A Look At Sarah Palin

[Professor Chaos]

Irreligious wrote

What do you mean by "major" differences between the parties? Were there ever really "major" differences between the Democrat and Republican parties in your opinion? What were they?

I kind of agree with Victus. Democrats are what Republicans used to be. Republicans are what people in shacks in Montana used to be.

[Professor Chaos]

psychodiva wrote

Translation pleaase for those of us not actually North Americans

Translation: The percentage of Merkins, incapable of critical thought, who worship guns, cheap bear, Jesus, and an American flag made in China; and who would like to deport any American citizen who doesn't worship an American flag with a picture of Jesus holding a gun, regardless of their citizenship status, and who are incapable - because of a stunningly low IQ - of realizing that Republicans don't want a "smaller government" out of principle, they want it because "Republican" is synonymous with "corporate interest," and that the Corporatocracy will ass-rape them far worse than their government ever has or even can, has grown in recent years to encompass more Merkin states.

[Victus]

Irreligious wrote

What do you mean by "major" differences between the parties? Were there ever really "major" differences between the Democrat and Republican parties in your opinion? What were they?

I think at some point, the respective rhetoric of either party had some weight. When one side talked about expanding civil liberties or rolling back inane, harmful regulations, they actually meant it. Those things were a priority. Not for both parties at any one time (because that would be too easy). Now, either side mouths the words about civil and economic liberties, but no one actually does (much of) anything towards those ends.

The US basically has a party of growing government, and a party of growing government while talking about shrinking it. It seems like a bit of a false choice.

[Irreligious]

Victus wrote

I think at some point, the respective rhetoric of either party had some weight. When one side talked about expanding civil liberties or rolling back inane, harmful regulations, they actually meant it.

Which party was this?

Victus wrote

Those things were a priority. Not for both parties at any one time (because that would be too easy). Now, either side mouths the words about civil and economic liberties, but no one actually does (much of) anything towards those ends.

This is a new complaint?

Victus wrote

The US basically has a party of growing government, and a party of growing government while talking about shrinking it. It seems like a bit of a false choice.

I don't recall any period in U.S. history where either party ever demonstrated a predilection toward shrinking government. When was it not growing?

[Victus]

Irreligious wrote

Which party was this?

For most of the 20th century, the Democrats were the party of civil liberties, while the Republicans were the party of economic liberties, although there have been violations of this heuristic on various sub-issues.

Irr wrote

This is a new complaint?

I think politicians have always had trouble keeping campaign promises, it just seems like its gotten worse in the last generation. Same promises, fewer results.

Irr wrote

I don't recall any period in U.S. history where either party ever demonstrated a predilection toward shrinking government. When was it not growing?

Spending has waxed and waned historically. Carter did a lot for de-regulation (which wouldn't so much affect spending, because regulation is cheap) and Regan cut taxes (arguably irresponsibly, because he didn't cut enough spending to balance the difference). Government shrank* from ~1984 to ~2001.

*It's more accurate to say that government didn't grow in absolute terms as fast as the overall economy, I will have to check my numbers but I don't think it actually "shrank".

[psychodiva]

Professor Chaos wrote

Translation: The percentage of Merkins, incapable of critical thought, who worship guns, cheap bear, Jesus, and an American flag made in China; and who would like to deport any American citizen who doesn't worship an American flag with a picture of Jesus holding a gun, regardless of their citizenship status, and who are incapable - because of a stunningly low IQ - of realizing that Republicans don't want a "smaller government" out of principle, they want it because "Republican" is synonymous with "corporate interest," and that the Corporatocracy will ass-rape them far worse than their government ever has or even can, has grown in recent years to encompass more Merkin states.

Thank you

apart from the bolded- which made me giggle and think- 'cheap bear what?' but that's just me

[Irreligious]

Victus wrote

For most of the 20th century, the Democrats were the party of civil liberties, while the Republicans were the party of economic liberties, although there have been violations of this heuristic on various sub-issues.

And how is that different from today?

Victus wrote

I think politicians have always had trouble keeping campaign promises, it just seems like its gotten worse in the last generation. Same promises, fewer results.

Such as?

Victus wrote

Spending has waxed and waned historically. Carter did a lot for de-regulation (which wouldn't so much affect spending, because regulation is cheap) and Regan cut taxes (arguably irresponsibly, because he didn't cut enough spending to balance the difference). Government shrank* from ~1984 to ~2001.

I didn't know that. Maybe it will shrink again. By necessity.

Victus wrote

*It's more accurate to say that government didn't grow in absolute terms as fast as the overall economy, I will have to check my numbers but I don't think it actually "shrank".

Oh. Then, maybe not.

[Victus]

Irreligious wrote

And how is that different from today?

I think the main difference is that talking about civil rights actually lead to an increase in the respect for civil rights previously, whereas now it seems mostly to end at talk. In terms of expanding/respecting civil rights, many groups have (wisely?) given up on getting various laws passed, and are simply fighting their battles through the courts (e.g., gay marriage, DADT, inane regulations).

Irr wrote

I didn't know that. Maybe it will shrink again. By necessity.

Oh. Then, maybe not.

When one party is saying that the US should spend more, and the other is saying that we need to make tiny, insignificant cuts (and then make huge cuts to revenue), the prospects for balancing the budget are grim, me thinks.

[Irreligious]

Victus wrote

I think the main difference is that talking about civil rights actually lead to an increase in the respect for civil rights previously, whereas now it seems mostly to end at talk. In terms of expanding/respecting civil rights, many groups have (wisely?) given up on getting various laws passed, and are simply fighting their battles through the courts (e.g., gay marriage, DADT, inane regulations).

The U.S. Supreme Court has had to adjudicate civil rights cases in the past: Brown vs. Board of Education in 1954, and Loving vs. Virginia in 1967. Nothing new.

Victus wrote

When one party is saying that the US should spend more, and the other is saying that we need to make tiny, insignificant cuts (and then make huge cuts to revenue), the prospects for balancing the budget are grim, me thinks.

I agree.

[Victus]

Irreligious wrote

The U.S. Supreme Court has had to adjudicate civil rights cases in the past: Brown vs. Board of Education in 1954, and Loving vs. Virginia in 1967. Nothing new.

Maybe it's just a generational/perception thing? My sense is that, rather than go through the courts, the preference among many such groups is to have some law passed to protect their respective interests.

Irr wrote

I agree.

Once you accept that...

A) The US has generally not been able to squeeze more than 18-19% of GDP out of the system in taxes, despite all the arguing over trickle-down economics, taxing the rich and all the rest across the decades. That's just the max the system seems willing to tolerate.

B) The US is currently spending considerably more than that amount.

...the course of action seems clear.

Of course, when asked, people only want to cut foreign aid (< 1% of the budget). People want their free stuff.

So, what did you all want to cut?

[Irreligious]

Victus wrote

Maybe it's just a generational/perception thing? My sense is that, rather than go through the courts, the preference among many such groups is to have some law passed to protect their respective interests.

Well, I'm sure most people seeking specific liberties would prefer to petition their legislators. It's cheaper and more direct. But the nature of the legislature is that it has competing constituencies that may not be amenable to, say, civil marriage rights for gay couples or allowing gays to serve openly in the military. That's why we have a court system as the final arbiter. It has been that way for over two centuries.

Victus wrote

Once you accept that...

A) The US has generally not been able to squeeze more than 18-19% of GDP out of the system in taxes, despite all the arguing over trickle-down economics, taxing the rich and all the rest across the decades. That's just the max the system seems willing to tolerate.

B) The US is currently spending considerably more than that amount.

...the course of action seems clear.

Of course, when asked, people only want to cut foreign aid (< 1%) of the budget). People want their free stuff.

Or they don't want to end up destitute, selfish as that might seem.

[Victus]

Irreligious wrote

Or they don't want to end up destitute, selfish as that might seem.

That answer would seem more reasonable if the majority of welfare spending, in the form of Social Security* and Medicare, only applied to the poor minority rather than the middle class and wealthy.

*I still haven't heard a credible argument for how not-working for a third of one's adult life is somehow a basic need that absolutely must be guaranteed by the government, lest people would be dying in agony in the streets. All the arguments in favor of preserving Social Security as is have, to me, amounted to little more than "Waaaaaa! My free stuff!"

[Irreligious]

Victus wrote

That answer would seem more reasonable if the majority of welfare spending, in the form of Social Security* and Medicare, only applied to the poor minority rather than the middle class and wealthy.

Define poor minority. Is it your claim that middle class folks can afford, say, $100k in medical bill and still pay the mortgage or the rent? If they can't, well, I guess that might make them poor.

Victus wrote

*I still haven't heard a credible argument for how not-working for a third of one's adult life is somehow a basic need that absolutely must be guaranteed by the government, lest people would be dying in agony in the streets. All the arguments in favor of preserving Social Security as is have, to me, amounted to little more than "Waaaaaa! My free stuff!"

It's not free. The folks who receive those benefits paid into it. And I'll be 65 in 12 years. If I make it, that won't likely be 2/3 of my life. It will have been the vast majority of it. We don't all make it to 80 and 85 years old. I certainly don't expect to.

[Victus]

Irreligious wrote

Define poor minority.

Those living in poverty (i.e., incapable of meeting their own subsistence needs).

Irr wrote

Is it your claim that middle class folks can afford, say, $100k in medical bill and still pay the mortgage or the rent?

That's what (catastrophic coverage) health insurance is for, so you don't have to pay $100K medical bills.

Irr wrote

If they can't, well, I guess that might make them poor.

Or, you know, bad at managing resources.

Irr wrote

It's not free.

It's basically people trying to get rich by picking their own pockets.

Irr wrote

The folks who receive those benefits paid into it.

They paid for others' retirements, not their own. They have no legal claim to benefits, even if they paid taxes into the program.

Irr wrote

And I'll be 65 in 12 years. If I make it, that won't likely be 2/3 of my life. It will have been the vast majority of it. We don't all make it to 80 and 85 years old. I certainly don't expect to.

Average life expectancy is just a bit shy of 80.

[Ed-M]

psychodiva wrote

Translation pleaase for those of us not actually North Americans

MN = Minnesota (Now MichelleBachmannLand), WI = Wisconsin, MI = Michigan (Now Oklahoma-in-Snow), PA = Pennsylvania (Philadelphia, Pittsburgh and Alabama in between), NH = New Hampshire, ME = Maine, NV = Nevada, CO = Colorado, ID = Idaho, MT = Montana and NM = New Mexico.