TAATS

[a fan]

Here's a timely article for you, runrussellrun.... what happens when these people are cut off

A few jawdropping quotes that tells you just how bad things are in rural America, how wholly dependent residents are on Federal taxpayers, and most importantly...the complete denial about who is keeping the lights on in their towns. Hint: it's taxpayers like you and me.

A stunner:
Transfers from the federal government account for more than half of residents’ personal income in 11 counties across the country. Ten are in eastern Kentucky; another is in West Virginia.

Half. Half their income comes from the Federal Treasury.


“The SNAP card works every month; the kids eat two meals a day, but people don’t think about where the food comes from and go vote for Republicans,” said Larry King


This is why the Republicans don't cut, folks. Right here. All the fiscal responsibility stuff is how they get elected. Been saying this the entire time I've been posting on these forums. This is why the R's added $2.7 Trillion in spending under Trump. Look no further.










https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/21/busi ... &smtyp=cur

[HooDat]

That is why I didn’t say the government is taking steps to reduce demand. I stated the government should focus on reducing demand? Some would argue that legalizing drugs / alcohol eliminates the criminal element and related crimes.... I am not making that argument.

Not sure my snark was aimed at you (if it was then it shouldn't have been), but yes, your argument was clearly SHOULD.

and for the record, I have been pro legalization of marijuana for most of my adult life - but seeing and smelling the results in places like Ocean Beach, CA makes me take pause. But that is an entirely different thread.

[a fan]

Actually I DO believe there is very little difference between R and D voters on the things that matter. What differences there are get magnified by the parties and Fox and Maddow to suit their objectives and bank accounts.

Most every person I talk to has the same fundamental goals for our country - a decent job, decent schools, a decent home, and a decent future for their kids (if they have them).

Sure. But ask them how to get to those goals.

Republicans will say "get government out of the way".

Dems will say "more socialism".

The problem is, if you're in the bottom 50% of earners, the Republicans are dead wrong. Get the Federal government out of the way, and they're finito.

How do we square this circle?

[HooDat]

Actually I DO believe there is very little difference between R and D voters on the things that matter. What differences there are get magnified by the parties and Fox and Maddow to suit their objectives and bank accounts.

Most every person I talk to has the same fundamental goals for our country - a decent job, decent schools, a decent home, and a decent future for their kids (if they have them).

Sure. But ask them how to get to those goals.

Republicans will say "get government out of the way".

Dems will say "more socialism".

The problem is, if you're in the bottom 50% of earners, the Republicans are dead wrong. Get the Federal government out of the way, and they're finito.

How do we square this circle?

There is a LOT buried in there....

From people are dumb, to people are delusional, to the eventual sole purpose of bureaucracies is self-perpetuation.

You are absolutely right about the idiocy of "get the government out of the way" (which is why I thought you of all people on these boards would be enthusiastic about Tucker's seeming "come to Jesus" on the subject).

The real questions should be how to make government spending more efficient, and how to make government programs self-restricting. By that I mean some way to establish a finite life for government programs at which point they must be re-evaluated for continuation. Sure most will get renewed, but a new Congress should have to put their name on programs as they hit the end of their "current term". Then politicians could run on REAL platforms: "If elected I will vote to cancel program X, but to renew program Y which will be coming up for reconsideration this session". Might even help get rid of the identity politics and kill the government (the lack of success of the Libertarian party in spite of the number of people who claim to be libertarian is precisely because in their hearts, people know they need the government and they want to elect people who will actually govern (and now we are back to: people are (a) stupid or (b) delusional).

I also happen to think there is are discussions to be had around what services are best delivered at what level: federal, state, county, private sector, etc... I happen to believe most things would benefit from a combination of all of the above - with federal redistribution, local implementation, and then federal sharing of best practices (sharing though NOT mandating).

[Typical Lax Dad]

That is why I didn’t say the government is taking steps to reduce demand. I stated the government should focus on reducing demand? Some would argue that legalizing drugs / alcohol eliminates the criminal element and related crimes.... I am not making that argument.

Not sure my snark was aimed at you (if it was then it shouldn't have been), but yes, your argument was clearly SHOULD.

and for the record, I have been pro legalization of marijuana for most of my adult life - but seeing and smelling the results in places like Ocean Beach, CA makes me take pause. But that is an entirely different thread.

No problem. I was just echoing your comment. I didn’t take it as a jibe.

[a fan]

You are absolutely right about the idiocy of "get the government out of the way" (which is why I thought you of all people on these boards would be enthusiastic about Tucker's seeming "come to Jesus" on the subject).

Sure. But Tucker didn't come to Jesus. He's still miles away. All that he did in the piece was opine the loss of marriage, and erroneously conflate that to the economic well being of our Nation. This is silly, obviously. Plenty of married people when the Great Depression rolled around. Marriage didn't stand in its way. Further, as we both stated before, Tucker didn't propose any way to "fix" the institute of marriage.

It was a strange essay that went nowhere.

The real questions should be how to make government spending more efficient

You can't do that until we get rid of these virulent anti-government folks. If you're a top notch performer---top 10% of your class, and sharp as a tack? Tell me: would you start a career in Federal government?

When you get done laughing, you realize we have a major problem.

Remember Kennedy's "ask not what your country can do for you...." That speech worked on tens of thousand of Americans. Got my aunt and my dad and their four degrees from Harvard, Gtown, UChicago and Syracuse. They spent their entire careers there, and I could spend hours talking about the projects they facilitated that made America better.

You think Trump is going to attract people like that? Or McConnell and his band of merry morons?

So we have a problem. And until this attitude goes away, get ready for more half-*ssed underfunded government. The starve the beast mentality before they point and a Department and say "see, it doesn't work". Idiots.

By that I mean some way to establish a finite life for government programs at which point they must be re-evaluated for continuation. Sure most will get renewed, but a new Congress should have to put their name on programs as they hit the end of their "current term". Then politicians could run on REAL platforms: "If elected I will vote to cancel program X, but to renew program Y which will be coming up for reconsideration this session

They already do this. Why do you think nothing works? Picture a corporation where every direction and project as well as top management changes ever 2 to 4 years.

We need the opposite of what you're talking about.....leave the politicians out of it, and let the professionals in each department design and manage programs. And sit back and enjoy the fact that the government will run like any other corporation: some things work, some things are failures, but good leadership will know when to pull the plug on a lousy program.

This will never happen because Congressmen use various departments to pay off their donors. Look at who is running our various departments under Trump. See any experts? Yeah, me neither, unless you mean an expert in fleecing our country and dismantling programs and regulations that protect citizens from corporations out for a buck.

I also happen to think there is are discussions to be had around what services are best delivered at what level: federal, state, county, private sector, etc... I happen to believe most things would benefit from a combination of all of the above - with federal redistribution, local implementation, and then federal sharing of best practices (sharing though NOT mandating).

You're literally describing how things work right now. Try and find your local Federal highway Dept directing all road building in your State. It doesn't exist. What you do have is a State Dept. of Transportation. They take funds from the Feds and manage the construction of roads locally....cashing checks from the Fed to pay contractors to build stuff. Same thing with the Dept. of Ag. And Energy. And Health and Human services. And on and on. All send checks to States or Counties, and the locals manage the various programs.

There are a few direct Federal Departments. BLM. Parks. etc. But by and large, what you are suggesting already happens. Well, except the part about "sharing not mandating". What you want----correct me if I'm wrong-----is "shut up and give me the money with no guidelines or oversight".

I'm as against that practice as it is possible to be.

[runrussellrun]

Starve a government beast? Maybe guys like old salt will whine about the DoD budget woes, but even he admits that billions could be "starved out" of the DoD budget.

tRump promised to CUT planned parent hood, NPR/PBS, NEA, NiH, NFS...........all the "liberals" stalwarts, but did the complete opposite. INCREASED them all. I have pointed this out. Don't you shake your head and mutter " i told ya so's " , when it comes to tRump signing the hugest spending bill in US budget history ?

So, will ask again, WHAT government agency LOST its budget? Starved? The US Post Office, perhaps. (Obama and his NSA wanks couldn't develop an alogrythmic eurythmics software package to OPEN mail online...THAT is why people wanted it gone. Can't hack a pen and paper.

[HooDat]

All that he did in the piece was opine the loss of marriage, and erroneously conflate that to the economic well being of our Nation. This is silly, obviously. Plenty of married people when the Great Depression rolled around. Marriage didn't stand in its way. Further, as we both stated before, Tucker didn't propose any way to "fix" the institute of marriage.

It was a strange essay that went nowhere.

I would argue that you read it too specifically. Yes - he spent a lot of time linking marriage and poverty (so do a lot of sociologists), but what I took from the article was a call to arms for conservatives to look to something other than the markets to help our working class. Marriage is a hook that should capture the attention of conservatives. I don't know, maybe I am giving him too much credit, but I applaud him for attempting to change the direction of the GOP dialogue and would rather focus on that than on "well what about what you said before?"

would you start a career in Federal government?

When you get done laughing, you realize we have a major problem.

this is quite true. My grandfather spent 20 years in public service with double Ivy League degrees. But I also think the lingering shock waves of the depression made folks born between the 20's and 30's pretty risk adverse - combine that with a significant sense of national pride (up to the 70's and you had a heyday of excellent people entering public service.

But by and large, what you are suggesting already happens. Well, except the part about "sharing not mandating". What you want----correct me if I'm wrong-----is "shut up and give me the money with no guidelines or oversight".

as I was typing I wondered if someone would come back to me with that argument - but left out my rationale because I didn't want to go on too long.

My thinking is not about "give me the money and shut up", but instead about the concept of sharing best practices and using various local delivery methods as incubators for improvement. In order to believe it would work, you have to have a little faith in people wanting to do the right thing.... What I don't see the feds doing, that I think would be brilliant, is playing that facilitator role. Rather than reviewing what is done locally and evaluating/sharing across the states - disgruntled voters see the fed folks sitting in DC dictating from on high versus my goal which would be a evaluate/mentor/coach approach. I think there are a lot of places where federal efforts would be far better spent in the latter role.

[a fan]

Marriage is a hook that should capture the attention of conservatives. I don't know, maybe I am giving him too much credit, but I applaud him for attempting to change the direction of the GOP dialogue and would rather focus on that than on "well what about what you said before?"

I'd give him credit if he gave one single example as to how to strengthen marriage. He didn't. We differ with this guy, I guess.

this is quite true. My grandfather spent 20 years in public service with double Ivy League degrees. But I also think the lingering shock waves of the depression made folks born between the 20's and 30's pretty risk adverse - combine that with a significant sense of national pride (up to the 70's and you had a heyday of excellent people entering public service.

You still do. My wife works for the State and has a MS from Michigan. To her right is another MS from Michigan. To her left is a woman with an MS from Duke. These are brilliant people, desperate to make the lives of poor people better. So when you talk about making sure programs work, my wife would rather die then misspend one single dollar of taxpayer money. Know why? Because she and her colleagues desperately wants to improve the lives of poor Americans. If a program isn't working, she wants to kill it. The issue, as I'm sure you know, many of these programs are controlled by political appointees. THAT is the problem. If you give my wife money, an let her and her colleagues get best results, and get the hell out of the way? You'll get the best results.

That will never happen. So here we are.

My thinking is not about "give me the money and shut up", but instead about the concept of sharing best practices and using various local delivery methods as incubators for improvement. In order to believe it would work, you have to have a little faith in people wanting to do the right thing.... What I don't see the feds doing, that I think would be brilliant, is playing that facilitator role. Rather than reviewing what is done locally and evaluating/sharing across the states - disgruntled voters see the fed folks sitting in DC dictating from on high versus my goal which would be a evaluate/mentor/coach approach. I think there are a lot of places where federal efforts would be far better spent in the latter role.

That's literally how it works. Again, my wife works for the State, but almost the funding for poverty comes from the Fed .gov. Both the State and the Fed report to each other...what's working, what isn't, etc. It's better than you think, believe me. It's not perfect, but it's better than you'd think.

IMHO, we have impossible standards for our government. Put ANY large organization under a microscope, and you'll find corruption, stupidity, and waste. My solution to this is to give less power to the people and their Congressmen, and let the Pros in government do their jobs. Morale would skyrocket, as would results. Set budgets at 6 years long, not year to year.

It would never happen.

[Typical Lax Dad]

Marriage is a hook that should capture the attention of conservatives. I don't know, maybe I am giving him too much credit, but I applaud him for attempting to change the direction of the GOP dialogue and would rather focus on that than on "well what about what you said before?"

I'd give him credit if he gave one single example as to how to strengthen marriage. He didn't. We differ with this guy, I guess.

this is quite true. My grandfather spent 20 years in public service with double Ivy League degrees. But I also think the lingering shock waves of the depression made folks born between the 20's and 30's pretty risk adverse - combine that with a significant sense of national pride (up to the 70's and you had a heyday of excellent people entering public service.

You still do. My wife works for the State and has a MS from Michigan. To her right is another MS from Michigan. To her left is a woman with an MS from Duke. These are brilliant people, desperate to make the lives of poor people better. So when you talk about making sure programs work, my wife would rather die then misspend one single dollar of taxpayer money. Know why? Because she and her colleagues desperately wants to improve the lives of poor Americans. If a program isn't working, she wants to kill it. The issue, as I'm sure you know, many of these programs are controlled by political appointees. THAT is the problem. If you give my wife money, an let her and her colleagues get best results, and get the hell out of the way? You'll get the best results.

That will never happen. So here we are.

My thinking is not about "give me the money and shut up", but instead about the concept of sharing best practices and using various local delivery methods as incubators for improvement. In order to believe it would work, you have to have a little faith in people wanting to do the right thing.... What I don't see the feds doing, that I think would be brilliant, is playing that facilitator role. Rather than reviewing what is done locally and evaluating/sharing across the states - disgruntled voters see the fed folks sitting in DC dictating from on high versus my goal which would be a evaluate/mentor/coach approach. I think there are a lot of places where federal efforts would be far better spent in the latter role.

That's literally how it works. Again, my wife works for the State, but almost the funding for poverty comes from the Fed .gov. Both the State and the Fed report to each other...what's working, what isn't, etc. It's better than you think, believe me. It's not perfect, but it's better than you'd think.

IMHO, we have impossible standards for our government. Put ANY large organization under a microscope, and you'll find corruption, stupidity, and waste. My solution to this is to give less power to the people and their Congressmen, and let the Pros in government do their jobs. Morale would skyrocket, as would results. Set budgets at 6 years long, not year to year.

It would never happen.

Even in the private sector, there is a ton of waste.

[youthathletics]

Yes it was. More so biased. For one, they are owned and operated by the The Washington Post, and the piece is propping up the argument that the sole function of the wall is primarily to deter drugs and they attempt to use snippets from here and there along with a DEA report as their argument. You and I know full well, as do they, it is much more than drugs and that each political side is in complete agreement that the border has been a pain point for our entire country for decades.

Food for thought. We all would be livid if we had to hire another 1000 Border patrol police to park in marinas and small airports across the Southern borders to curtail the drug influx. What if the wall provides the ability to transfer many of those police officers elsewhere....much like automation has done to our labor force.

How about reducing demand.....you believe Trump and his clan are worried about drugs?

We are already and have been attempting to treat the demand, education is out there, our addiction centers and methadone clinics are damned near standing room only. And yet, we walk the razors edge by legalizing pot....I suppose that is reducing the demand "from the Southern Countries".

People like Chris Herren are doing their damnedest to educate our youth. This hits close to home I have seen it first hand with 3 family members, one died from it and it has torn the other families apart emotionally and financially.....all because of a $10 hit that completely alters your mind..forever. And every one of them started with weed. This should not be a political issue IMHO.

REDUCING demand ???!!!??? What are you talking about. The government has just realized that they can make a buck of dope and even the GOP is pro-legalization. How is that reducing demand?? The only demand the gov will want to reduce now, is demand for drugs they can't tax or receive campaign contributions from.

That is why I didn’t say the government is taking steps to reduce demand. I stated the government should focus on reducing demand? Some would argue that legalizing drugs / alcohol eliminates the criminal element and related crimes.... I am not making that argument.

Evidentially the Former Border Chief under Obama and FBi Chief for ElPaso who was removed by Trump agreed the wall is needed. https://twitter.com/krysflorida/status/ ... 95361?s=21

But Mr. Rowboat man does not agree.

[HooDat]

More views on the latest Tucker screeds: https://americanmind.org/features/tucke ... -is-right/

the article starts a bit slow as it provides background - but has some insightful comments at the end

laws exist because of a shared understanding of the value of human life and our agreed upon need for the enforcement of some kind of group order. And even our traffic laws save lives. Admitting as much does not make you a socialist or a communist. Recognizing this reality does not make you a proponent of the Great Society, nor does necessitate enshrining the administrative state.

The stakes are high indeed. The truth is, if the American Right internalizes the truth of Tucker Carlson’s recent monologue and becomes a true workers party concerned about the welfare and, yes, virtue of the American people, it can stave off disaster and become the majority party for a new generation. If it is not, it will die as we presently know it, and the future of the American regime will be decided by negotiations between the socialist-populist and the moribund establishment wings of the Democratic party.
....
If the Right can open its eyes to the purpose of politics properly understood, it will recover a policy and rhetoric that may still lead to victory. If it cannot, a rising Leftist populism is eager to take its place.

[a fan]

The stakes are high indeed. The truth is, if the American Right internalizes the truth of Tucker Carlson’s recent monologue and becomes a true workers party concerned about the welfare and, yes, virtue of the American people, it can stave off disaster and become the majority party for a new generation. If it is not, it will die as we presently know it, and the future of the American regime will be decided by negotiations between the socialist-populist and the moribund establishment wings of the Democratic party.
....
If the Right can open its eyes to the purpose of politics properly understood, it will recover a policy and rhetoric that may still lead to victory. If it cannot, a rising Leftist populism is eager to take its place.

[/quote] Missed the target, hit the tree.

What this is advocating is that the Republican delivery socialism to the workers party, not the Democrats.

Same message and policies, different messenger.

It works though, obviously. Look at the Farm Bill. If Obama had given a speech to farmers saying "you didn't build this, and we know that you can't hack it in the real free market...so the rest of your citizens are going to pay in to keep your private business profitable"....that wouldn't work.

But if the Republicans come along and say "you hard working farmers are wholly independent, and their farm succeeds because of your work and gumption", right before cutting them annual checks in the billions? That works. 2018 "free market conservatives" have NO problem buying socialism, so long as they get a "atta boy" and a pat on the head....before they take money from other citizens who get no such money.

So yep, I'd argue that Republican Congressmen are already playing this game. They just need to extend the Federal handouts to ALL Republican voters, not just the chosen few. All while giving Reagan speeches about how government is bad.

Sorry, but it's true. Boomers don't want to hear that they are taking more than they are giving. Next generation? I'm hoping they are more honest brokers. Honesty makes governance easy.

[HooDat]

curious if you think that another way to say this:

speech to farmers saying "you didn't build this, and we know that you can't hack it in the real free market...so the rest of your citizens are going to pay in to keep your private business profitable"

would instead be:

Our citizens can't afford to pay what it costs to grow/raise healthy food, so the government is going to cover the food costs of the inner-city poor by making up the difference to the farmers so that the urban folks don't understand that their food is being subsidized.


Playing a bit of devil's advocate (as if I am not always doing so...) - but money is fungible. Money spent in one place is money that does not have to spent in another. Specific to food, let's start with the premise that the government's goal is the availability of cheap food (which the US does better than any other country in the world). To keep the math simple lets say you have 100 farmers and a million citizens. The political pay-off for giving every citizen a $1 credit toward their food budget is a LOT less than giving $100,000 to each farmer. The end result is the same though - well fed citizens. And the dollars spent are the same.

[HooDat]

add to that - subsidizing the farmers seems to have less political headwind than the perception of providing "even more" support for the poor. I think that is rather odd, but the US loves to romanticize farming - and the political will to "support farming" seems to be pretty strong - particularly among the conservatives. But "sustainable" farming is even more expensive and allows the Dems to capture some dollars as well.....

[dislaxxic]

You're dressing up this argument with a bunch of semantics, IMO Hoo. Who says those 100,000 "inner city poor" are going to buy their food from those specific 100 farmers? Are those 100 farmers all employed by the Koch brothers producing Twinkies and Skittles? How many supermarkets and/or farm markets do you see in inner city urban areas anyway?

The point i think AF is getting at is...when will the republicans stop demonizing gubmint and socialism on one hand, while handing out checks to favored groups (voters they hope to woo) on the other...

Yep, it's lipstick on a pig, aimed at low-information, fly-over voters.

..

[HooDat]

You're dressing up this argument with a bunch of semantics, IMO Hoo. Who says those 100,000 "inner city poor" are going to buy their food from those specific 100 farmers? Are those 100 farmers all employed by the Koch brothers producing Twinkies and Skittles? How many supermarkets and/or farm markets do you see in inner city urban areas anyway?

The point i think AF is getting at is...when will the republicans stop demonizing gubmint and socialism on one hand, while handing out checks to favored groups (voters they hope to woo) on the other...

Yep, it's lipstick on a pig, aimed at low-information, fly-over voters.

..

your obsession with farm animals is troublesome...

I think you need to look up the definition of semantics - I am talking economics not semantics.

When you start talking non-sense about who the farmers are or aren't and the scary Koch Brothers - you are either incapable of any level of abstract thought or intentionally trying to obfuscate because you don't have a reasonable counter argument.

The bit about when will republicans stop demonizing government simply calls into question your ability to read anything other than a face book meme. The ENTIRE POINT of the discussion I have been trying to have is that Tucker Carlson's latest commentary is just that, a conservative trying to change the gop thinking around the demonization of government and the utility of some degree of socialistic governmental role in society - he may skip around the word, because it has become a third rail int he gop, but that IS what he is saying. But then I hear "well now he's just re-packaging democrat policies" from people who remain obsessed with little r's and little d's ... bang1

[dislaxxic]

So you really seem to have no problem with folks talking like conservatives and acting like liberals? This seems lost on you. Let's take the example of jacking up the debt. Use whatever example the spending is made towards you wish. Did not the conservatives utterly and without quarter demonize the BEJESUS out of spending...of jacking up the debt and the deficit, for eight long years (in the most recent example). Now, with a "conservatives" calling these shots, not a peep about it. It appears to me that you are turning the other cheek...ignoring if you will, issues of hypocrisy like this because, well, because "your guys" are now calling these shots.

bang1 indeed...

..

[CU77]

Carlson's baby step into the rational world is, I suppose, a net positive. It's hard to get very excited about it though, when he and his pals continue to peddle nonsense (Must shut down the gubmint over the debt! No, wait, forget the debt, we meant the Wall!!!) 99% of the time.

[HooDat]

baby step yes, but if you are not open to accepting baby steps because of whataboutism or r's and d's then we might as well throw in the towel on democracy