That sums it up nicely.
The Conservative Myth of Government Dysfunction
- Thread starter Tiassa
- Start date
joe said:
I have been quoted, and paraphrased, both. All your paraphrases in this thread have been wrong, along with all your other claims about what I posted, implicit and explicit, and I deny them.
The point was exactly that your average isn't any better than Billy's. You could both be right, or both wrong, or either wrong and the other right, in the argument being made. That was my point - that you haven't showed that Billy's number is "wrong".joe said:
It's completely possible, statistically, from the way it was derived, for your "average hourly wage" increase of .27 per hour to represent an economy in which everybody who gets paid by the hour - every single person who earns an hourly wage on their job - got a raise of exactly .03 in that hourly wage, matching Billy's "average hourly wage" increase perfectly. (in dollars - the dollar sign messes up the code here)
Your number is no more likely to be accurate, in its meaning here, fundamentally because the argument involving it (Billy's point) requires a median, or some similar number, and specifically because you in particular (haven't checked Billy) are lumping "wages" not paid by the hour in with hourly wages and not correcting for hours worked and so forth, which introduces all kinds of problems of interpretation; including invalidating any interpretation of an increase in your statistic as measuring a rise in the hourly wages paid to those who get paid by the hour.
And to forestall your habitual deflection: the problem is not with the agencies and so forth that compiled the data or the metric. The problem is your error in misusing it.
And among the problems with your error, and similar ones, is that it discards the major advantage we have, those of us opposed to the current rise of fascism in American politics: we're reality based. They're living in delusion and revision and continual unexpected disaster, always hitting their heads on stuff they didn't admit existed, always having to tell increasingly absurd lies in public to cover the difference between what they were saying and what was and is happening. One can lie about the past, but that does not constrain the future - even the immediate future. They are going to continue to get blindsided by circumstance. They are going to continue to fail at governing the real life country. Things will fall apart under their governance, and these are things that did not fall apart under other governance.
Their backstop line of defense, currently the main play as the product of their major efforts of the last two decades rots and breeds vermin in the public streets, is "both sides". Although that is a lie in the first place, and so cannot be opposed by making it false, one can avoid abetting it through dealing in opposing delusion and contrary misrepresentation. The sharper one can make a political choice a contrast between propaganda and reality, the more people will be forced by events to see the nature of the choice.
Fascism does not work. It does not make the trains run on time. It does not win wars. It does not get the potholes fixed. It is dysfunctional government almost by definition. But trying to combat it on the field of propaganda and lies is playing to its strengths, throwing into the wheelhouse.
Last edited:
Bullshit. Your accusation of being inaccurately paraphrased is bullshit pure and simple. You cannot prove it, because it hasn’t happened. It’s a distraction from the fatuous nature of your arguments. My unanswered challenge to you was to prove your assertion and you haven’t done it. You just keep repeating your allegations – probably because you can’t prove it because it is fiction.
A little bit of revisionism there.
The point was clear, you argued I was wrong, not BillyT, because I used correct data to demonstrate the error of the average statistic BillT referenced. Until now, you have had no criticism of BillyT’s use of an average. Your criticism was solely aimed at me for using an average to debunk BillyT’s average.It’s very obvious you are mathematically challenged Ice. BillyT and I cannot both be correct as has been explained to you numerous times in this conversation. We cannot both be right for all the many reasons that have been repeatedly given to you (i.e. we are not measuring the same thing). Need I repeat myself again? BillyT used a quarterly number. I used an annual number. We don’t know where BillyT sourced his information because he hasn’t divulged the source, but it sure the hell wasn’t my source because my number is only gathered and reported annually (i.e. tax returns).
And you think that makes sense…seriously? As repeatedly explained to you, this was about the veracity of BillyT’s number. Nowhere or at any time, with the exception of you, did anyone make a claim that everyone got a raise of exactly $.03 per hour. Frankly, your assertion is stupid. Additionally, the discussion was about all wage earners – also as repeatedly explained to you.
LOL, you are wiggling! This has been discussed ad nauseum and your errors have been repeatedly explained to you. Bullshit doesn’t get better with repetition. If you cannot or refuse to understand your fallacious comparisons as appears to be the case, then there really is no point of further discussion. The issue isn’t and never was your contention that the median is a better metric. The issue is your assertion that I was incorrect to respond to the veracity of BillyT’s average metric with an average metric so we could compare apples to apples. And in so doing, and again contrary to your claims that we could both be correct if we would just use your beloved median statistic, BillyT and I learned we got different results because we were using different data sets.
Face it Ice, you knowledge of mathematics sucks. You are the last person who should be telling someone about medians or any other statistic for that matter.
LOL, and here it comes, off the deep end with allegations of fascism. The issue under discussion has nothing to do with fascism. This has everything to do with you inability to understand math and your inability to grasp simple concepts and make rational conclusions.
The discussion between BillyT and me over BillyT’s use of an unsourced average metric has absolutely nothing to do with your mathematical challenges, your ignorance of business, and economics and it certainly nothing to do with your machinations of fascism. You might want to see a shrink.
You never paraphrase accurately. Why not?joe said:
Yes. It's an illustration of the fact that you cannot use your metric to say anything in useful here about changes in the hourly wages of people who get paid by the hour. It illustrates the fact that your number does not correct Billy's, or even necessarily conflict with it as it applies in arguments here.joe said:
You are using a metric that does not reliably supply you with a measure of the "average change in hourly wages", and it breaks down particularly in the exact matters of interest to the political environment Billy specified - the failure of the economy to support increases in people's hourly wages, even after years of a so-called "recovery" from a serious crash. So you can go on comparing your invalid number to Billy's invalid number if you want to, and claiming yours is "right" and his is "wrong", but you are not correcting his number or supplying a more accurate number or anything else relevant to Billy's argument or the thread.joe said:
Recall the thread subject, and the context of Billy's argument. It does, directly and forcefully, bear on Republican Party politics in the US.joe said:
Then instead of bitching about it, prove it as you have been repeatedly challenged to do.
As repeatedly pointed out, the conversation wasn’t about hourly wages, it was about all wages. You need to pay attention among other things.
And you can continue, and I am sure you will, with your confused thoughts and remain buried in ignorance. Additionally, there is nothing “so called” about the economic recovery. It’s clearly reflected in those numbers which so confuse you.
You are confusing wealth inequality with economic growth. Those are two very different subjects. Even the 27 cent per hour raise wage earners received in 2013, it is just keeping up with inflation. When you adjust for inflation wages have been stagnant. Using BillyT’s $.03 number workers lost purchasing power and clearly that isn’t the case. You know, it helps to understand what you are writing about Ice and clearly you don’t.
Yes it does. It bears on Republicans who need and want a bad economy to back up all their claims about Obama and the economic development policies implemented by Democrats. Why do you think Republicans have been doing their very best to torpedo Democratic fiscal policies since Obama’s first inauguration? Democratic fiscal policy has worked, that is a fact Ice. That is why Republicans don’t like them.
You are an extremist on the left Ice; you need and want a bad economy too but for different reasons. The truth is the economy is good, as much as that pains you. And that good economy is clearly reflected in the economic numbers which continue to confuse you. It has become so self-evident, even Republicans are finally backing of their lies about economic growth and moving onto wealth inequality.
The problem now is an ongoing problem, the problem of wealth inequality in this nation which began with Ronald Reagan in the 80’s. That problem can only be corrected in Washington with fiscal policy. It’s interesting in that we are beginning to hear talk from Republicans that they are now for the middle class. Thus far, Republicans have only begun to change their rhetoric. Their fiscal policies still screw the middle classes and benefit the uber wealthy. If this new Republican enlightenment is real, it needs to be reflected in their fiscal policies. Thus far it hasn’t been. Any benefit Republicans want to bestow on the middle class is contingent upon even more benefits for the uber wealthy. And I just don’t think the ditto head leadership which controls the Republican Party will allow a truly middle class friendly Republican Party.
…care to do another fascist rant for me?
The term you used and Billy used, for your subtopic within the thread, was "average hourly wages".joe said:
They succeeded, to a significant degree. That's part of the reason the recovery has been anemic, and the middle class continues to erode, and hourly wages continue in stagnation.joe said:
And if the Democratic campaign rhetoricians continue to assert that the economy is solidly into recovery for everyone's benefit, that wages are increasing for the working stiff and so forth, the current Republican campaign schtick that accuses the Dems of happy-talk concealment of Democratic governmental dysfunction will have that much more traction among the majority of voters - people know whether they are getting paid more than they used to get paid. Most of them aren't.
You want reality on your side, right?
Last edited:
That includes all wages. As explained to umpteen times, that isn't the same as the BLS metric you pulled out.
Uh, no, as I previously posted and have repeatedly posted, Democratic fiscal policies have been very successful. The recovery hasn't been "anemic" in any way shape or form. The economy went from shrinking at an annualized rate of 10% and more with each passing month to one that has consistently grown at an inflation adjusted rate of between 2 and 4 percent. It went from losing 800k jobs and more with each passing month to creating 200k to 300k jobs each and every month. That is a 12 to 14 percent improvement in economic growth and a million plus increase in monthly job growth. That isn't anemic Ice. You are mindlessly repeating nonsense you have heard talking heads say on your television screen.
Define what you mean by eroding? The American middle class is being squeezed by fiscal policies in Washington and state houses across the land which favors the wealthy on the backs of the American middle class. That has nothing to do with economic growth. As I have said before, when the return on capital exceeds the return on aggregate economic growth which is and has been the case, someone is being screwed and in this case it's the middle class.
That is your belief, but that doesn't make it correct. You really don't have a good track record in that regard. Facts are facts Ice, you just happen to always be on the wrong end of them. Fortunately Democratic leaders are a little more knowledgeable and reasoned than you. The fact is Republicans are shifting tactics. Instead of attacking Democratic economic policies as they have done since Obama was first sworn into office, they are shifting to middle class arguments. As I said before, while Republican rhetoric has changed, but their policies have not changed.
Huh? You are not making sense Ice. That's gibberish. I think this gets to your subject matter ignorance and cognitive impairments. Republicans have actively tried to torpedo our economic recovery by;
1) Trying to kill the bank and auto industry bailouts.
2) Attempting to kill the Democratic stimulus package or at least water it down.
3) Prohibiting any additional stimulus and effectively taking fiscal stimulus off the table as a tool to fight recessionary pressures and strengthen the recovery.
4) Insisting upon contractionary fiscal and preventing expansionary fiscal policies when expansionary fiscal policies were clearly warranted.
5) Shutting down government while the economic recovery was still in its infancy.
6) Threatening to cause an intentional debt default twice. Republicans will get another chance in October or November of this year to do it again.
Had Republicans not done any of the above, it would have strengthened the recovery and the Fed would have raised interest rates years ago.
One of the things you appear to not understand is the economy has grown. It's simply a matter of fact and it has grown consistently. But just because the economic pie has grown it doesn't mean everyone's share of the economic pie has grown equally. And in fact it hasn't. Some have done better than others, and the primary reason for that is fiscal policy. Taxes have become more regressive. The middle class have picked up a larger share of the tax burden and the wealthy have paid less. Government programs which benefit the middle class have been cut back or changed to make them more onerous for middle class folks.
You seem to be confusing growth with recovery. Growth is a necessary but not sufficient condition for recovery. Like this:joe said:
In other words, the government has not done well by the middle class.joe said:
And that is the Republican's fault, as we see here:
joe said:
This is so. And that is a consistent message.
This, however, is what Billy is warning you about:
Since good jobs remain scarce, wages for hourly workers (the large majority of the employed) remain flat, the loss of equity in housing has not been made up, and the middle class continues to erode - by which I mean become a smaller and poorer part of the economy - you might want to go easy on the celebration. The Republicans seem eager to credit the Democrats, rather than themselves, for the current economic situation most likely voters find themselves in these days seven years after the crash, and that is not surprising.joe said:
Georgia Republicans: Freedom Includes Discrimination, Domestic Violence, Child Abuse
Jay Michelson↱ brings the news from the Peach State:
The article for The Daily Beast also notes thirty-five various "Religious Freedom" bills have popped up in the states over the last two years, and eighty bills have risen hoping to "specifically allow for discrimination against gay and trans communities".
Michelson complains that the "exercise of religion" can be pretty much whatever a person says it is, and describes "all kinds of shenanigans" used to get the bill to the senate floor, including passing it through committee while opposition members were in the bathroom. He also rejected an amendment that the bill, ostensibly intended to prohibit discrimination, should explicitly say so.
Additionally, the Georgia legend himself, former state attorney general Mike Bowers―of Bowers v. Hardwick infamy―has denounced the bill↱ as "unequivocally an excuse to discriminate", and argues that "permitting citizens to opt-out of laws because of a so-called burden ont he exercise of religion in effect 'would permit evrery citizen to become a law unto himself'". The bill, Bowers explained, "is not about gay marriage, or contraception, or even so-called 'religious freedom'. It is more important than all of these, because it ultimately involves rule of law." Jeff Graham of Georgia Equality points to 2 April, when the session ends; the RFRA "will probably go all the way to the final hours".
And here is one more kick in the crotch, because, well, it's Georgia: This is about protecting future discrimination, not objecting to present circumstances.
And here emerges the question of Republican governance.
Using government as a tool of bigotry and supremacism is pretty much par for the course among conservatives; generations appealing to patriotism and righteousness have been participated in this fraud. And there does come a point when the presupposition of innocence is marred by obvious questions. After all, nobody likes to admit that they are a dedicated hatemonger, not even the dedicated hatemongers who want us to believe they are right while refusing to take pride in their bigotry because they know they are wrong.
This is what conservatives do.
This is what Republicans vote for.
This is what your conservative neighbors want.
And Georgia bigots are so pissed off they're willing to try to destroy rule of law instead of respect human dignity.
When government doesn't work, there are reasons why. And the evident disrespect Republicans show for rule of law, the United States Constitution, and general human decency are among those reasons why. Using government as a weapon against one's own citizens is an act of tyranny. But, you know, we owe it some fair deference, because, after all, it's what Republicans do, and conservatives have a right to their sincerely held beliefs in favor of discrimination, domestic violence, and child abuse.
This is what is important to Republican voters, and such low character is among the reasons why government fails under conservative stewardship.
____________________
Notes:
Michelson, Jay. "Georgia Bill Helps Wife Beaters". The Daily Beast. 13 March 2015. TheDailyBeast.com. 17 March 2015. http://thebea.st/1BLGauW
Bowers, Michael J. "Re: Legal Analysis of Proposed Religious Freedom Restoration Legislation". Balch & Bingham LLP. 23 February 2015. GeorgiaUnites.org. 17 March 2015. http://bit.ly/1GjGO3Q
The bill, the “Georgia Religious Freedom Restoration Act,” is one of a raft of similar bills (RFRAs, for short) wending their way through state legislatures across the country. The bills are part of the backlash against same-sex marriage, but they go much farther than that. Like the Hobby Lobby decision, which allows closely-held corporations to opt out of part of Obamacare, these laws carve out exemptions to all kinds of laws if a person (or corporation) offers a religious reason for not obeying them.
For example? Restaurants could refuse to serve gay or interracial couples, city clerks could refuse to marry interfaith couples, hotels could keep out Jews, housing developments could keep out black people (Genesis 9:18-27), pharmacies could refuse to dispense birth control, banquet halls could turn away gay weddings, schools could specifically allow anti-gay bullying, and employers could fire anyone for any “religious” reason.
The national movement to pass these laws is well-funded and well-coordinated; most of the laws are written by the same handful of conservative legal hacks in Washington, working for organizations like the Alliance Defending Freedom and Ralph Reed’s Faith and Freedom Coalition, both of which have had a hand in the Georgia bill.
For example? Restaurants could refuse to serve gay or interracial couples, city clerks could refuse to marry interfaith couples, hotels could keep out Jews, housing developments could keep out black people (Genesis 9:18-27), pharmacies could refuse to dispense birth control, banquet halls could turn away gay weddings, schools could specifically allow anti-gay bullying, and employers could fire anyone for any “religious” reason.
The national movement to pass these laws is well-funded and well-coordinated; most of the laws are written by the same handful of conservative legal hacks in Washington, working for organizations like the Alliance Defending Freedom and Ralph Reed’s Faith and Freedom Coalition, both of which have had a hand in the Georgia bill.
The article for The Daily Beast also notes thirty-five various "Religious Freedom" bills have popped up in the states over the last two years, and eighty bills have risen hoping to "specifically allow for discrimination against gay and trans communities".
Michelson complains that the "exercise of religion" can be pretty much whatever a person says it is, and describes "all kinds of shenanigans" used to get the bill to the senate floor, including passing it through committee while opposition members were in the bathroom. He also rejected an amendment that the bill, ostensibly intended to prohibit discrimination, should explicitly say so.
The combination of these factors has led to a curious result: a law so strict that it will lead to a host of unintended consequences—and has even led some Republicans to oppose it.
Some legal commentators have said that the law would give a pass to spousal and child abusers, as long as the husband (or father) has a religious pretext. Which is easy to provide; the Christian Domestic Discipline Network, for example, offers a host of rationales for “wife spanking.” And let’s not forget Proverbs 13:24: “He who spares his rod hates his son. But he who loves him disciplines him diligently.”
Georgia has numerous laws protecting child welfare, which is arguably a compelling state interest. But are such laws really the “least restrictive means” of protecting it? Not necessarily. At the very least, the laws offer a novel defense against assault and battery.
Or maybe not so novel. Graham says, “We have found cases where people used their religious views as an excuse to impede an investigation into child-endangerment and child-abuse charges. They were not ultimately successful, but they did slow down the investigations.”
With the new law, they would be far better armed. In fact, says Graham, conservative district attorneys in Macon and Marietta have said that the bill would impede investigations and prosecutions of child abuse.
Some legal commentators have said that the law would give a pass to spousal and child abusers, as long as the husband (or father) has a religious pretext. Which is easy to provide; the Christian Domestic Discipline Network, for example, offers a host of rationales for “wife spanking.” And let’s not forget Proverbs 13:24: “He who spares his rod hates his son. But he who loves him disciplines him diligently.”
Georgia has numerous laws protecting child welfare, which is arguably a compelling state interest. But are such laws really the “least restrictive means” of protecting it? Not necessarily. At the very least, the laws offer a novel defense against assault and battery.
Or maybe not so novel. Graham says, “We have found cases where people used their religious views as an excuse to impede an investigation into child-endangerment and child-abuse charges. They were not ultimately successful, but they did slow down the investigations.”
With the new law, they would be far better armed. In fact, says Graham, conservative district attorneys in Macon and Marietta have said that the bill would impede investigations and prosecutions of child abuse.
Additionally, the Georgia legend himself, former state attorney general Mike Bowers―of Bowers v. Hardwick infamy―has denounced the bill↱ as "unequivocally an excuse to discriminate", and argues that "permitting citizens to opt-out of laws because of a so-called burden ont he exercise of religion in effect 'would permit evrery citizen to become a law unto himself'". The bill, Bowers explained, "is not about gay marriage, or contraception, or even so-called 'religious freedom'. It is more important than all of these, because it ultimately involves rule of law." Jeff Graham of Georgia Equality points to 2 April, when the session ends; the RFRA "will probably go all the way to the final hours".
And here is one more kick in the crotch, because, well, it's Georgia: This is about protecting future discrimination, not objecting to present circumstances.
Ironically, says Graham, Georgia doesn’t have that many protections for LGBT people in the first place.
“This is a preemptive strike against the LGBT community,” he says. “If this bill is not intended to allow discrimination, why were its sponsors so adamant about refusing to say so?”
“This is a preemptive strike against the LGBT community,” he says. “If this bill is not intended to allow discrimination, why were its sponsors so adamant about refusing to say so?”
And here emerges the question of Republican governance.
Using government as a tool of bigotry and supremacism is pretty much par for the course among conservatives; generations appealing to patriotism and righteousness have been participated in this fraud. And there does come a point when the presupposition of innocence is marred by obvious questions. After all, nobody likes to admit that they are a dedicated hatemonger, not even the dedicated hatemongers who want us to believe they are right while refusing to take pride in their bigotry because they know they are wrong.
This is what conservatives do.
This is what Republicans vote for.
This is what your conservative neighbors want.
And Georgia bigots are so pissed off they're willing to try to destroy rule of law instead of respect human dignity.
When government doesn't work, there are reasons why. And the evident disrespect Republicans show for rule of law, the United States Constitution, and general human decency are among those reasons why. Using government as a weapon against one's own citizens is an act of tyranny. But, you know, we owe it some fair deference, because, after all, it's what Republicans do, and conservatives have a right to their sincerely held beliefs in favor of discrimination, domestic violence, and child abuse.
This is what is important to Republican voters, and such low character is among the reasons why government fails under conservative stewardship.
____________________
Notes:
Michelson, Jay. "Georgia Bill Helps Wife Beaters". The Daily Beast. 13 March 2015. TheDailyBeast.com. 17 March 2015. http://thebea.st/1BLGauW
Bowers, Michael J. "Re: Legal Analysis of Proposed Religious Freedom Restoration Legislation". Balch & Bingham LLP. 23 February 2015. GeorgiaUnites.org. 17 March 2015. http://bit.ly/1GjGO3Q
Cruz Control: When Stupidity Reigns
The summary, from Dave Levitan↱ for FactCheck.org:
Remember:
Republican voters are without any excuses. This has been going on so long the only way they can claim they didn't know is to say yes, they really are that stupid. But for people who aren't Republicans, it is hard to reconcile the notion that government does not and cannot work with the idea that this is something conservatives are actually worried about. When Republicans go out of their way to deliberately appoint the least qualified and most dishonest idiots they can find to chair committees with the intention of wrecking the government, it really does look like they're trying to prove the thesis.
And everyone who voted for a Republican is willingly taking part.
Guilty. Every last one of them.
____________________
Notes:
Levitan, David. "Cruz Distorts NASA's Mission, Budget". SciCheck. 18 March 2015. FactCheck.org. 19 March 2015. http://bit.ly/1BRXwGo
The summary, from Dave Levitan↱ for FactCheck.org:
During his critique of NASA's spending on earth and atmospheric sciences at a recent committee hearing, Sen. Ted Cruz made some misleading claims regarding the agency's budgets and the science that it conducts.
• Cruz said there has been a "disproportionate increase" since 2009 in funding of earth sciences. There has been an increase — and it is larger than some other NASA areas — but spending on earth sciences is lower now as a percentage of NASA's budget than it was in fiscal 2000. And the increase reflects an effort to restore funding that had been cut.
• Cruz also suggested that the "core mission" of NASA does not include earth sciences. In fact, studying the Earth and atmosphere has been central to NASA's mission since its creation in 1958.
• In criticizing NASA's spending on earth sciences, Cruz also said the agency needs to "get back to the hard sciences" — meaning space exploration and not earth and atmospheric research. The term "hard sciences" refers to fields including physics and chemistry, which are central to the research being done as part of NASA's earth science programs.
• Cruz also suggested that the "core mission" of NASA does not include earth sciences. In fact, studying the Earth and atmosphere has been central to NASA's mission since its creation in 1958.
• In criticizing NASA's spending on earth sciences, Cruz also said the agency needs to "get back to the hard sciences" — meaning space exploration and not earth and atmospheric research. The term "hard sciences" refers to fields including physics and chemistry, which are central to the research being done as part of NASA's earth science programs.
Remember:
(1) When Republicans claim that government doesn't work, the reason is because that is what Republicans want.
(2) You have every right to blame every Republican voter you know for this. After all, this is what Republicans want: Ignorance, incompetence, and governmental failure. It's not that they want people to suffer, but, rather, that it is an acceptable cost for sabotaging society in order to say, "Ha! I told you so!"
(2) You have every right to blame every Republican voter you know for this. After all, this is what Republicans want: Ignorance, incompetence, and governmental failure. It's not that they want people to suffer, but, rather, that it is an acceptable cost for sabotaging society in order to say, "Ha! I told you so!"
Republican voters are without any excuses. This has been going on so long the only way they can claim they didn't know is to say yes, they really are that stupid. But for people who aren't Republicans, it is hard to reconcile the notion that government does not and cannot work with the idea that this is something conservatives are actually worried about. When Republicans go out of their way to deliberately appoint the least qualified and most dishonest idiots they can find to chair committees with the intention of wrecking the government, it really does look like they're trying to prove the thesis.
And everyone who voted for a Republican is willingly taking part.
Guilty. Every last one of them.
____________________
Notes:
Levitan, David. "Cruz Distorts NASA's Mission, Budget". SciCheck. 18 March 2015. FactCheck.org. 19 March 2015. http://bit.ly/1BRXwGo
I dunno. While not a fan of Cruz, I am disappointed in NASA's withdrawal from "Space, the final frontier". I dont like the shuttle being replaced with russian rockets. I like the Voyager probes exceeding expectations.
http://www.wired.com/2013/09/plutonium-238-problem/all/
and I do laugh at the people watching the live streams from mars, spotting all kinda stuff I dont see. Its fun!
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/11/19/aliens-on-mars-photos_n_4303447.html
While not specifically mentioned in Levitans piece we do have redundancy:
NOAA provides these services through five major organizations – NOAA National Weather Service, NOAA Ocean Service, NOAA Fisheries, NOAA Satellites and Information Service, and NOAA Research.
http://www.commerce.gov/os/ogc/national-oceanic-and-atmospheric-administration
NASA, in my interpretation of its mission, was about space exploration. Shuttles, ISS, SOHO, Hubble, etc do reflect that goal. Pics of aurora boralis, lightning from above the clouds, earth at night (showing the lights from cities) from windows of ISS/ satellites are (imho) side benefits and not the purpose.
Here is a UoCS pre 2010 page on the changes to NASA mission statement:
http://www.ucsusa.org/our-work/cent...ty/at-nasa-earth-is-removed.html#.VQq2_ckpqSg
And what jumps out? More funding would be shifted away and redirected... Thats their concern?! Ya know what, as a taxpayer (and funding source) I have concerns also.
Governance and Priority
Two notions spring to mind. One is simply to point out that once again, for those who still need such reminders, we see an explicit illustration of the difference. And then there is this, only slightly less easy to notice: We find what Republicans mean when complaining about intrustive government, and even learn something about how conservatives view states' rights.
Steve Benen↱ sketches the setup:
The punch line comes via Caitlan MacNeal↱ at Talking Points Memo, who explains how the House Science Committee, a notorious bastion of conservative superstition, hopes to lean its congressinoal weight on states:
Toward that last, Benen points to a Washington Post↱ from two months ago covering the House Science Committee's ongoing wars against science and the states. Texas backbencher Rep. Randy Weber (R-14) accused the state attorneys general of being a "posse", pretending they have no right to enforce the law in their own states. Then again, Mr. Weber is part of the Paul Broun legacy, having opened 2015 by praising Hitler in order to complain about Barack Oabama. Rep. Darin LaHood (R-IL18) argued against the states investigating whether they were given fraudulent advice: "Prosecutors shouldn't be in this business", he explained. Investigating such fraud "really is an abuse of power". The WaPo report goes on to explain:
So much for states' rights. So much for small, non-intrusive government.
We ought to take the moment to remind ourselves, since the reminder is right in front of us, that the problem with the conervative complaint that government does not, cannot, and should not work is that they're not inherently describing government as a general phenomenon. Rather, it is a warning―one we ought to heed―about what happens when the People entrust conservatives with government.
Or something like that. It's just another reminder. It's just strange how Republicans seem to think that protecting citizens isn't the job or a state government. Like I said, another reminder, like the time Florida decided to censor the terms "climate change"↱ and "global warming"↱ in state communications.
And now they're down to arguing that state attorneys general should not argue whether or not corporations advising and testifying in their state did so in bad faith.
Protecting and preserving the full faith and credit of fraud, really does seem a strange definition of proper and dutiful governance, but, hey, these are Republicans, and they have their priorities.
____________________
Notes:
Benen, Steve. "House Republicans go to bat for ExxonMobil". msnbc. 13 September 2016. msnbc.com. 13 September 2016. http://on.msnbc.com/2cc2ubL
MacNeal, Caitlan. "House Science Committee's Climate Change Denialism Enters New Phase". Talking Points Memo. 12 September 2016. TalkingPointsMemo.com. 13 September 2016. http://bit.ly/2cC1AGC
Mufson, Steve. "Republicans just escalated the war over ExxonMobil and climate change". The Washington Post. 13 July 2016. WashingtonPost.com. 13 September 2016. http://wapo.st/2cXkAjI
Two notions spring to mind. One is simply to point out that once again, for those who still need such reminders, we see an explicit illustration of the difference. And then there is this, only slightly less easy to notice: We find what Republicans mean when complaining about intrustive government, and even learn something about how conservatives view states' rights.
Steve Benen↱ sketches the setup:
Late last year, evidence emerged that ExxonMobil not only recognized climate change decades ago, it put those beliefs into action, basing company decisions on the available science. As we discussed at the time, the oil giant nevertheless urged policymakers around the world not to address the intensifying climate crisis that its own scientists and engineers recognized.
Several congressional Democrats concluded there are grounds for a federal criminal investigation, and some state attorneys general launched probes of their own, subpoenaing ExxonMobil for more information in the hopes of determining what the company knew and when.
That isn't sitting well with the far-right congressional Republicans on the House Science Committee, who want ExxonMobil to be left alone.
Several congressional Democrats concluded there are grounds for a federal criminal investigation, and some state attorneys general launched probes of their own, subpoenaing ExxonMobil for more information in the hopes of determining what the company knew and when.
That isn't sitting well with the far-right congressional Republicans on the House Science Committee, who want ExxonMobil to be left alone.
The punch line comes via Caitlan MacNeal↱ at Talking Points Memo, who explains how the House Science Committee, a notorious bastion of conservative superstition, hopes to lean its congressinoal weight on states:
Following a months-long standoff between the House Science Committee and state attorneys general conducting an investigation into Exxon over climate change denialism, Chairman Lamar Smith (R-TX) has called a hearing to affirm his right to subpoena the state officials overseeing criminal investigations.
Smith, a noted climate change denier, has made repeated demands that the attorneys general and several environmental groups turn over their communications about Exxon, accusing them of embarking on an "unprecedented effort against those who have questioned the causes, magnitude, or best ways to address climate change." The attorneys general, as well as the activist groups, have refused to comply with the committee's requests, setting up a battle over subpoena power.
While Smith has previously conducted investigations into the executive branch and scientists funded by Congress, now the chairman has issued subpoenas to two state attorneys general conducting a criminal investigation. He made a wide-ranging request for communications the states had with each other, environmental groups, and the federal government about an "investigation or potential prosecution of companies, nonprofit organizations, scientists, or other individuals related to the issue of climate change."
Several state attorneys general have been investigating whether Exxon Mobil lied to investors about climate change and how it could impact the company, specifically looking at whether the company's statements to investors failed to include the company's scientific research.
In their refusals to comply with Smith's demands, the attorneys general of Massachusetts and New York have argued that the subpoenas are unprecedented, outside Congress' purview, and an infringement on states' rights. Massachusetts Attorney General Maura Healey's chief legal counsel, Richard Johnston, called the subpoena "an unconstitutional and unwarranted interference with a legitimate ongoing state investigation."
But Smith has insisted that the committee is operating within its jurisdiction, arguing that the committee is looking into whether the state probes impose "an adverse impact on federally-funded scientific research" so that the committee knows whether to rejigger federal funding for research.
Now, Smith is holding a hearing on Wednesday to affirm his ability to subpoena state attorneys general. The committee will hear from legal experts in the hearing titled, "Affirming Congress' Constitutional Oversight Responsibilities: Subpoena Authority and Recourse for Failure to Comply with Lawfully Issued Subpoenas."
The Science Committee was one of several House committees that received new subpoena powers at the beginning of 2015. The chair can issue subpoenas without consulting the committee's ranking member, and Smith has not shied away from using that power.
"The amount of power that he has and that he's exercising is unprecedented for the Science Committee," Mark Harkins, a senior fellow at Georgetown University's Government Affairs Institute and former Democratic staffer on the Science Committee, told TPM.
Smith, a noted climate change denier, has made repeated demands that the attorneys general and several environmental groups turn over their communications about Exxon, accusing them of embarking on an "unprecedented effort against those who have questioned the causes, magnitude, or best ways to address climate change." The attorneys general, as well as the activist groups, have refused to comply with the committee's requests, setting up a battle over subpoena power.
‡
While Smith has previously conducted investigations into the executive branch and scientists funded by Congress, now the chairman has issued subpoenas to two state attorneys general conducting a criminal investigation. He made a wide-ranging request for communications the states had with each other, environmental groups, and the federal government about an "investigation or potential prosecution of companies, nonprofit organizations, scientists, or other individuals related to the issue of climate change."
Several state attorneys general have been investigating whether Exxon Mobil lied to investors about climate change and how it could impact the company, specifically looking at whether the company's statements to investors failed to include the company's scientific research.
In their refusals to comply with Smith's demands, the attorneys general of Massachusetts and New York have argued that the subpoenas are unprecedented, outside Congress' purview, and an infringement on states' rights. Massachusetts Attorney General Maura Healey's chief legal counsel, Richard Johnston, called the subpoena "an unconstitutional and unwarranted interference with a legitimate ongoing state investigation."
‡
But Smith has insisted that the committee is operating within its jurisdiction, arguing that the committee is looking into whether the state probes impose "an adverse impact on federally-funded scientific research" so that the committee knows whether to rejigger federal funding for research.
Now, Smith is holding a hearing on Wednesday to affirm his ability to subpoena state attorneys general. The committee will hear from legal experts in the hearing titled, "Affirming Congress' Constitutional Oversight Responsibilities: Subpoena Authority and Recourse for Failure to Comply with Lawfully Issued Subpoenas."
‡
The Science Committee was one of several House committees that received new subpoena powers at the beginning of 2015. The chair can issue subpoenas without consulting the committee's ranking member, and Smith has not shied away from using that power.
"The amount of power that he has and that he's exercising is unprecedented for the Science Committee," Mark Harkins, a senior fellow at Georgetown University's Government Affairs Institute and former Democratic staffer on the Science Committee, told TPM.
Toward that last, Benen points to a Washington Post↱ from two months ago covering the House Science Committee's ongoing wars against science and the states. Texas backbencher Rep. Randy Weber (R-14) accused the state attorneys general of being a "posse", pretending they have no right to enforce the law in their own states. Then again, Mr. Weber is part of the Paul Broun legacy, having opened 2015 by praising Hitler in order to complain about Barack Oabama. Rep. Darin LaHood (R-IL18) argued against the states investigating whether they were given fraudulent advice: "Prosecutors shouldn't be in this business", he explained. Investigating such fraud "really is an abuse of power". The WaPo report goes on to explain:
The environmental group 350.org said that Smith, who has already sent three rounds of letters to attorneys general and environmental groups, was motivated by the campaign contributions he has received from oil and gas companies. It said Smith has issued more subpoenas in less than three years as chairman than the committee had issued in its entire 54 years of existence.
So much for states' rights. So much for small, non-intrusive government.
We ought to take the moment to remind ourselves, since the reminder is right in front of us, that the problem with the conervative complaint that government does not, cannot, and should not work is that they're not inherently describing government as a general phenomenon. Rather, it is a warning―one we ought to heed―about what happens when the People entrust conservatives with government.
Or something like that. It's just another reminder. It's just strange how Republicans seem to think that protecting citizens isn't the job or a state government. Like I said, another reminder, like the time Florida decided to censor the terms "climate change"↱ and "global warming"↱ in state communications.
And now they're down to arguing that state attorneys general should not argue whether or not corporations advising and testifying in their state did so in bad faith.
Protecting and preserving the full faith and credit of fraud, really does seem a strange definition of proper and dutiful governance, but, hey, these are Republicans, and they have their priorities.
____________________
Notes:
Benen, Steve. "House Republicans go to bat for ExxonMobil". msnbc. 13 September 2016. msnbc.com. 13 September 2016. http://on.msnbc.com/2cc2ubL
MacNeal, Caitlan. "House Science Committee's Climate Change Denialism Enters New Phase". Talking Points Memo. 12 September 2016. TalkingPointsMemo.com. 13 September 2016. http://bit.ly/2cC1AGC
Mufson, Steve. "Republicans just escalated the war over ExxonMobil and climate change". The Washington Post. 13 July 2016. WashingtonPost.com. 13 September 2016. http://wapo.st/2cXkAjI
Sunflower Shade
There is the setup, from Steve Benen↱:
And here is a punch line: Kansas.
Want another? Governor Sam Brownback.
A Bloomberg report from Barry Ritholtz↱ tries a different setup, and delivers the real punch line:
The funny thing is that Kansas voters gave Brownback a second term. And if you would risk injury, try giving serious countenance to the proposition that Arthur Laffer, whose aptly-named "Laffer curve" is the inspiration of so many supply side dreams of trickling down, believes Brownback's re-election vindicates his economic theses, living results be damned.
The thing is that people in Kansas are people. Nobody is certain why Sunflower voters think this manner of wreckage is good, but, you know, they can always blame it on Democrats for not stopping them. It's one thing to note the suggestion of a primary night rebuke↗ unseating incumbent Rep. Tim Huelskamp (R-KS01) and talk of the the societal conservative Establishment defeating nearly a dozen other far-rightists ("candidates" or "incumbents" was apparently not a distinction included in the chatter that reached me), but I'm also wary. Then again, Kansas doesn't seem to be in play at the presidential level, and I am unable to read what that might mean toward turnout if there is no terrified anti-Hillary boost for Republicans. It seems safe enough to suggest there aren't enough Democrats, crossovers, and Republicans in flight to make up a secret majority capable of overcoming the projected double-digit Trump lead, given Trump's projection in Kansas is even better than Clinton's staggering projection nationwide.
Y'know, from afar Kansas is as fascinating as it is scary.
____________________
Notes:
Benen, Steve. "What Kansans don’t know might hurt them". msnbc. 25 September 2016. msnbc.com. 25 September 2016. http://on.msnbc.com/2eNPKGU
Ritholtz, Barry. "Kansas Ends Bad Economic News by Not Reporting It". Bloomberg. 24 October 2016. Bloomberg.com. 25 October 2016. http://bloom.bg/2dGPl8o
There is the setup, from Steve Benen↱:
The Bush/Cheney administration had an amazing gimmick it relied on several times: when reports suggested there was a problem with the White House's agenda, Bush's aides decided it was time to get rid of the reports.
In 2005, for example, after a government report showed an increase in terrorism around the world, the administration announced it would stop publishing its annual report on international terrorism. When the Bush administration was discouraged by data about factory closings, the administration announced it would stop publishing information about factory closings. When Bush's Department of Education found that charter schools were underperforming, the administration said it would sharply cut back on the information it collects about charter schools.
In 2005, for example, after a government report showed an increase in terrorism around the world, the administration announced it would stop publishing its annual report on international terrorism. When the Bush administration was discouraged by data about factory closings, the administration announced it would stop publishing information about factory closings. When Bush's Department of Education found that charter schools were underperforming, the administration said it would sharply cut back on the information it collects about charter schools.
And here is a punch line: Kansas.
Want another? Governor Sam Brownback.
A Bloomberg report from Barry Ritholtz↱ tries a different setup, and delivers the real punch line:
"What's measured, improves."
So said management legend and author Peter F. Drucker about the value of using metrics to define specific objectives within an organization.
Drucker is no longer with us; if he were, he might want to have a few words with Republican Governor Sam Brownback of Kansas. Brownback, despite promising to measure the results of a "real life experiment" in cutting taxes, has decided to cancel a quarterly report on the status of the state's economy.
Although Brownback's spokeswoman said "a lot of people were confused by the report," no one has been fooled. The problem was that the reports didn't match the governor's predictions for the state's soon-to-be-booming economy. Local news media, including the Topeka Capital-Journal and the Kansas City Star, flagged the abandonment of the reports as evidence not only of policy failure, but as an attempt to hide that fact from the public.
So said management legend and author Peter F. Drucker about the value of using metrics to define specific objectives within an organization.
Drucker is no longer with us; if he were, he might want to have a few words with Republican Governor Sam Brownback of Kansas. Brownback, despite promising to measure the results of a "real life experiment" in cutting taxes, has decided to cancel a quarterly report on the status of the state's economy.
Although Brownback's spokeswoman said "a lot of people were confused by the report," no one has been fooled. The problem was that the reports didn't match the governor's predictions for the state's soon-to-be-booming economy. Local news media, including the Topeka Capital-Journal and the Kansas City Star, flagged the abandonment of the reports as evidence not only of policy failure, but as an attempt to hide that fact from the public.
The funny thing is that Kansas voters gave Brownback a second term. And if you would risk injury, try giving serious countenance to the proposition that Arthur Laffer, whose aptly-named "Laffer curve" is the inspiration of so many supply side dreams of trickling down, believes Brownback's re-election vindicates his economic theses, living results be damned.
The thing is that people in Kansas are people. Nobody is certain why Sunflower voters think this manner of wreckage is good, but, you know, they can always blame it on Democrats for not stopping them. It's one thing to note the suggestion of a primary night rebuke↗ unseating incumbent Rep. Tim Huelskamp (R-KS01) and talk of the the societal conservative Establishment defeating nearly a dozen other far-rightists ("candidates" or "incumbents" was apparently not a distinction included in the chatter that reached me), but I'm also wary. Then again, Kansas doesn't seem to be in play at the presidential level, and I am unable to read what that might mean toward turnout if there is no terrified anti-Hillary boost for Republicans. It seems safe enough to suggest there aren't enough Democrats, crossovers, and Republicans in flight to make up a secret majority capable of overcoming the projected double-digit Trump lead, given Trump's projection in Kansas is even better than Clinton's staggering projection nationwide.
Y'know, from afar Kansas is as fascinating as it is scary.
____________________
Notes:
Benen, Steve. "What Kansans don’t know might hurt them". msnbc. 25 September 2016. msnbc.com. 25 September 2016. http://on.msnbc.com/2eNPKGU
Ritholtz, Barry. "Kansas Ends Bad Economic News by Not Reporting It". Bloomberg. 24 October 2016. Bloomberg.com. 25 October 2016. http://bloom.bg/2dGPl8o
In Kansas Republicans so outnumber Democrats, that all the real action takes place in the primaries. Once a Republican receives his party's nomination, the fall general election is just a formality. On the good side, many of Brownbacks cronies were ousted in the Republican primaries. So the legislature Brownback will have in 2017 is a more moderate legislature. How moderate remains to be seen. But there is talk of repealing Brownback's signature accomplishment which exempted the state's wealthiest citizens from the state income tax and resulted in multiple downgrades of the state's credit rating, unprecedented increases in state sales taxes, and burgeoning debt.Sunflower Shade
There is the setup, from Steve Benen↱:
The Bush/Cheney administration had an amazing gimmick it relied on several times: when reports suggested there was a problem with the White House's agenda, Bush's aides decided it was time to get rid of the reports.
In 2005, for example, after a government report showed an increase in terrorism around the world, the administration announced it would stop publishing its annual report on international terrorism. When the Bush administration was discouraged by data about factory closings, the administration announced it would stop publishing information about factory closings. When Bush's Department of Education found that charter schools were underperforming, the administration said it would sharply cut back on the information it collects about charter schools.
And here is a punch line: Kansas.
Want another? Governor Sam Brownback.
A Bloomberg report from Barry Ritholtz↱ tries a different setup, and delivers the real punch line:
"What's measured, improves."
So said management legend and author Peter F. Drucker about the value of using metrics to define specific objectives within an organization.
Drucker is no longer with us; if he were, he might want to have a few words with Republican Governor Sam Brownback of Kansas. Brownback, despite promising to measure the results of a "real life experiment" in cutting taxes, has decided to cancel a quarterly report on the status of the state's economy.
Although Brownback's spokeswoman said "a lot of people were confused by the report," no one has been fooled. The problem was that the reports didn't match the governor's predictions for the state's soon-to-be-booming economy. Local news media, including the Topeka Capital-Journal and the Kansas City Star, flagged the abandonment of the reports as evidence not only of policy failure, but as an attempt to hide that fact from the public.
The funny thing is that Kansas voters gave Brownback a second term. And if you would risk injury, try giving serious countenance to the proposition that Arthur Laffer, whose aptly-named "Laffer curve" is the inspiration of so many supply side dreams of trickling down, believes Brownback's re-election vindicates his economic theses, living results be damned.
The thing is that people in Kansas are people. Nobody is certain why Sunflower voters think this manner of wreckage is good, but, you know, they can always blame it on Democrats for not stopping them. It's one thing to note the suggestion of a primary night rebuke↗ unseating incumbent Rep. Tim Huelskamp (R-KS01) and talk of the the societal conservative Establishment defeating nearly a dozen other far-rightists ("candidates" or "incumbents" was apparently not a distinction included in the chatter that reached me), but I'm also wary. Then again, Kansas doesn't seem to be in play at the presidential level, and I am unable to read what that might mean toward turnout if there is no terrified anti-Hillary boost for Republicans. It seems safe enough to suggest there aren't enough Democrats, crossovers, and Republicans in flight to make up a secret majority capable of overcoming the projected double-digit Trump lead, given Trump's projection in Kansas is even better than Clinton's staggering projection nationwide.
Y'know, from afar Kansas is as fascinating as it is scary.
____________________
Notes:
Benen, Steve. "What Kansans don’t know might hurt them". msnbc. 25 September 2016. msnbc.com. 25 September 2016. http://on.msnbc.com/2eNPKGU
Ritholtz, Barry. "Kansas Ends Bad Economic News by Not Reporting It". Bloomberg. 24 October 2016. Bloomberg.com. 25 October 2016. http://bloom.bg/2dGPl8o
How low will they go...
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry...-clinton-nominees_us_580fed9ae4b08582f88cb00c
Government is indeed "dysfunctional" - at least Republican government.
This Could Be The Beginning Of The End Of The Supreme Court As We Know It
Conservatives lay the groundwork for blocking all of Hillary Clinton’s nominees.
“As a matter of constitutional law, the Senate is fully within its powers to let the Supreme Court die out, literally,” wrote the Cato Institute’s Ilya Shapiro in a column Wednesday on The Federalist.
Shapiro is well-versed in constitutional issues, and his argument has a legal, if contorted, basis. Nothing in the Constitution explicitly stands in the way of senators who would be willing to destroy the nation’s highest court ― if not an entire branch of the federal government ― to stop Clinton from selecting judges who share her views.
...
“So when you get past the gotcha headlines, breathless reportage, and Inauguration Day, if Hillary Clinton is president it would be completely decent, honorable, and in keeping with the Senate’s constitutional duty to vote against essentially every judicial nominee she names,” he concluded.
Conservatives lay the groundwork for blocking all of Hillary Clinton’s nominees.
“As a matter of constitutional law, the Senate is fully within its powers to let the Supreme Court die out, literally,” wrote the Cato Institute’s Ilya Shapiro in a column Wednesday on The Federalist.
Shapiro is well-versed in constitutional issues, and his argument has a legal, if contorted, basis. Nothing in the Constitution explicitly stands in the way of senators who would be willing to destroy the nation’s highest court ― if not an entire branch of the federal government ― to stop Clinton from selecting judges who share her views.
...
“So when you get past the gotcha headlines, breathless reportage, and Inauguration Day, if Hillary Clinton is president it would be completely decent, honorable, and in keeping with the Senate’s constitutional duty to vote against essentially every judicial nominee she names,” he concluded.
If Clinton wins and the Republicans retain control of the Senate, this argument could serve as the groundwork for their next play in Congress — even though they’ve spent most of 2016 insisting that the people’s choice for the next president should get to pick Scalia’s replacement.
Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) signaled on Wednesday that he may be a convert to this vision of a new normal — a Supreme Court not at full steam for a very long time:
Of course, none of this likely matters if Democrats regain the Senate, which HuffPost Pollster projections say is not beyond the realm of the possible.
The Constitution may give the president the power to nominate justices and the Senate the power to vote them up or down. But in the end it’s the voters who choose.
Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) signaled on Wednesday that he may be a convert to this vision of a new normal — a Supreme Court not at full steam for a very long time:
I asked Cruz if there should be votes on Clinton court nominees if GOP holds Senate. He said there's plenty of precedent for <9 justices.
Of course, none of this likely matters if Democrats regain the Senate, which HuffPost Pollster projections say is not beyond the realm of the possible.
The Constitution may give the president the power to nominate justices and the Senate the power to vote them up or down. But in the end it’s the voters who choose.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry...-clinton-nominees_us_580fed9ae4b08582f88cb00c
Government is indeed "dysfunctional" - at least Republican government.
I can only reiterate that when a Republican tells us government does not or cannot work, we ought to recognize the threat.
I would contend that this is not "dysfunctional"... it is functioning exactly as they (the Republicans) want it to (as a blunt force weapon to be wielded against their political enemies)!
Not that that's a good thing
Conservatives are for preserving the Constitution. They are not about modifying the Constitution in ways that will cause the country to regress backwards.
When the Constitution was written, big government controlled every aspect of citizen life, in most countries; divine rights of royalty. Big government, controlled by royalty, had a few people at the top, deciding what was right for everyone. Such decisions, like taxes and war, was often connected to what was best for those at the top. There were two classes; the elite and the peasants, with the elite making choices for their own power. There were no term limits. The peasant class was stuck and could never rise out of the hole, that was dug for by those at the top.
The Constitution defined a new way, based on the rights and freedoms of private citizens. From this bottom up approach, a middle class became possible. To make this new way possible, you needed to limit the power the government, so it couldn't get to powerful to where it once again started lording over the people. Government was supposed to be the servant of the people, not its master, like in all of past history. The Democrats are more southern plantation retro, even though they call this progressive. They seek huge government that is too big to fail, so it can shake down the people, restrict free speech, and then try o lord over all details of life for its citizens. We are going back toward royalty. Even the middle class is declining, with more elite and more peasants.
The Supreme Court Justice choices of the Republicans is about original intent; power to the people and limited government. It is also about the checks and balances needed to keep government honest. A government of the people, by the people and for the people needs to be functional and compact, so it can be a good public servant. They do not want the government so big, to where the servant takes over the house.
The Wikileaks is showing how corruption has become a way of life in the US government. Above the law is a throwback to royalty. Royalty can make laws that exempt themselves. This is retro.
When the Constitution was written, big government controlled every aspect of citizen life, in most countries; divine rights of royalty. Big government, controlled by royalty, had a few people at the top, deciding what was right for everyone. Such decisions, like taxes and war, was often connected to what was best for those at the top. There were two classes; the elite and the peasants, with the elite making choices for their own power. There were no term limits. The peasant class was stuck and could never rise out of the hole, that was dug for by those at the top.
The Constitution defined a new way, based on the rights and freedoms of private citizens. From this bottom up approach, a middle class became possible. To make this new way possible, you needed to limit the power the government, so it couldn't get to powerful to where it once again started lording over the people. Government was supposed to be the servant of the people, not its master, like in all of past history. The Democrats are more southern plantation retro, even though they call this progressive. They seek huge government that is too big to fail, so it can shake down the people, restrict free speech, and then try o lord over all details of life for its citizens. We are going back toward royalty. Even the middle class is declining, with more elite and more peasants.
The Supreme Court Justice choices of the Republicans is about original intent; power to the people and limited government. It is also about the checks and balances needed to keep government honest. A government of the people, by the people and for the people needs to be functional and compact, so it can be a good public servant. They do not want the government so big, to where the servant takes over the house.
The Wikileaks is showing how corruption has become a way of life in the US government. Above the law is a throwback to royalty. Royalty can make laws that exempt themselves. This is retro.
I'm of the opinion that one of these days you ought to try posting an actual fact.
It's one thing to make it up as you go, but if you started that post by claiming cats were dogs who could swim really, really well, most people would shrug and wonder if you finally changed subjects. And then they'd get to your explanation of how the change is the fault of liberals for forcing too many cats to have abortions and we'd be right back to business as usual.
Why are only conservatives involved in denying the separation of church and state, then?
If this is how you define "big government", then it has absolutely no relationship to any serious policy proposal of the last century.
Please learn a little history. The constitution of the USA was neither new nor unique in discussing these ideas.
Please learn a little history, the middle class existed well before the constitution of the USA.
You are stating facts not in evidence. There are many dictatorships with thriving middle classes.
It's funny how you try to characterize a movement to grant fiscal power to people as an attempt to control them.
Facts not in evidence. Republican choices seem to be about corporate power (check the rulings) and abortion. In this case, they are clearly going against the constitution of the USA, as that has already been interpreted to grant people rights over their own bodies. Republicans want to use government power, through controlling the Supreme Court with people who have a priori non-legal positions if necessary, to take away the rights to personal freedom already granted by the constitution. There is no doubt in this matter.
And yet Republicans always dismantle oversight. Strange. It's almost like Republicans and their defenders lie constantly.