. How about a top ten worst financially run states and top ten best financially run states. 

You made a blanket statement that democrats spend states broke.  I gave you Colorado.  SB gave you California.  I would assert, Rabbit, that the burden is on you at this point to prove that Democrats categorically spend states broke.  It's not on me to continue proving the statement incorrect. 

[raBBit]

1 minute ago, Soxbadger said:

Republicans have done nothing in my lifetime to show that they are capable at any level of balancing a budget. Bush blew up the federal defecit. Trump is doing the same.

You can keep blaming Democrats, but what exactly is the Republican position to make the budget better? You keep saying "dont raise taxes" well thats like me saying, I want more stuff, but I dont want to have to make more money.

There are 2 options in life when it comes to balancing your finances: 1) lower expenses or 2) increase your revenue.

There is no mythical option 3 where I decrease revenue and increase spending. Its tiring hearing how that magical unicorn is going to ride in. If Republicans want my vote, then come up with a plan. Maybe I dont like that Pritzker will raise my taxes, but at least its a plan. 

I am talking about local politics. There is no precedent for what Republicans would do in Illinois if they had a scumbag like Madigan fixing things in their favor. At least in my lifetime. Generally speaking, republican led states are in a far better position financially compared to democrat ran states.

To be clear: There is no mention or relevance of the POTUS in this post.