USA mid-term elections 2014 -- VOTE --

[cityboy-stl]

Iiok
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.

Do you have any idea how much that statement makes you sound like Marie Antoinette?

 

[Kulindahr]

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.

I've been watching West Wing episodes straight through in order, and every few episodes I find myself thinking that Obama would double his effectiveness as president if he'd just watch the series and be more like Jed Bartlett. He started without much in the way of political skills, but he had vision and picked up a backbone along the way -- both things Obama has yet to demonstrate.

 

[Kulindahr]

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?

I'm not sure what you mean by "limited to just certain ones". The point is that the genes Monsanto has been playing with have already jumped species, so all they've really done is up the level of poisons required to do not just chemical agriculture, but for ordinary people to take care of their lawns and home gardens.

The tragedy is that there are earth-friendly methods that actually give greater yields per acre.

 

[Kulindahr]

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?

I note that in the bit you quoted, ben left off the most important part -- it should read: "The Bush tax cut was in 2001 and we had prosperity and high employment and went from a nearly balanced budget to huge deficits".

Inequality is the fundamental cause of depressions.

"The" fundamental cause... probably not. But there's no denying it's a big contributor.

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.

And when the middle class has money, they start new businesses -- they're the true job creators, not the giant corporations or the wealthy (that's just one fact I've learned since diving into economic discussions on JUB).

 

[Kulindahr]

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)​

No point in giving such a link to ben -- he isn't interested in learning.

BTW, that's a superb talk.

 

[evanrick]

Please vote!

Thank you

Washington Post is projecting 99% chance of a Republican controlled House and a 95% chance of a Republican controlled Senate

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dre/politics/election-lab-2014

the washington post is owned by right-wing ideologues, not a non-partisan projection. there are more senate races competitive now than there has been in past election cycles, the complete opposite of whatever a right-wing newspaper says.

 

[evanrick]

I've been watching West Wing episodes straight through in order, and every few episodes I find myself thinking that Obama would double his effectiveness as president if he'd just watch the series and be more like Jed Bartlett. He started without much in the way of political skills, but he had vision and picked up a backbone along the way -- both things Obama has yet to demonstrate.

if Obama has no backbone for getting Osama then nobody that ever existed does (in your version of reality). what would he have to do in your mind differently other than being called "spineless" by a sideliner?

 

[Ninja108]

NH will be the Senate Race to watch.
If Republicans win there, it will be a lonnng night for Democrats.

 

[Kulindahr]

Do you have any idea how much that statement makes you sound like Marie Antoinette?

 

[Kulindahr]

if Obama has no backbone for getting Osama then nobody that ever existed does (in your version of reality). what would he have to do in your mind differently other than being called "spineless" by a sideliner?

Stand up to Congress and lead.

The only place Obama has done anything to suggest he has any vertebrae at all is when he can just give orders.

 

[Stardreamer]

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.

They most likely will and will lead to their downfall. They have a chance to show they can still actually govern but the odds are they are going to blow it.

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.

Sadly with the overall voting public, what have you done for me lately, is more relevant than history.

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.

Pretty much sums up my view of his presidency also. I like him and he is generally left of center which is fine with me. He had potential to be a great president but needed more experience IMHO.

 

[star-warrior]

As a foreigner, wrt Republican overlords, I'm of the mind:

What could possibly go wrong?

 

[Stardreamer]

There was an article I saw somewhere, over on RCP I think, that was talking about what the Republicans need to do to show that they are still capable of governing once the have the congress. No matter what happens the type of bills you fear, for example repealing Obamacare, will be passed no matter what happens. They are needed to placate the base. But if the leadership knows what they are doing they are just passing those for show knowing they will be vetoed and can say to the base 'we tried' while ultimately demonstrating to everyone else that those approaches are pointless. If they are really serious on leading, they will also be passing bills that they know Democrats and Obama can sign on to, for example the XL pipeline, and show that progress in Washington is possible.

The real test is if they can break the gridlock log jam by this method. The Senate has been the major factor in this, its normal function of slowing and deliberating on legislation turned into wall. There are two factors in that, the major one is the Republicans filibustering everything they don't like. But the other is Harry Reid sitting on everything he doesn't like. Between those two factors nothing of any relevance has been able to pass through the Senate. The filibuster was not going to go away but removing Reid might allow for some progress if McConnell is willing to reach across the aisle while managing Cruze. We will have to see.

 

[Ninja108]

It's going to be a long night, it truly is.

 

[CoolBlue71]

It's going to be a long night, it truly is.

I don't think it will be.


I did vote already; in fact, here in my home state Michigan, I voted at a non-prime point. Lots of voters handle going to the polls before or after work. So, it's good to get it out of the way and without much time spent. I'm sorry other people don't have it as good. (Notice how that has been going on for several election cycles?!)

 

[Ninja108]

We are going to lose 6-8 Senate seats folks.
Get used to the fact there will be Republican gloating and talks about how the Democratic Party is dead, it will be no different from two years ago when our side was doing the same.

 

[Kulindahr]

I don't think it will be.


I did vote already; in fact, here in my home state Michigan, I voted at a non-prime point. Lots of voters handle going to the polls before or after work. So, it's good to get it out of the way and without much time spent. I'm sorry other people don't have it as good. (Notice how that has been going on for several election cycles?!)

I think there's a basis for a Fourteenth Amendment lawsuit to force states to make sure that everyone has an equal access to voting. It was passed initially to make sure everyone had equal access to their right to keep and bear arms; it certainly has to apply to the ballot box at least as much as the bullet box.

 

[Kulindahr]

We are going to lose 6-8 Senate seats folks.
Get used to the fact there will be Republican gloating and talks about how the Democratic Party is dead, it will be no different from two years ago when our side was doing the same.

The American public can be compared to a drunk staggering from one gutter to the other, back and forth across the street.

We need a new street.

 

[smokeshadow]

Ah, Kuli, but then the conservatives would claim that a "new street" would let illegal aliens cross into the country unfettered, would allow ebola to run rampant and would be the end of the American experiment

 

[frankfrank]

OK, why are Alabama and New Hampshire shown as "SPLIT CLOSING TIMES"? EACH OF THOSE STATES ARE ENTIRELY WITHIN ONE TIME ZONE...or did one or more Alabama counties migrate into Eastern?

And...an issue that Republicans are purposely keeping under the radar...I think that a number of states, including whichever ones of the following (PA, MI, OH, WI, VA) successfully keep a majority of their Representatives as Republicans both in the state capitals and in Washington DC, will start to work on PROPORTIONAL ELECTORAL VOTING, meaning that if Michigan goes solidly "blue" (for President) in 2016, their Gerrymandered state districts and Senate would vote this change into law, and their mostly-Republican Congressional districts would give most of Michigan's vote to the Republican Presidential candidate. All of these five (and others - perhaps Oregon, Minnesota, and even IL could go majority-Republican districts, or already are?) would dilute the electoral votes, taking them away from the Democrat.

Republicans will NEVER relinquish this power in "red" Presidential states. EVER. North Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, etc. have Democratic Congressional districts, but do their dominant-Republican assemblies want their states to submit any Democratic electoral votes? No fucking way. They'll gladly cheat in the "blue states" where they have legislative majorities, though.

I have ALWAYS cursed the arrangement that Maine and Nebraska have with that, because I always thought it would come back to bite in the arse someday, and they have set the PRECEDENT for this to be entirely legal.

A little tiny bit of this strategy "got out" last week, I saw or heard a very cursory, "no big deal" blip go by, saying that Michigan is considering this. California talked about it two or four years ago, but it didn't happen with the Democratic majority in their Assembly. That firewall doesn't exist in Michigan...and even if Rick Snyder is kicked out of office, there's the Lame Duck session in which Michigan could still get this passed in Legislature and Senate...and signed.

The filibuster was not going to go away but removing Reid might allow for some progress if McConnell is willing to reach across the aisle while managing Cruze. We will have to see.

Don't bet on it. ANOTHER thing that Republicans are keeping under the radar. I would nearly be willing to bet my life savings, or even my life, that they will remove the FINO (Filibuster-in-name-only) immediately so they can just slam everything through by brute force. THEY WILL BE PASSING TONS OF SHIT. And I mean SHIT. Probably even repealing the minimum wage and stuff. Obama is the only firewall (and even SCOTUS isn't helpful nowadays, and that takes years).

MoConnell reaching across the aisle AND restraining Cruz? No way in hell, certainly not the Mitchyguy I've seen the past eight to ten years.

I think there's a basis for a Fourteenth Amendment lawsuit to force states to make sure that everyone has an equal access to voting. It was passed initially to make sure everyone had equal access to their right to keep and bear arms; it certainly has to apply to the ballot box at least as much as the bullet box.

That's one reason I love your comments in here, man! You're pretty good at thinking outside the box. It's a simple but elegant analysis of the Fourteenth. Why can't the USA, as supposedly the most civilized/prosperous/"has it together" country in the world, have federal election standards such as TRANSPARENCY in vote tabulation and uniform hackproof software, mandated equal facilities access in all precincts...and perhaps a uniform poll-closing time (as in U. T. C. time, not local time) when elections involve federal candidates?

I also think all Americans should be eligible for FEDERAL voter photo I.D. cards, free of charge. (The places issuing photos would do so, free to the cardholder - and Federal law would REQUIRE the U. S. government to reimburse these places for their costs SWIFTLY, none of this delaying-payments-for-three-years shit.) The card would tie in with the Social Security Administration. I would think, with modern technology and inter-agency communication, the SSA **COULD KNOW** whether a cardholder has a residency which allows a legal vote?? Doesn't everybody of voting age, who can vote legally, have a Social Security Number?

My calling for a national voter card will be heresy to some, from flaming liberals to Tea Partiers, but what better way to have a uniformly-accepted voter I.D. than to get an official card from the ONE government agency that already has official and current records on all people who are eligible to vote (as well as some who don't have the residency in place, and some not yet old enough)? They can sort it out, surely. Some say this is an invasion of privacy, but with the meta-software already in place that tracks virtually everything that we can do (and the GPS in our portable phones, etc.), having some kind of federal Photo ID Card is barely more than a small postscript buried in the appendix of the volumes of ways we are already tracked.