Election Day!

[mgoetze]

the tea party [...] simply needs to come together and to agree on a platform that makes sense

 

It would amaze me if the tea party were able to come up with even one statement that makes sense, much less an entire platform.

 

However, I am all for the demise of the American Empire. Therefore... go tea party! :D

[kenberg]

I am not in favor of our demise. It is always good to hear from those who are, just so there is no misunderstanding.

[mike777]

Yes, I think I disagree. I don't see a strong government as necessarily inimical to personal freedom. It can be so, of course. But in my own experience I have seldom or never come to a point of "I would really like to do X but the government won't allow it". Of course there might be the occasional person whom I would like to shoot, but really I don't think I would do so even if it were permitted. I would soon run out of partners if I acted on such desires.

 

 

Of course a strong government impinges on freedom. This was the whole issue with the Whiskey Rebellion. Washington rode out, put it down and it was really the very first act of a strong central government.

 

 

As discussed before people are willing to give up some freedom for more security. The question always is how much? In Europe and many other places the answer has been alot.

Today I was just reading how the UK requires people to pay 200$ bucks to buy own a tv. The money goes to the BBC, government run media. Back in the 60's it outlawed private companies and ind. from advertising on "pirate" radio. All of this in the name of improving, protecting and helping society.

 

----------------

 

 

I think the question the USA is facing is how much government are we willing to have to get cradle to grave protection or at least the perception of such safety.

 

It might be nice to not have to worry about global warming killing us off, free medical, or not having a roof or food on the table or free education or a guaranteed job.

 

As others have said here, if indiv. dont have money and bus dont spend maybe the govt needs to step in and spend and provide all of this for us.

[mike777]

It would amaze me if the tea party were able to come up with even one statement that makes sense, much less an entire platform.

 

However, I am all for the demise of the American Empire. Therefore... go tea party! :D

 

 

 

Dont forget it will be replaced by another empire run by someone else. Hopefully they will do a better job next time. :)

[helene_t]

Whiskey rebellion .... sorry but this is just like those people who motivate their views on Balkan conflicts (or middle-east conflicts) by referring to something that happened in the 13th century.

 

21st century politics is about 21st century society. Or at least it should be, IMHO.

[mike777]

Whiskey rebellion .... sorry but this is just like those people who motivate their views on Balkan conflicts (or middle-east conflicts) by referring to something that happened in the 13th century.

 

21st century politics is about 21st century society. Or at least it should be, IMHO.

 

 

Principles are the same, so my point. Washington established a strong central government by his personal force and character of will and the use or threat of force.

 

The trade off of more security at the cost of less freedom. This need not be thought of or characterized as bad or evil or wrong.

[PassedOut]

Washington established a strong central government

And isn't Washington the founding father of the US?

[mike777]

And isn't Washington the founding father of the US?

 

 

I think so, let me google it.

[awm]

I think there is a difference between "big government" in the sense of a government that takes a lot of my money in taxes and (hopefully) provides a lot of services... and "big government" in the sense of a police state that passes and enforces a lot of laws about how individual citizens should live their lives.

 

It seems obvious that the latter type of "big government" would tend to reduce personal freedoms. But there isn't necessarily all that much correlation between the two types; one can imagine a country where taxes are fairly low and the government does very little EXCEPT hire military, police, and prison guards to enforce some sort of security... or a country where taxes are pretty high and the government spends a lot of money providing everyone with health care, housing, jobs, etc. but enforces only a fairly lax set of laws on morality.

 

In the USA, it is interesting that Republicans seem to want the latter type of "big government" (i.e. banning abortion, banning recreational drugs, banning homosexual behavior, banning certain forms of speech like flag burning, spying on and preemptively imprisoning citizens to prevent terror attacks, etc) whereas they constantly claim that "big government" Democrats (who mostly want the first type of "big government" with high taxes and a strong safety net, although there are a few cases like gun laws where Democrats have come out for the police state) are the ones infringing on individual freedoms.

 

Neither major party in the USA really wants "small government" in both senses of the words (would be a libertarian party I guess) -- they just seem to differ as to what the government should spend money on and how (or perhaps whether) the government should tax in order to fund those activities.

[mike777]

Yes and as I pointed out in previous posts here in this thread the question is how much of a safety net do we want and what is the cost/tradeoff in freedom? To suggest the cost is zero is just plain wrong.

[mgoetze]

Dont forget it will be replaced by another empire run by someone else. Hopefully they will do a better job next time. :)

 

Yes, I am already learning Chinese to prepare myself for the next masters.

[matmat]

Americans, don't forget to go out and vote for your local congressmen, and U.S. senators! :)

 

and foreigners! don't forget to fund your favorite candidate's campaign!

 

 

(yes, I know i'm late to the party)

[Winstonm]

Once again America lost the election.

[helene_t]

I think so, let me google it.

:)

[y66]

Yes, I am already learning Chinese to prepare myself for the next masters.

 

好主意

[mgoetze]

好主意

 

谢谢

[Aberlour10]

Whatever the new masters will do, one thing is certain,they bring us healthier fast food.

[y66]

Russ Feingold ousted? Even if the Badgers win their last 4 games it's going to be a long, cold winter in Wisconsin.

[kenberg]

Question: What happened?

 

In an entertaining but not very enlightening column,

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/11/03/AR2010110305318.html,

 

Kathleen Parker observes:

 

"In February 2009, Obama had an approval rating of 76 percent. Let me repeat that: 76 percent! Few but God poll better. Obviously, one can go only downhill from there, but you can't pin the slide on racism. All those people didn't suddenly realize their president was African American and become racists."

 

True enough. But did all those people suddenly discover that their president was a Democrat? The man did not run on a platform of lowering taxes and reducing the size of government.

 

Any suggestion that we run the country by putting Obama in the presidency and establishing John Boehner as speaker of the House appears loony to me, but this is what the American people have done. I think that our problems are pretty substantial and I don't see them as being solved in the next two years. It will be, let us say, interesting to see how this plays out.

 

There was a letter to the editor published in the paper on Thursday. The essence was: "This is Wednesday, the election was Tuesday, the economy is still bad. Let's throw the bums out." He was joking. I think.

[mike777]

"Any suggestion that we run the country by putting Obama in the presidency and establishing John Boehner as speaker of the House appears loony to me"

 

 

You may very well be correct. :)

 

My guess is the country wants divided govt and hopes this will reduce or atleast slow the growth of spending by the govt. In other words a vote for gridlock in terms of money.

 

 

As others have pointed out this may be a very bad thing to wish for or not. :)

[luke warm]

Any suggestion that we run the country by putting Obama in the presidency and establishing John Boehner as speaker of the House appears loony to me, but this is what the American people have done. I think that our problems are pretty substantial and I don't see them as being solved in the next two years. It will be, let us say, interesting to see how this plays out.

mike already pretty much said what i believe, that the system is working just the way it was designed to work... move slowly, fight over changes, etc... that works until one party promises a better way, controls the gov't, fails to deliver, and back to split gov't

[PassedOut]

mike already pretty much said what i believe, that the system is working just the way it was designed to work... move slowly, fight over changes, etc... that works until one party promises a better way, controls the gov't, fails to deliver, and back to split gov't

Historically the economy has been best with a split government. From best to worst:

 

1. Democrat president, republican congress.

2. Republican president, democrat congress.

3. Democrat president, democrat congress.

4. Republican president, republican congress.

 

Wouldn't want to read too much into that though because the parties completely reverse their positions over time.

[mike777]

Historically the economy has been best with a split government. From best to worst:

 

1. Democrat president, republican congress.

2. Republican president, democrat congress.

3. Democrat president, democrat congress.

4. Republican president, republican congress.

 

Wouldn't want to read too much into that though because the parties completely reverse their positions over time.

 

 

Interesting.

 

If I mean if split govt means a slowing of growth in govt spending and one party rule means a large increase in spending as a percentage of National Income.

 

I cant find a chart online, maybe someone else could.

 

If so then the vote in 2008 was clearly for a large increase in govt spending, perhaps even larger than what occured(Krugman)

[PassedOut]

Interesting.

 

If I mean if split govt means a slowing of growth in govt spending and one party rule means a large increase in spending as a percentage of National Income.

 

I cant find a chart online, maybe someone else could.

 

If so then the vote in 2008 was clearly for a large increase in govt spending, perhaps even larger than what occured(Krugman)

Can't say that folks always get what they voted for.

[mike777]

Undiscussed so far regarding the election is redistricting.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redistricting

 

Redistricting is an arcane issue that comes up every ten years.

 

In this case since the republicans gained a lot at the state level they get to draw the new districts.

 

What this means is republicans can game the elections in their favor. Again this is an issue that comes up every ten years.