The Democrat Thread

[NorthSideSox72]

The longest paper I wrote in undergrad, for a senior/grad level Poli Sci class called Federalism and Federation, was a study of Indian Reservations, the Dawes Act and how the existing legal structure is basically keeping things bad for the native populations. Its been my opinion for a long time that at this point, the best thing we could do (if anyone really cared enough about this issue, which most people don't) is to get rid of the reservation system entirely. This will be painful, and at first costly, but will end up being beneficial and a huge savings in government spending in the long run.

 

[Y2HH]

The longest paper I wrote in undergrad, for a senior/grad level Poli Sci class called Federalism and Federation, was a study of Indian Reservations, the Dawes Act and how the existing legal structure is basically keeping things bad for the native populations. Its been my opinion for a long time that at this point, the best thing we could do (if anyone really cared enough about this issue, which most people don't) is to get rid of the reservation system entirely. This will be painful, and at first costly, but will end up being beneficial and a huge savings in government spending in the long run.

 

This will never happen, at least not in our lifetimes.

[NorthSideSox72]

This will never happen, at least not in our lifetimes.

Of course not. Most people don't give a s***, and the BIA is a disaster even by governmental agency standards.

 

[Rex Kickass]

So we get a blizzard and the Northeast is stranded. Christie's budget slashing has left many many towns unable to afford to plow themselves free. One person in my office hasn't been able to be home since Christmas because he can't get there. In Newark, Democrat mayor Cory Booker has been shoveling people out himself and delivering diapers to stranded mothers (and tweeting about it.) In Trenton, the governor flew out of dodge the day before the big storm for vacation, while his Lieutenant Governor is also on vacation.

 

So who is cleaning up the mess? Acting Governor Steve Sweeney, the NJ Senate Preisdent (Democrat).

 

[Balta1701]

So we get a blizzard and the Northeast is stranded. Christie's budget slashing has left many many towns unable to afford to plow themselves free. One person in my office hasn't been able to be home since Christmas because he can't get there. In Newark, Democrat mayor Cory Booker has been shoveling people out himself and delivering diapers to stranded mothers (and tweeting about it.) In Trenton, the governor flew out of dodge the day before the big storm for vacation, while his Lieutenant Governor is also on vacation.

 

So who is cleaning up the mess? Acting Governor Steve Sweeney, the NJ Senate Preisdent (Democrat).

Rex, I've noted a few of the websites I read who are looking for reasons to bash Christie are using this one, is it actually playing at all in NJ?

[Rex Kickass]

Rex, I've noted a few of the websites I read who are looking for reasons to bash Christie are using this one, is it actually playing at all in NJ?

 

Honestly, til yesterday, I was stranded in airports so I don't know.

 

Probably not... because NY and Philly media generally ignores NJ media. And New Jersey media leans heavily Republican.

[Y2HH]

Honestly, til yesterday, I was stranded in airports so I don't know.

 

Probably not... because NY and Philly media generally ignores NJ media. And New Jersey media leans heavily Republican.

 

Ever since the advent of Jersey Shore, the second I hear the word Jersey, my mind blanks, ignoring anyone and anything about the conversation even if it's completely unrelated.

 

You're city brought this upon itself with that show.

Edited December 29, 2010 by Y2HH

[bmags]

new jersey is a state.

[Y2HH]

new jersey is a state.

 

To me, it's a city...and a s***ty one at that.

 

Nitpick elsewhere.

Edited December 29, 2010 by Y2HH

[Balta1701]

Wikileaks has probably set back openness and democracy in Zimbabwe.

[NorthSideSox72]

Remember those rumors about Christine O'Donnell possibly being flat broke and using campaign funds for her own expenses? Well, the Feds are now investigating.

 

[NorthSideSox72]

*waits for witch hunt jokes*

 

[Balta1701]

*waits for witch hunt jokes*

You know how some of us keep saying "No one cares about the former half term Alaskan governor"?

 

Even fewer people should care about the failed Senate candidate from whatever East Coast state she was in.

[kapkomet]

You know how some of us keep saying "No one cares about the former half term Alaskan governor"?

 

Even fewer people should care about the failed Senate candidate from whatever East Coast state she was in.

 

 

Thank you.

[NorthSideSox72]

You know how some of us keep saying "No one cares about the former half term Alaskan governor"?

 

Even fewer people should care about the failed Senate candidate from whatever East Coast state she was in.

I admit it, I should be mature enough not to care. And I did eventually do that with Palin, because she got SO much attention, I stopped talking about her.

 

But I also admit that some part of me enjoys the schadenfreude of watching someone who was so clearly, so obviously unfit for office, and who has said she'd probably run again, get her ass handed to her. This will be beneficial in the long run, hopefully keeping her out of office.

 

[bmags]

I admit it, I should be mature enough not to care. And I did eventually do that with Palin, because she got SO much attention, I stopped talking about her.

 

But I also admit that some part of me enjoys the schadenfreude of watching someone who was so clearly, so obviously unfit for office, and who has said she'd probably run again, get her ass handed to her. This will be beneficial in the long run, hopefully keeping her out of office.

 

I don't think we should ignore a scandal just because we think the person is not important. The idea of someone suddenly burst onto the spotlight with a ton of attention and money thrown at them to run for office, and then to find out that the funding was just used to line the coffers, is a pretty big deal. Especially considering a lot of unknowns could be coming to the forefront since being so unwashington you have no experience in anything is such a pro these days.

[Balta1701]

Honestly, til yesterday, I was stranded in airports so I don't know.

 

Probably not... because NY and Philly media generally ignores NJ media. And New Jersey media leans heavily Republican.

Well, the NY media is starting to go after Bloomberg for being equally unprepared.

[Rex Kickass]

Well, the NY media is starting to go after Bloomberg for being equally unprepared.

 

And the Jersey media is starting to pick up this meme too. It helps that former acting governor Dick Codey had a great soundbite where he said both the Gov and the Lt Gov were entitled to vacations, just not simultaneously. (Governed between McGreevey and Corzine).

 

NJ Politics is hateful, and its things like this that can really let a politician jump the shark. Especially one thats more popular outside of NJ than within.

[Balta1701]

This is going to be one of the mechanisms that drives the full shutdown of the government in Feb. The incoming House has adopted their budgetary-rules. Not only have they replaced "Paygo" with a much weaker "Cutgo"...they've given Rep. Ryan almost unilateral power to demand cuts in the total federal budget, and proposals by anyone that disagree with Rep. Ryan's decisions are declared out of order. Check the link for the full postmortem on the rules changes.

But the new rules also include a stunning and unprecedented provision authorizing the Chairman of the Budget Committee elected in the 112th Congress, expected to be Representative Paul Ryan of Wisconsin, to submit for publication in the Congressional Record total spending and revenue limits and allocations of spending to committees — and the rules provide that this submission “shall be considered as the completion of congressional action on a concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2011.” In other words, in the absence of a budget resolution agreement between the House and the Senate, it appears that Rep. Ryan (presumably with the concurrence of the Republican leadership) will be allowed to set enforceable spending and revenue limits, with any departure from those limits subject to being ruled “out of order.”

 

This rule change has immediate, far-reaching implications. It means that by voting to adopt the proposed new rules on January 5, a vote on which party discipline will be strictly enforced, the House could effectively be adopting a budget resolution and limits for appropriations bills that it has never even seen, much less debated and had an opportunity to amend. (There is no requirement for Representative Ryan to make his proposed spending and revenue limits available to Members or the public before the vote on the new rules.)

 

This would, among other things, facilitate the implementation of incoming Speaker John Boehner’s radical proposal to cut non-security discretionary funding for fiscal year 2011 by $101 billion (or 21.7 percent) below the level appropriated for 2010, as adjusted for inflation without any consideration or vote on that proposal. Once Rep. Ryan places in the Congressional Record discretionary funding limits set at the Boehner level, they will become binding on the House, and any attempt to provide funding levels that allow for less severe cuts will be out of order. This imposition of budget limits without debate or votes hardly seems consistent with the promised increase in transparency in the legislative process, much less with sound — or fair — budget practices

Really, these rules make a shutdown inevitable unless the Obama administration caves on everything.

[NorthSideSox72]

This is going to be one of the mechanisms that drives the full shutdown of the government in Feb. The incoming House has adopted their budgetary-rules. Not only have they replaced "Paygo" with a much weaker "Cutgo"...they've given Rep. Ryan almost unilateral power to demand cuts in the total federal budget, and proposals by anyone that disagree with Rep. Ryan's decisions are declared out of order. Check the link for the full postmortem on the rules changes.

Really, these rules make a shutdown inevitable unless the Obama administration caves on everything.

You mean because the Senate will reject such budgets?

 

[kapkomet]

Serious question. At what point does the OVER demand for government dollars (spending) stop (yes, there should be a role for SOME things...)? Ever? There's always an appetite for more spending... now why is that? This is not a democrat or republican question, it's a question for those philosophically aligned to think that government spending is our only way out of x, y, and z.

[Balta1701]

You mean because the Senate will reject such budgets?

Because even the House would reject a Paul Ryan budget, but the House won't have the choice.

[Balta1701]

Serious question. At what point does the OVER demand for government dollars (spending) stop (yes, there should be a role for SOME things...)? Ever? There's always an appetite for more spending... now why is that? This is not a democrat or republican question, it's a question for those philosophically aligned to think that government spending is our only way out of x, y, and z.

See, Kap, this is where one of the philosophical differences come in between us.

 

You look at government spending in the abstract...is there too much (there always is). The only reason why you'd ask this question the way you formatted it is if you think that a person like me looks at high government spending as an end unto itself. We always want higher government spending because we always view higher government spending as a good thing.

 

My counterpoint here is that there's an appetite for more spending, not as an end unto itself, but as a means unto an end. When I see a problem that the private sector is failing to deal with...something like 1/6th of the U.S. being uninsured, or a large terrorist safe-haven in Afghanistan/Pakistan, I can be convinced (but not in every case) that government action is necessary to take care of it.

 

Now if we want to have a disagreement about priorities, that's a fair disagreement. You might prioritize the Afpak part there, I might prioritize the health care part. At some point in every case, additional government spending becomes excessive. We're long past that case in the defense department. We spend way too much on health care esp. without covering everyone. In those cases, spending money more efficiently, like the Affordable Care act does, is a smarter move.

 

What you really ought to note when looking at the federal budget is how small a lot of the numbers we're actually talking about are in some sense. The entire deficit right now is made up of less than 5 percentage points of taxes. That's not a huge, infinite spending is good situation.

[NorthSideSox72]

See, Kap, this is where one of the philosophical differences come in between us.

 

You look at government spending in the abstract...is there too much (there always is). The only reason why you'd ask this question the way you formatted it is if you think that a person like me looks at high government spending as an end unto itself. We always want higher government spending because we always view higher government spending as a good thing.

 

My counterpoint here is that there's an appetite for more spending, not as an end unto itself, but as a means unto an end. When I see a problem that the private sector is failing to deal with...something like 1/6th of the U.S. being uninsured, or a large terrorist safe-haven in Afghanistan/Pakistan, I can be convinced (but not in every case) that government action is necessary to take care of it.

 

Now if we want to have a disagreement about priorities, that's a fair disagreement. You might prioritize the Afpak part there, I might prioritize the health care part. At some point in every case, additional government spending becomes excessive. We're long past that case in the defense department. We spend way too much on health care esp. without covering everyone. In those cases, spending money more efficiently, like the Affordable Care act does, is a smarter move.

 

What you really ought to note when looking at the federal budget is how small a lot of the numbers we're actually talking about are in some sense. The entire deficit right now is made up of less than 5 percentage points of taxes. That's not a huge, infinite spending is good situation.

I'll first say, this is a good post. Not that I agree with every detail in it, but I think you do get at an idea I fully agree with - government spending can't and shouldn't just be looked at from a total spending point of view.

 

But its also true that you have to take into account the risks of debt and deficit spending, and that is a total budget effect. Starting with the 2000-2006 GOP Congress, and continued with the Dems, spending levels versus revenue has not been in the territory of acceptable. And the funny thing is, the GOP doing it during good times was even more inexcuseable that the Dems doing it in a recession. But in both cases, you HAVE to do one or more of three things here:

 

1. Cut overall spending significantly

2. Raise taxes

3. Take on substantially more risk

 

If you ONLY look at each granular piece to decide what to do, without taking the overall numbers into account, you can really f*** yourself up. So really, it needs to be both.

 

[kapkomet]

Which is why I said that it's not a Republican or Democrat issue.

 

And yes, Balta, that's a good post. I have to go take a @#% test I'm not ready for now. Bubye... until later.