USA mid-term elections 2014 -- VOTE --

[opinterph]

What drives me up a wall is that so many of the people fighting against it are devout Ten Commandments advocates... yet they are plainly ignoring "Don't bear false witness", which just about every single ancient church father and most Christian and Jewish ethicists have asserted bears a positive spin, as in not lying by omission.

Corporations are people [too], my friend.

Leading corporations opposing the labeling measures include Monsanto, Kraft Foods, PepsiCo Inc., Kellogg Co. and Coca-Cola. [Link]

 

[Kulindahr]

Corporations are people [too], my friend.

I'm about ready to say we need a Second Amendment remedy for that vile distortion of the concept of liberty.

I am ready to work for a petition to amend the state constitution to bar out-of-state money from issue campaigns.

 

[Stardreamer]

From all the analysis I've been reading there are several reasons for the Republicans doing so well, its sort of a perfect storm for them this election. One is there a lot of vulnerable Democrats up for election this cycle and few vulnerable Republicans.

Another is a general throw the bums out feeling over not just the do nothing congress but the do nothing Washington in general.

A big factor which is eating into the Democrats need for young voters is "ITS THE ECONOMY, STUPID!"; young people are asking DC where are the jobs and the answer they are getting from Democrats is abortion, abortion, abortion and oh yea abortion.

A great deal of it is Obama who may not be running for election but then neither was Bush for most of the elections he was brought up in. His major signature accomplishments for his whole administration that people take notice of is Obamacare and the recovery both of which is doing so well in the minds of the public that Democrats are afraid to talk about them. His response to recent crisis comes off as waffling and indecisive, delaying significant issues of his unilateral actions till after the election just added to that.

 

[Stardreamer]

Actually the progression of this tread is a big example of why the Democrats are in trouble, despite what you may wish folks, GMOs is not on most people's list of whats most important to them for this election. The economy is and the most you hear in that direction is coming from Republicans. Democrats are doing exactly what Republicans do when they are in trouble, turn to social issues to hide their inadequacies.

 

[T-Rexx]

From all the analysis I've been reading there are several reasons for the Republicans doing so well, its sort of a perfect storm for them this election. One is there a lot of vulnerable Democrats up for election this cycle and few vulnerable Republicans.

Another is a general throw the bums out feeling over not just the do nothing congress but the do nothing Washington in general.

This is true. This is a weird election. Republicans are about to trounce Democrats everywhere, even though nobody agrees with Republican ideology. Republicans will no doubt take this as a mandate, however.

A big factor which is eating into the Democrats need for young voters is "ITS THE ECONOMY, STUPID!"; young people are asking DC where are the jobs and the answer they are getting from Democrats is abortion, abortion, abortion and oh yea abortion.

It's true that this election is about the economy (as, indeed, is almost every election). And it is true that people are about to vote Republican because they are not satisfied with it.

But, people will be voting for the party (and the ideology) that just 6 years ago resulted in the biggest financial collapse since the Great Depression. They will be voting against the policies that have brought us the greatest economic turnaround since the Great Depression, despite very successful Republican attempts to slow this progress. It is a little strange to me that people don't think about this when they go to vote.

A great deal of it is Obama who may not be running for election but then neither was Bush for most of the elections he was brought up in. His major signature accomplishments for his whole administration that people take notice of is Obamacare and the recovery both of which is doing so well in the minds of the public that Democrats are afraid to talk about them. His response to recent crisis comes off as waffling and indecisive, delaying significant issues of his unilateral actions till after the election just added to that.

Personally, I think the vast majority of the coming Republican tsunami is attributable to the political failures of Barack Obama. Obama is not a politician. He has been a passable president in terms of identifying problems correctly and trying to go after them, but he has been an abject failure at convincing the public of the utility of his policies, even when the public has achieved substantial and provable benefit from them.

Everyone hates the state of the economy, even though the turnaround under Obama has been dramatically successful. Everyone hates Obamacare, even though they like everything it does. Everyone hates Obama's waffling over Iraq, even though they agree with his policy of bombing without sending in ground troops.

Obama has been a fair president. But he is not a leader and is completely incompetent as a spinmeister. Democrats are about to pay a price for the president's lack of political skills.

 

[vulgar_newcomer]

It includes anything GMO.

And there's a good reason: Monsanto's pesticide-resistant genes introduced into crop plants have already jumped to weeds, meaning we now have weeds in the ecosystem which are resistant to every weed-killer on the market. The only solution to that, from Monsanto's approach, is to make food crops even more poisonous. We're already seeing the result of that approach in declining levels of topsoil and declining levels of the health of those topsoils. People have a right to know whether they're contributing to that project of poisoning the planet.

In horticultural terms a weed is simply any plant growing in a place its not desirable. The Dandelion is weed in the yard yet in other locations its considered a valuable herb. The citrus tree is considered a desirable food crop but in the Everglades its a invasive weed. In my own property I considered the citrus trees a weed as well. The maintenance, high amount of disease/pest, mess with fruit, attraction of rats to the fruit, and liability due to kids hoping the fence and climbing the trees caused me to eradicate them.
Point is why would it be strange that broad band herbicide resistant plants would be limited to just certain ones?

 

[chrisrobin]

This is a lost cause.

Democrats cannot stop the coming deluge. Republicans are not only going to take the Senate, but also a record number of state legislatures. This will be a bloodbath.

Just accept that things are going to be miserable for a little while, and move on. There is reasonable hope for correcting this disaster in a few years.

This is a lost cause.

I beg to differ.

• Don't believe the hype (from the corporate media).
• Don't believe the polls. (frequently unreliable).
• Don't believe the "pundits." (unreliable most of the time, especially the ones on FOX)

You may wish to consider praying to St. Jude (the patron saint of lost causes).
If you find that unsuitable, VOTE ANYWAY!

I've heard it said that one vote doesn't count. Correct. However, if we look at the one vote as a part of a greater whole,* you would not be correct. If Al Franken's (D. Minn.) supporters thought that individual votes don't count and that all is lost, he might have lost the senatorial election. There was a recount, and Franken won by 312 votes!

*Think of one vote as a grain of sand. If the Sahara Desert is comprised of whatever number of grains...

In other words, vote anyway. What have you got to lose?

 

[Benvolio]

,,l

I remember that.

1994 was when we had higher (although still ridiculously low) taxes on the rich. And 2006 was when we had cut taxes on the wealthy and created the biggest gap in income inequality in the developed world.

I think you're right, ben. The lesson of history is that income inequality leads to depressions. We need to pursue Republican ideals of progressive taxation and fairer treatment of workers through increases in the minimum wage.

Thanks for that insight.

The Bush tax cut was in 2001 and we had prosperity and high employment until the democrat Congress and subsequent meltdown. Inequality does not cause depressions. Where did you get that notion. Recessions come about in this country when, during periods of prosperity the Federal Reserve starts raisinh interest rates several times to avoid inflation.
Your complaint about inequality ignores the fact that our poor and middle class have higher incomes than in the rest of the world.

 

[T-Rexx]

The Bush tax cut was in 2001 and we had prosperity and high employment until the democrat Congress and subsequent meltdown.

I wonder if you can tell me what it was that the "democrat Congress" did that caused the Bush Depression? And if it was so bad, why did Bush vote for it?

Inequality does not cause depressions. Where did you get that notion.

Inequality is the fundamental cause of depressions.

In the 1920's and 2000's, the middle class tried to compensate for rising inequality by leveraging their biggest asset - their homes. In both cases, the economy collapsed when the debt load of the middle class became unsupportable.

Both of our depressions of the past 100 years (1929 and 2008) were triggered by the two periods of greatest economic inequality in American history (1929 and 2008). The driving force of the American economy is the middle class. When the middle class has money, they spend it. The greatest economic expansion in world history occurred between 1932 and 1980, when economic inequality in the US declined as a result of the prosperity of the middle class. That happened because of economic reforms of the New Deal and the union movement.

Third world countries operate under conditions of chronic extreme income inequality - and they therefore suffer chronic depressive economies. The reason the recovery from the Bush depression has been so sluggish is that we have yet to deal with the problem of income inequality in America.

 

[T-Rexx]

You may wish to consider praying to St. Jude (the patron saint of lost causes).

My experience with prayer is that it is spectacularly useless at accomplishing anything.

I will hope for a statistical anomaly.

 

[Ninja108]

Sad to say T-Rexx but you are right.
Obama simply doesn't have the political skills to roll with the punches which is why tommorrow night will be very ugly.

 

[bike10]

With the GOP in control of both Houses of Congress we are screwed if a women, LGTB, minority, working middle class you can kiss any progress made good by. The GOP goal is turn clocks back to the 18th. century.

 

[T-Rexx]

Obama simply doesn't have the political skills to roll with the punches which is why tommorrow night will be very ugly.

My assessment of Hillary is that she, too, lacks the political skills that are necessary to make people love her even when she has done something stupid. She is not her husband.

It is possible that we may have to live with this problem for quite some time.

 

[Benvolio]

I wonder if you can tell me what it was that the "democrat Congress" did that caused the Bush Depression? And if it was so bad, why did Bush vote for it?



Inequality is the fundamental cause of depressions.

In the 1920's and 2000's, the middle class tried to compensate for rising inequality by leveraging their biggest asset - their homes. In both cases, the economy collapsed when the debt load of the middle class became unsupportable.

Both of our depressions of the past 100 years (1929 and 2008) were triggered by the two periods of greatest economic inequality in American history (1929 and 2008). The driving force of the American economy is the middle class. When the middle class has money, they spend it. The greatest economic expansion in world history occurred between 1932 and 1980, when economic inequality in the US declined as a result of the prosperity of the middle class. That happened because of economic reforms of the New Deal and the union movement.

Third world countries operate under conditions of chronic extreme income inequality - and they therefore suffer chronic depressive economies. The reason the recovery from the Bush depression has been so sluggish is that we have yet to deal with the problem of income inequality in America.

That is absurd. inequality does not cause the middle class to have less, nor does it cause depressed third world economies. Inequality is a result or symptom of underlying conditions. Blaming inequality is like saying fever causes the flu. In the US our enormous market results in vast wealth for many people receiving a small profit from sales to millions--not from taking it from the middle class or poor. Oprah is worth a billion or so. Justin Bieber30 plus million. In addition the vast market facilitates innovation of new technologies and ideas. The middle class in America is better off than in virtually any country even though they are limited by our oversupply of labor.
What economic expansion between 1932 and 1940? This was the depression.
Sure the economy expanded during the war because of the war. After the war the U.S. had virtual monopolies world wide in many industries. But the unions and democrats waged war against those industries ad impaired their ability to compete with foreign competitors. The decline of the middle class primarily resulted from the union victories over the high paying industries and our continuing flood of cheap labor.

 

[Benvolio]

There is wider inequality in the US because the rich get richer than in other countries by selling into the worlds largest market. For example, if Oprah had done exactly the same thing in Sweden she would have made far less money, because it is a much smaller market. The U.S. is the richest and third most populous country and is part of the world wide English speaking market. This means rapid wealth for actors, musicians, professional athletes etc. This also facilitates innovation as innovators, investors and financiers contemplate selling into the huge market. Would the founders of Apple gotten off the ground if they had started in Bolivia, Spain, or even Sweden?

 

[T-Rexx]

^ My dear ben, you seem not to understand that depressions and income inequality are the same thing!

A depression is not a sudden reduction in the amount of money in circulation. It is a sudden concentration of that money in the hands of a very, very few. It is a rapid worsening of inequality (usually following a long period of slowly worsening inequality).

Republican economic ideology is to make the wealthy wealthier. A depression is the ultimate realization of that goal - a handful of extremely wealthy people get even wealthier.

 

[frankfrank]

There is reasonable hope for correcting this disaster in a few years.

One thing could guarantee absolute Republican domination for generations...making the electoral votes PROPORTIONATE in the states. Michigan is talking about doing that, and California has talked about it in the past. States with Gerrymandered districts = A GERRYMANDERED PRESIDENCY!!!

Remember how good the economy was between the Republican take over in 1994 and the disaster after the dems took over in 2006. It is the fact that the economy was best in those years of the Republican Congress.

That's why the stock market has doubled since Obama got in, right?

But, people will be voting for the party (and the ideology) that just 6 years ago resulted in the biggest financial collapse since the Great Depression. They will be voting against the policies that have brought us the greatest economic turnaround since the Great Depression, despite very successful Republican attempts to slow this progress. It is a little strange to me that people don't think about this when they go to vote.

It's strange to me, too. Republicans hate EVERYTHING which makes "America" successful. If they get their wishes, this country cannot even continue to exist, because it will be wrecked entirely.

 

[opinterph]

Inequality is a result or symptom of underlying conditions.

Indeed.

The effects of wealth inequality have snowballed to a point where “the people” are no longer in command of their government. Over time, “the privileged few” have even managed to take control of our elections.

Lawrence Lessig: We the People, and the Republic we must reclaim (TED Talk Video; 18 minutes; February 2013)​

 

[Benvolio]

Indeed.

The effects of wealth inequality have snowballed to a point where “the people” are no longer in command of their government. Over time, “the privileged few” have even managed to take control of our elections.

Lawrence Lessig: We the People, and the Republic we must reclaim (TED Talk Video; 18 minutes; February 2013)​

I am unwilling to devote 18 minutes of my life to such a video. How about a summary? Since you have proposed it, I must assume a one sided democrat argument, decrying pro-capitalism money while ignoring the effect of media money as well as the effect of democrat big city machines such as in Chicago.

 

[Benvolio]

Iiok

^ My dear ben, you seem not to understand that depressions and income inequality are the same thing!

A depression is not a sudden reduction in the amount of money in circulation. It is a sudden concentration of that money in the hands of a very, very few. It is a rapid worsening of inequality (usually following a long period of slowly worsening inequality).

Republican economic ideology is to make the wealthy wealthier. A depression is the ultimate realization of that goal - a handful of extremely wealthy people get even wealthier.

I doubt if you can find a single economist in th world who would accept your definition of depression.
Remember, inequality does not establish that the lower income groups are poor or hard up. Indeed, our poor are wealthier than the great mass of humanity. Our poor are so well off that much of humanity wants to come and are eager to work for even our lowerst wages and send the excess to family back home. inequality does not prove poverty.