Re: ~46~ Unfit Uncle Joe Biden ~46~
Posted: Tue Sep 06, 2022 10:37 pm
Thanks, gents.
Same Party, Different House
https://fanlax.com/forum/
a fan wrote: ↑Tue Sep 06, 2022 10:07 pmNJBill.....what this tells me is that your father was a good man, and thought big picture.njbill wrote: ↑Tue Sep 06, 2022 9:46 pm Nope, they aren't. My father was head of a big insurance co. in the 60s and 70s. He adamantly wanted federal legislation and, in fact, testified in support thereof before Congress in the 70s. He said to me more than once that he would much rather have one set of rules than 50. He despised state insurance commissioners because, he thought, they were petty and parochial.
And was from a now lost era, unfortunately.
agreedNattyBohChamps04 wrote: ↑Tue Sep 06, 2022 10:05 pm The few good guys are fighting the good fight like your dad.
HooDat,MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Tue Sep 06, 2022 6:10 pmmmm, more like a majoritarian bias, not urban versus rural. But that's not my rationale either.HooDat wrote: ↑Tue Sep 06, 2022 4:23 pmI didn't say it was a great argument - I was pointing out the relevant circumstances surrounding the issue. Pointing out that national decision making does not equal better. May or may not equal worse too. But ultimately too many people think it depends on whether you get to THEIR answer rather than a "right" answer....MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Tue Sep 06, 2022 3:44 pm re insurance, the rationale you suggest (reduces competition) is anything but a great argument for federal rules, interstate commerce.
this sounds like a guy who has a preference for how the national votes fall-out more than the way state level voting would play out - which implies a serious urban bias and a whole lot of confidence that the national lobbyists' interests line up well with your own.MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Tue Sep 06, 2022 3:44 pm Settle it nationally is just fine. Don't like the answer? Win elections.
My rationale is that when there's a really good argument for national rules, do it federally. Else do it at the state level. I see the interstate uniformity and efficiency as darn good reason to do at the federal level. Same for externalities that don't know borders, ie water and air pollution.
Same argument at the state vs local, if it makes considerably more sense to do state-wide, do it that way, else push down to local jurisdictions. You gonna let every town decide whether it's ok for their chemical plant to dump waste in the river? I'm guessing no.
I quite agree that lobbyist $ convolute decision-making.
If I had a magic wand, I'd change campaign financing and lobbyist rules dramatically.
But I think you may forget that lobbyists have even more direct sway at the state legislature level, and corruption at that level is even easier to get away with. All bad, but state level decisions aren't a protection from lobbyists.
HooDat,
I may have missed it, but I don't think you responded to the logic framework I have bolded in red above.
You did respond to the lobbyist part...they will corrupt wherever the decisions are being made and the politicians want those decisions made at their level so as to attract the $ to them.
we're crossing each other on the various boards... But my take boils down to a bias for making decisions as close to the problem as possible. It also dove-tails nicely with my belief that all power ends up corrupted and therefore broadly distributed small pockets of power are to preferred over highly concentrated cesspools of power. Especially when overlaid with my notion that the size and impact of power and corruption are highly correlated.MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Thu Sep 08, 2022 1:29 pmHooDat,MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Tue Sep 06, 2022 6:10 pmmmm, more like a majoritarian bias, not urban versus rural. But that's not my rationale either.HooDat wrote: ↑Tue Sep 06, 2022 4:23 pmI didn't say it was a great argument - I was pointing out the relevant circumstances surrounding the issue. Pointing out that national decision making does not equal better. May or may not equal worse too. But ultimately too many people think it depends on whether you get to THEIR answer rather than a "right" answer....MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Tue Sep 06, 2022 3:44 pm re insurance, the rationale you suggest (reduces competition) is anything but a great argument for federal rules, interstate commerce.
this sounds like a guy who has a preference for how the national votes fall-out more than the way state level voting would play out - which implies a serious urban bias and a whole lot of confidence that the national lobbyists' interests line up well with your own.MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Tue Sep 06, 2022 3:44 pm Settle it nationally is just fine. Don't like the answer? Win elections.
My rationale is that when there's a really good argument for national rules, do it federally. Else do it at the state level. I see the interstate uniformity and efficiency as darn good reason to do at the federal level. Same for externalities that don't know borders, ie water and air pollution.
Same argument at the state vs local, if it makes considerably more sense to do state-wide, do it that way, else push down to local jurisdictions. You gonna let every town decide whether it's ok for their chemical plant to dump waste in the river? I'm guessing no.
I quite agree that lobbyist $ convolute decision-making.
If I had a magic wand, I'd change campaign financing and lobbyist rules dramatically.
But I think you may forget that lobbyists have even more direct sway at the state legislature level, and corruption at that level is even easier to get away with. All bad, but state level decisions aren't a protection from lobbyists.
HooDat,
I may have missed it, but I don't think you responded to the logic framework I have bolded in red above.
You did respond to the lobbyist part...they will corrupt wherever the decisions are being made and the politicians want those decisions made at their level so as to attract the $ to them.
I may have missed it, but I don't think you responded to the logic framework I have bolded in red above.
You did respond to the lobbyist part...they will corrupt wherever the decisions are being made and the politicians want those decisions made at their level so as to attract the $ to them.
Yeah, we all want Texas and various little town alderman and councilors and select boards making policy for us. The history of “states’ rights” is strangely coextensive with bigotry of all flavors. Weird, right?HooDat wrote: ↑Thu Sep 08, 2022 2:36 pmwe're crossing each other on the various boards... But my take boils down to a bias for making decisions as close to the problem as possible. It also dove-tails nicely with my belief that all power ends up corrupted and therefore broadly distributed small pockets of power are to preferred over highly concentrated cesspools of power. Especially when overlaid with my notion that the size and impact of power and corruption are highly correlated.MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Thu Sep 08, 2022 1:29 pmHooDat,MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Tue Sep 06, 2022 6:10 pmmmm, more like a majoritarian bias, not urban versus rural. But that's not my rationale either.HooDat wrote: ↑Tue Sep 06, 2022 4:23 pmI didn't say it was a great argument - I was pointing out the relevant circumstances surrounding the issue. Pointing out that national decision making does not equal better. May or may not equal worse too. But ultimately too many people think it depends on whether you get to THEIR answer rather than a "right" answer....MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Tue Sep 06, 2022 3:44 pm re insurance, the rationale you suggest (reduces competition) is anything but a great argument for federal rules, interstate commerce.
this sounds like a guy who has a preference for how the national votes fall-out more than the way state level voting would play out - which implies a serious urban bias and a whole lot of confidence that the national lobbyists' interests line up well with your own.MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Tue Sep 06, 2022 3:44 pm Settle it nationally is just fine. Don't like the answer? Win elections.
My rationale is that when there's a really good argument for national rules, do it federally. Else do it at the state level. I see the interstate uniformity and efficiency as darn good reason to do at the federal level. Same for externalities that don't know borders, ie water and air pollution.
Same argument at the state vs local, if it makes considerably more sense to do state-wide, do it that way, else push down to local jurisdictions. You gonna let every town decide whether it's ok for their chemical plant to dump waste in the river? I'm guessing no.
I quite agree that lobbyist $ convolute decision-making.
If I had a magic wand, I'd change campaign financing and lobbyist rules dramatically.
But I think you may forget that lobbyists have even more direct sway at the state legislature level, and corruption at that level is even easier to get away with. All bad, but state level decisions aren't a protection from lobbyists.
HooDat,
I may have missed it, but I don't think you responded to the logic framework I have bolded in red above.
You did respond to the lobbyist part...they will corrupt wherever the decisions are being made and the politicians want those decisions made at their level so as to attract the $ to them.
I may have missed it, but I don't think you responded to the logic framework I have bolded in red above.
You did respond to the lobbyist part...they will corrupt wherever the decisions are being made and the politicians want those decisions made at their level so as to attract the $ to them.
So yes, some decisions are better in DC, some in Smalltown USA.
Understood and responded to on the other thread.HooDat wrote: ↑Thu Sep 08, 2022 2:36 pmwe're crossing each other on the various boards... But my take boils down to a bias for making decisions as close to the problem as possible. It also dove-tails nicely with my belief that all power ends up corrupted and therefore broadly distributed small pockets of power are to preferred over highly concentrated cesspools of power. Especially when overlaid with my notion that the size and impact of power and corruption are highly correlated.MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Thu Sep 08, 2022 1:29 pmHooDat,MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Tue Sep 06, 2022 6:10 pmmmm, more like a majoritarian bias, not urban versus rural. But that's not my rationale either.HooDat wrote: ↑Tue Sep 06, 2022 4:23 pmI didn't say it was a great argument - I was pointing out the relevant circumstances surrounding the issue. Pointing out that national decision making does not equal better. May or may not equal worse too. But ultimately too many people think it depends on whether you get to THEIR answer rather than a "right" answer....MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Tue Sep 06, 2022 3:44 pm re insurance, the rationale you suggest (reduces competition) is anything but a great argument for federal rules, interstate commerce.
this sounds like a guy who has a preference for how the national votes fall-out more than the way state level voting would play out - which implies a serious urban bias and a whole lot of confidence that the national lobbyists' interests line up well with your own.MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Tue Sep 06, 2022 3:44 pm Settle it nationally is just fine. Don't like the answer? Win elections.
My rationale is that when there's a really good argument for national rules, do it federally. Else do it at the state level. I see the interstate uniformity and efficiency as darn good reason to do at the federal level. Same for externalities that don't know borders, ie water and air pollution.
Same argument at the state vs local, if it makes considerably more sense to do state-wide, do it that way, else push down to local jurisdictions. You gonna let every town decide whether it's ok for their chemical plant to dump waste in the river? I'm guessing no.
I quite agree that lobbyist $ convolute decision-making.
If I had a magic wand, I'd change campaign financing and lobbyist rules dramatically.
But I think you may forget that lobbyists have even more direct sway at the state legislature level, and corruption at that level is even easier to get away with. All bad, but state level decisions aren't a protection from lobbyists.
HooDat,
I may have missed it, but I don't think you responded to the logic framework I have bolded in red above.
You did respond to the lobbyist part...they will corrupt wherever the decisions are being made and the politicians want those decisions made at their level so as to attract the $ to them.
I may have missed it, but I don't think you responded to the logic framework I have bolded in red above.
You did respond to the lobbyist part...they will corrupt wherever the decisions are being made and the politicians want those decisions made at their level so as to attract the $ to them.
So yes, some decisions are better in DC, some in Smalltown USA.
I am saying the opposite. LA, NY, Chicago, Houston & Atlanta shouldn't be setting laws for Des Moines.Seacoaster(1) wrote: ↑Thu Sep 08, 2022 4:00 pm Yeah, we all want Texas and various little town alderman and councilors and select boards making policy for us.
You might think you are making a counter argument, but I agree 100%. My position on abortion is and always has been: it is between her, her doctor and their (respective) gods. But societies make laws. That is the law I would support. Laws don't always get written the way I would like.MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Thu Sep 08, 2022 4:07 pm How about we take this down even closer, and let the woman, with whoever's counsel she wishes (doctor, higher power, family) make decisions about her own reproduction and health?
Why should we be ok with the State telling her what to do?
I'm not surprised at all, I have a quite good opinion of you based on your discourse over many years, and I'm not surprised that would be your preference. It's entirely reasonable, and yet some states' controlling politicians are radically opposed to what the majority of even their own citizens prefer...(much less the interstate implications.)HooDat wrote: ↑Thu Sep 08, 2022 5:00 pmI am saying the opposite. LA, NY, Chicago, Houston & Atlanta shouldn't be setting laws for Des Moines.Seacoaster(1) wrote: ↑Thu Sep 08, 2022 4:00 pm Yeah, we all want Texas and various little town alderman and councilors and select boards making policy for us.
You might think you are making a counter argument, but I agree 100%. My position on abortion is and always has been: it is between her, her doctor and their (respective) gods. But societies make laws. That is the law I would support. Laws don't always get written the way I would like.MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Thu Sep 08, 2022 4:07 pm How about we take this down even closer, and let the woman, with whoever's counsel she wishes (doctor, higher power, family) make decisions about her own reproduction and health?
Why should we be ok with the State telling her what to do?
This is an area where I would love to see some definitive and unbiased research done. I have seen egregious examples of gerrymandering that favors both parties - but given that the majority of states are GOP dominated, I have to imagine the abuses lean republican. But the Dems only scream about the cases that go against them, and never propose real rules to change it. Nor did the Reps when the balance of state office control was shifted.MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Thu Sep 08, 2022 6:17 pm gerrymandering allows minority positions to control on such an issue, even in states where the majority of actual voters disagrees.
I interpret this to mean you don't believe in Civil Rights and the Constitution. Because that's what you're saying here, whether you realize it or not.HooDat wrote: ↑Thu Sep 08, 2022 5:00 pmI am saying the opposite. LA, NY, Chicago, Houston & Atlanta shouldn't be setting laws for Des Moines.Seacoaster(1) wrote: ↑Thu Sep 08, 2022 4:00 pm Yeah, we all want Texas and various little town alderman and councilors and select boards making policy for us.
I have absolutely no idea how you can come the conclusion that because I support pushing decision making to the most local level practicable that I don't believe in Civil Rights or the Constitution. It is most definitely NOT what I am saying, nor is it even implied in what I said (or think for that matter).a fan wrote: ↑Fri Sep 23, 2022 3:16 pmI interpret this to mean you don't believe in Civil Rights and the Constitution. Because that's what you're saying here, whether you realize it or not.HooDat wrote: ↑Thu Sep 08, 2022 5:00 pmI am saying the opposite. LA, NY, Chicago, Houston & Atlanta shouldn't be setting laws for Des Moines.Seacoaster(1) wrote: ↑Thu Sep 08, 2022 4:00 pm Yeah, we all want Texas and various little town alderman and councilors and select boards making policy for us.
Segregation was the result of small town America calling the shots, HooDat. The Constitution said "yeah, sorry mate, you can't do that".
I don't want to go back that....yet that's what our Court is doing.
Our Constitution isn't supposed to be up for a popular vote. And I have ZERO interest in finding out what the people of Des Moines want to tell me I can't do as an American.
Then vote accordingly and make logical arguments for not going back.Typical Lax Dad wrote: ↑Mon Sep 26, 2022 10:48 am All these problems started post civil war and got worse under FDR and the next logical step is that the 1960’s resulted in this country becoming so far removed from what was started that we need to get back to it…. That’s what it seems to be implied. The feds need to let each state decide what laws it wants.
I don’t want to go back to that.
Positives and negatives. On balance we are all better off. I have family from Des Moines and LA, ironically. I don’t mind how this country has progressed. We have enough of a balance. What are folks doing in Des Moines that was dictated by Los Angeles? Give me three examples of policy decision in LA being applied to Des Moines.HooDat wrote: ↑Mon Sep 26, 2022 11:26 amThen vote accordingly and make logical arguments for not going back.Typical Lax Dad wrote: ↑Mon Sep 26, 2022 10:48 am All these problems started post civil war and got worse under FDR and the next logical step is that the 1960’s resulted in this country becoming so far removed from what was started that we need to get back to it…. That’s what it seems to be implied. The feds need to let each state decide what laws it wants.
I don’t want to go back to that.
I get that a lot of very good things have happened over the time period we are discussing. A lot of wrongs were righted. And I can't argue against the fact that we are all better off for them having been righted sooner rather than later - nor do I have an interest in making that argument.
But I also think there are some unintended negatives that stowed away on those good intentions.
Everything isn't an absolute. I am not making an argument for one extreme over another - extremes are ... well.... extreme. People and societies are very, very complex. A country as large, wealthy and powerful as the US is very complex. I am arguing that the pendulum swung too far to Centralized Power and that we would benefit from a shift toward the middle.
Just because great things were accomplished in the swing to centralized power (if you want to call acknowledging basic human decency "great") doesn't mean we wouldn't benefit from a bit more localized power. I resent the implications that I am calling for a return to slavery if I say I think decisions are best made as close to the problem as practical.
Are you really that scared that Des Moines might have a different drinking age than LA?
I am not a libertarian in the least. Libertarianism is the land of the tragically uniformed. How can you govern on the foundation of NOT governing? You want to be an anarchist - knock yourself out, but don't come at me with "make me your politician and I won't do anything", that is just stupid....Typical Lax Dad wrote: ↑Mon Sep 26, 2022 11:36 amPositives and negatives. On balance we are all better off. I have family from Des Moines and LA, ironically. I don’t mind how this country has progressed. We have enough of a balance. What are folks doing in Des Moines that was dictated by Los Angeles? Give me three examples of policy decision in LA being applied to Des Moines.HooDat wrote: ↑Mon Sep 26, 2022 11:26 amThen vote accordingly and make logical arguments for not going back.Typical Lax Dad wrote: ↑Mon Sep 26, 2022 10:48 am All these problems started post civil war and got worse under FDR and the next logical step is that the 1960’s resulted in this country becoming so far removed from what was started that we need to get back to it…. That’s what it seems to be implied. The feds need to let each state decide what laws it wants.
I don’t want to go back to that.
I get that a lot of very good things have happened over the time period we are discussing. A lot of wrongs were righted. And I can't argue against the fact that we are all better off for them having been righted sooner rather than later - nor do I have an interest in making that argument.
But I also think there are some unintended negatives that stowed away on those good intentions.
Everything isn't an absolute. I am not making an argument for one extreme over another - extremes are ... well.... extreme. People and societies are very, very complex. A country as large, wealthy and powerful as the US is very complex. I am arguing that the pendulum swung too far to Centralized Power and that we would benefit from a shift toward the middle.
Just because great things were accomplished in the swing to centralized power (if you want to call acknowledging basic human decency "great") doesn't mean we wouldn't benefit from a bit more localized power. I resent the implications that I am calling for a return to slavery if I say I think decisions are best made as close to the problem as practical.
Are you really that scared that Des Moines might have a different drinking age than LA?
I don’t want to go back to Jim Crow or poll taxes or any other number of things that “the people in those states” wanted. I want some federal and court oversight.
Ironically this kick it back to the states that you seem to be pleased about has little to do with the court finally waking up and turning the ball back over to the States and everything to do with Right Wing judicial activism that started 50 years ago. Basically political appointees now there to serve. Yeah the 1960s was just judicial activism. It was a mistake…..and yeah, you are just a libertarian calling balls and strikes. I have heard it 1,000 times.
“Jim Crow” is a euphemism that can take different forms but is essential the same…..and who is to say 100 years from now as more and more people die off and rights are slowly rolled back that you can’t end up with something like that again? You have to see far…. (100 years isn’t far either). I like how things have turned out. I don’t want my rights diminished because of what State I live in. I am an American…not a Virginian. I know its sophomoric but it is how I feel.HooDat wrote: ↑Mon Sep 26, 2022 11:58 amI am not a libertarian in the least. Libertarianism is the land of the tragically uniformed. How can you govern on the foundation of NOT governing? You want to be an anarchist - knock yourself out, but don't come at me with "make me your politician and I won't do anything", that is just stupid....Typical Lax Dad wrote: ↑Mon Sep 26, 2022 11:36 amPositives and negatives. On balance we are all better off. I have family from Des Moines and LA, ironically. I don’t mind how this country has progressed. We have enough of a balance. What are folks doing in Des Moines that was dictated by Los Angeles? Give me three examples of policy decision in LA being applied to Des Moines.HooDat wrote: ↑Mon Sep 26, 2022 11:26 amThen vote accordingly and make logical arguments for not going back.Typical Lax Dad wrote: ↑Mon Sep 26, 2022 10:48 am All these problems started post civil war and got worse under FDR and the next logical step is that the 1960’s resulted in this country becoming so far removed from what was started that we need to get back to it…. That’s what it seems to be implied. The feds need to let each state decide what laws it wants.
I don’t want to go back to that.
I get that a lot of very good things have happened over the time period we are discussing. A lot of wrongs were righted. And I can't argue against the fact that we are all better off for them having been righted sooner rather than later - nor do I have an interest in making that argument.
But I also think there are some unintended negatives that stowed away on those good intentions.
Everything isn't an absolute. I am not making an argument for one extreme over another - extremes are ... well.... extreme. People and societies are very, very complex. A country as large, wealthy and powerful as the US is very complex. I am arguing that the pendulum swung too far to Centralized Power and that we would benefit from a shift toward the middle.
Just because great things were accomplished in the swing to centralized power (if you want to call acknowledging basic human decency "great") doesn't mean we wouldn't benefit from a bit more localized power. I resent the implications that I am calling for a return to slavery if I say I think decisions are best made as close to the problem as practical.
Are you really that scared that Des Moines might have a different drinking age than LA?
I don’t want to go back to Jim Crow or poll taxes or any other number of things that “the people in those states” wanted. I want some federal and court oversight.
Ironically this kick it back to the states that you seem to be pleased about has little to do with the court finally waking up and turning the ball back over to the States and everything to do with Right Wing judicial activism that started 50 years ago. Basically political appointees now there to serve. Yeah the 1960s was just judicial activism. It was a mistake…..and yeah, you are just a libertarian calling balls and strikes. I have heard it 1,000 times.
Why does the idea of states having more power have to immediately equal Jim Crow? That is a sophist argument.
With a little time I am sure I could give you a lot more than three policy decisions made in LA that impacted Des Moines. I am not saying these are bad, I am just saying that they were effectively foisted upon the country by LA's combination of buying power and ability to make local regulatory decisions (which ironically, is actually what I am calling for just in different packaging). Here are a few that pop to mind immediately:
- auto mpg standards
- lead free gasoline
- various labeling disclosures for potentially cancerous substances
I get that it is a euphemism - and it is very, very charged euphemism.Typical Lax Dad wrote: ↑Mon Sep 26, 2022 12:04 pm “Jim Crow” is a euphemism that can take different forms but is essential the same…..and who is to say 100 years from now as more and more people die off and rights are slowly rolled back that you can’t end up with something like that again? You have to see far…. (100 years isn’t far either). I like how things have turned out. I don’t want my rights diminished because of what State I live in. I am an American…not a Virginian. I know its sophomoric but it is how I feel.
I am going to cross my fingers and hope that what got us to this point continues to work because I have seen what happened when States called their own shots. Women may have to use an under ground railroad before we know it. Already happening. You didn’t give me any examples of how what Chicago wants is applied to Baton Rouge. The charged euphemism is based on facts, is it not?HooDat wrote: ↑Mon Sep 26, 2022 12:20 pmI get that it is a euphemism - and it is very, very charged euphemism.Typical Lax Dad wrote: ↑Mon Sep 26, 2022 12:04 pm “Jim Crow” is a euphemism that can take different forms but is essential the same…..and who is to say 100 years from now as more and more people die off and rights are slowly rolled back that you can’t end up with something like that again? You have to see far…. (100 years isn’t far either). I like how things have turned out. I don’t want my rights diminished because of what State I live in. I am an American…not a Virginian. I know its sophomoric but it is how I feel.
But - who is to say that a more centralized system doesn't lead us to a far worse point 100 years from now? What if Trump wins in 2024, and the white christian nationalists manage to control our federal government from that point forward - how do you feel about state's rights then? It is about the better process not the short term results (and yes, as you said, it is the long run we have to be focused on).
I have lived (and voted) in five states. I too consider myself an American - one who happens to believe that this greatest political experiment of all time works best when it isn't being controlled from one or even 5/10/25 cities. That leads to too much group think, too much myopathy.