When we all went out drinking that time it was really funny to me to see you and BigSqwert nodding and smiling and agreeing about the ACA being s***ty.

 

Why was that funny?

Why was that funny?

Because you didn't realize it was all part of BS's plan to get you to NY to Gay Marry you.

 

for NY.

Why was that funny?

Cuz that was kind of when I put 2 and 2 together for the first time and realized you guys aren't actually that far apart on the political spectrum (if I could place you on there at all). He's way on the left, but you're not really on either, you're kind of almost an anarchist

Cuz that was kind of when I put 2 and 2 together for the first time and realized you guys aren't actually that far apart on the political spectrum (if I could place you on there at all). He's way on the left, but you're not really on either, you're kind of almost an anarchist

 

Well, this is true. Depending on the issue, I could be either/or democrat/republican...and I feel that's the way everyone needs to be in order for sanity to return to this system. Then again, I also think the system itself is so beyond corrupt, that it's unfixable at this point.

 

Removing "royal blood" from the equation, our system has returned to what it was before we came here...another form of monarchy. Where the rich/connected hold office, make the laws, and know what's best for us (read: them), and that's that.

You pretty much summarized why so much of the left hates, or at least holds their nose about the ACA

 

 

Make sure you pull that lever in November 2012 again.

Make sure you pull that lever in November 2012 again.

This also sums up my feelings pretty well:

 

In a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court has declared Arizona's public campaign finance system illegal for the fact that it funds public-candidates more heavily if they go up against a privately-funded candidate who tries to win by outspending them.

 

Effectively, this makes public campaign finance systems border on being illegal, which I'm sure is the next step.

 

It was actually John Wayne Gacy from Bachmann's hometown, Waterloo Iowa. John Wayne Gacy. Slight difference.

It was actually John Wayne Gacy from Bachmann's hometown, Waterloo Iowa. John Wayne Gacy. Slight difference.

 

Just like there's 57 states, etc. etc. etc.

yeah that's really a meaningless thing

yeah that's really a meaningless thing

 

It embarrasses me to no end that she keeps getting called an Iowa native.

 

If she's going to keep parading that fact around - most adult Iowans know that he's from Winterset, or would at least be able to tell you that he's not from Waterloo.

It embarrasses me to no end that she keeps getting called an Iowa native.

 

If she's going to keep parading that fact around - most adult Iowans know that he's from Winterset, or would at least be able to tell you that he's not from Waterloo.

My wife was born and raise din Iowa (near Iowa City). I read the quote to her and she immediately said "he's not from Waterloo"

My co-workers are sitting around a table after our weekly meeting praising Bachmann, saying she's so much better than Palin "she at least has her facts straight".

 

oh brother.

Bachmann isn't so much being an idiot as much as she's being phony. I bet she probably did a quick 45-second Google search before that speech was written and she saw the words "John Wayne."

 

Also, holy s*** is the "57 states" thing a conservative comeback for everything? That was three years ago. He meant to say 47. Oh well. He's given hundreds of speeches and press conferences since then (many of them without a teleprompter!).

Edited June 28, 201114 yr by lostfan

Bachmann isn't so much being an idiot as much as she's being phony. I bet she probably did a quick 45-second Google search before that speech was written and she saw the words "John Wayne."

Bah, I think she probably knows enough about the state to make the connection and she heard that at some point, but didn't get all the details, so that's how it came out.

 

It's like how a person might note that tax revenues started going up again in the mid-80's and credit the increased tax revenues to Reagan's 1981-1982 tax cuts if they were never told that Reagan started increasing taxes every year starting in 1983 to bring the budget back towards balance. If a whole party only knew about the first half of that, you might get ridiculous policies based on constant tax cuts being a panacea for everything.

 

(Like how I turned that back to policy? I'm way more impressed with that one than I have any right to be.)

Bah, I think she probably knows enough about the state to make the connection and she heard that at some point, but didn't get all the details, so that's how it came out.

 

It's like how a person might note that tax revenues started going up again in the mid-80's and credit the increased tax revenues to Reagan's 1981-1982 tax cuts if they were never told that Reagan started increasing taxes every year starting in 1983 to bring the budget back towards balance. If a whole party only knew about the first half of that, you might get ridiculous policies based on constant tax cuts being a panacea for everything.

 

(Like how I turned that back to policy? I'm way more impressed with that one than I have any right to be.)

Have you ever read The Big Con? Basically says how this bulls*** was sold in an organized fashion to the public (by special interests of course) starting in the 70s, really picked up traction in the 80s, and now is an article of faith.

War is peace. Freedom is slavery. Ignorance is strength. Tax cuts pay for themselves and generate revenue.

War is peace. Freedom is slavery. Ignorance is strength. Tax cuts pay for themselves and generate revenue.

 

owns

War is peace. Freedom is slavery. Ignorance is strength. Tax cuts pay for themselves and generate revenue.

 

 

And Keynesianism has a multiplier effect.

Tax cuts are bulls***, mostly because the idea behind them doesn't really exist. What I mean is, the idea behind tax cutting is simple...more money into the pockets of the people who buy things/do things, which of course, gets the economy churning. On paper, this idea makes perfect logical sense...and it would work if they actually cut taxes.

 

However, what actually happens is the federal government cuts taxes, but the city/state/town/etc turns around and raises them...so there really is no more money going into the pockets of citizens...they're just shifting the collector around. Be it in soda taxes, water taxes, entertainment taxes, sticker fees, parking rates, property taxes, you name the added tax. In the end, if the fed lowers your tax by 5%, you can be damn sure it will rise 5% elsewhere.

Tax cuts are bulls***, mostly because the idea behind them doesn't really exist. What I mean is, the idea behind tax cutting is simple...more money into the pockets of the people who buy things/do things, which of course, gets the economy churning. On paper, this idea makes perfect logical sense...and it would work if they actually cut taxes.

 

However, what actually happens is the federal government cuts taxes, but the city/state/town/etc turns around and raises them...so there really is no more money going into the pockets of citizens...they're just shifting the collector around. Be it in soda taxes, water taxes, entertainment taxes, sticker fees, parking rates, property taxes, you name the added tax. In the end, if the fed lowers your tax by 5%, you can be damn sure it will rise 5% elsewhere.

 

I do agree, but this is also an example of why people should put more effort into local government. And it will only get harder with the shift away from newspapers.

I do agree, but this is also an example of why people should put more effort into local government. And it will only get harder with the shift away from newspapers.

 

It never ceases to amaze me how little voting is done in local elections. Our local primaries saw 4500 votes in a town of 30000.

It never ceases to amaze me how little voting is done in local elections. Our local primaries saw 4500 votes in a town of 30000.

 

I understand it. It is hard for me to keep up what's going on in my neighborhood and I have no family or anyone to take care of. With national politics you can, rightfully or not, sort of pin point all of the things you think are going right or wrong on those personalities, it's an easier way to sort all of these things you notice in your head. Add ot that the absolute onslaught of democratically elected positions locally. There are too many. There is no way anyone could know how a local judge is performing easily. But we have to vote for them. And there is no real study that shows that judges voted in are any better. If we simplified that process people may be able to focus in on one or two positions (state reps and aldermans).

I understand it. It is hard for me to keep up what's going on in my neighborhood and I have no family or anyone to take care of. With national politics you can, rightfully or not, sort of pin point all of the things you think are going right or wrong on those personalities, it's an easier way to sort all of these things you notice in your head. Add ot that the absolute onslaught of democratically elected positions locally. There are too many. There is no way anyone could know how a local judge is performing easily. But we have to vote for them. And there is no real study that shows that judges voted in are any better. If we simplified that process people may be able to focus in on one or two positions (state reps and aldermans).

 

This is for council, mayor, and clerk. Honestly I put more into the locals than I do the Presidential, because these are the people that affect my life more than anyone.