What If The Republicans Win?

[lektrode]

Re: What If The Republicans Win?

Lek, there were a few steps of the talkin' pyramid in between Gramm–Leach–Bliley in 1999 and Dodd-Frank in 2010. I like Dodd Frank a whole lot better than what it replaced, which was a whole lotta nothin'.

But anyways, don't take anything I said as a dig on the Republicans. I don't know of any Republicans who go quite so far as to say there has never been a free market in the existence of the world and it's just some philosophical anarchist ideal we can never live up to in reality. One thing I'll give both the legs of the floating eye - to be positive instead of negative for a change - is that they tend to be a bit more pragmatic than that.

Anyways, this should be a time of celebration for Team Red. That was a big victory - above and beyond the average 6 point midterm loss for the Pres' party in a 2nd term. Dust hasn't cleared yet, and I haven't done the math to be sure, but I don't think there's been this many Republicans elected since Reconstruction. That oughta be enough to put the Party! back in GOP. Let's just hope we can get both chambers on the same page enough to actually pass budgets and get some work done now - at least the basic stuff old Article 1 says they're supposed to do, but they haven't been, since they've been like a couple toddlers in a mud fight these past 4 years.

i'm NOT exactly 'celebrating' dc - and they/CONgress has been f___ed up since the election of 2006, it seems to me - AFTER queen nancy and prince harry took over the show.

AND WHAT DID WE GET OUTA THEM since - sides the typical party aparatchik machinations when ONE party controls the show: a several TRILLION dollar giveaway to bailout wall st, nearly another TRILLION to bailout the auto/municipal unions, cash fer klunkers - that served only to wipe-out the supply of reasonably priced used cars - and another TRILLION dollar giveway to the med-ins-drug-legal industrial complex - that they had to ram thru a couple daze b4 xmas - like BEFORE any or em had a chance to read what was in it - and THEN, we got frank-in-dodd - which 'fixed' what, exactly?

nears i can tell - NUTHIN - was 'fixed' - but what WE, as in The Rest of US got = SHAFTED, while the bastards that caused the entire nightmare got away with TRILLIONS

meanwhile, like with stuff like homedepot's former '1 year, 0 interest, NO payments' promo's - NOW ya gotta make 'minimum payments' that have no chance of paying down the balance in the free-interest period and if ya MISS the pittance of a payment - YA GET A LATE CHARGE of upto 35bux?

along with all sorts of other new BS fees/rules ontop of more fees for services at the banks?

and so - after the banks, the unions, the med/edu/social/welfare-industrial complexes and dont fergit the 'marriage rights' crowd - have all got what they were looking for out of THE MOST INEPT/CORRUPT ADMIN IN HISTORY? - while little to zilch has happened in the way of NEW JOBS (that wouldve happened despite or more like INSPITE of the beltway bozoz 'best efforts' - with still the labor force participation rate of the 1980's?)

NOW its gotta go 'fiscal' - SO LET THE SPENDING BEGIN and it'll happy daze are here again?

i'll believe it when eye see it - till then there aint no 'party' on main st, only wall and K streets.

[dcarrigg]

Re: What If The Republicans Win?

and they/CONgress has been f___ed up since the election of 2006

I've become more and more convinced that they worst Congresses this last generation - maybe a lot longer - were the 105th and 106th. Somewhere around the Gingrich/Hastert transition. The combo of Dick Armey's bill mill and Slick Willy's enthusiastic signing pen along with Bob Rubin's cheerleading - if it didn't build the bubble machine - it certainly replaced its 9v battery with a rocket engine.

Jobs? What do you mean where are the new jobs? Job growth and wage growth have been GREAT!

[don]

Win? Who won?

Who Really Won the Election?

If you think Republicans won the recent mid-term election you are mistaken. PolicyMic has One Chart that Shows Who Won.

Most Expensive Senate Races




Money Won the Election!

The Center for Responsive Politics projects the 2014 mid-term election will cost roughly $3.67 billion.

When all is said and done, Team Red (all Republican candidates, parties, committees and conservative outside groups) will spend $1.75 billion on this election. Team Blue (all Democratic candidates, parties, committees and liberal outside groups) will spend a total of $1.64 billion. [Outside groups account for the rest.]

Election Cost Estimate

Just three-one-hundredths of one percent of Americans wrote a check larger than $2,600 — the maximum one individual can give to a candidate each election — during this cycle.

But those are numbers based on the system of so-called “hard money” donations — money given to candidates or committees, which is strictly limited. Outside groups rarely deal in sums so small. Most outside groups rely heavily on large donors. Very large donors

The number one donor of disclosed outside money is Steyer, followed by former New York City mayor Michael Bloomberg, who has given $20 million to super PACs, of which 98 percent went to liberal or Democratic recipients. But despite those top two donors, conservative donors dominate the top 20 — 15 of them are conservative. The three other liberal donors are: Fred Eychaner ($7.9 million), George Soros ($3.5 million) and hedge-funder James Simons (and his wife Marilyn), who have given $3 million.

The top conservative donor to outside groups is Paul Singer, of hedge fund Elliott Management, who has given $9.3 million. Last cycle’s top donor — both to outside groups and overall — was Sheldon Adelson, owner of the Venetian casino in Las Vegas, who with his physician wife Miriam gave $92 million.

Topping the list of organizations contributing money to outside groups is the National Education Association, which has given a whopping $22.4 million to outside groups. Following the NEA are a slew of other labor unions — the Carpenters & Joiners Union ($11.2 million), the AFL-CIO ($7.6 million) and AFSCME ($6 million). These unions gave almost exclusively to liberal outside groups.

There are, however, a handful of conservative organizations on the list of big organizational donors, including the No. 3 group, the National Association of Realtors, which gave to its own super PAC; it has spent the money in support of Republicans by a two-to-one margin.

An important caveat: These lists of top donors (individuals or organizations) do not include donations made to dark money groups, which in some instances pass money on to super PACs.

Finger-Pointing

Each side can (and does) point the finger at the other. Regardless, the end results show incumbents get reelected year after year. Even in the 2014 mid-term rout, Republicans only picked up 12 House seats.

Want to get elected?

First you need to pass a litmus test for your party.

Want to reform Social Security or Medicare? If you do, you better not say so. Next, you better not offend both unions and the NRA. Depending on where you live, one of those alone may do you in. Both and you are toast.

Live in a state that gets military contracts? If so, you cannot get elected if you are "weak on defense".

Bottom line: If you want to get elected, you better listen to what big money wants, or you don't get any of it. And you need money to win!

Mafia Dons vs. Politicians

Gordon Long has an interesting post this week called The Crony Tribute System.

Instead of clipping text here are some self-explanatory graphics.

Crony Tribute










with all the trimmings . . .

[lektrode]

Re: Win? Who won?

yep - 'game over' = back to the future with gold-plated retirement ?

[vt]

Re: Win? Who won?

This is why my proposal to get rid of all campaign funding except for a federal stipend to each candidate polling at least 30%. There would be no candidate spending, no unions, no Wall Street or corporations, no "dark" money.

I would also eliminate all lobbying. These Senators and Congressmen have staffs; they can do the research and share with their party. The Library of Congress could provide research to non-incumbents of equal value.

The Presidential candidates might receive $75 million each, senators maybe $15 million, and congressional reps $3 million. They would have debates and franking for debate announcements would be available to all candidates, not just the elected ones.

Let's take the money and special interests out and see what this nation can accomplish with statesmen and stateswomen instead of politicians and lobbyists.

[shiny!]

Re: Win? Who won?

This is why my proposal to get rid of all campaign funding except for a federal stipend to each candidate polling at least 30%. There would be no candidate spending, no unions, no Wall Street or corporations, no "dark" money.

I would also eliminate all lobbying. These Senators and Congressmen have staffs; they can do the research and share with their party. The Library of Congress could provide research to non-incumbents of equal value.

The Presidential candidates might receive $75 million each, senators maybe $15 million, and congressional reps $3 million. They would have debates and franking for debate announcements would be available to all candidates, not just the elected ones.

Let's take the money and special interests out and see what this nation can accomplish with statesmen and stateswomen instead of politicians and lobbyists.

All excellent ideas, but how do you plan to go about actually effecting these changes? The people who would have to vote for such bills are the people who stand to lose the most from such legislation.

These really are great ideas and I'm not trying to be critical. I just don't see how we can fix government when the corruption and venality are so deeply entrenched.

[LorenS]

Re: Win? Who won?

This is why my proposal to get rid of all campaign funding except for a federal stipend to each candidate polling at least 30%. There would be no candidate spending, no unions, no Wall Street or corporations, no "dark" money.

I would also eliminate all lobbying. These Senators and Congressmen have staffs; they can do the research and share with their party. The Library of Congress could provide research to non-incumbents of equal value.

The Presidential candidates might receive $75 million each, senators maybe $15 million, and congressional reps $3 million. They would have debates and franking for debate announcements would be available to all candidates, not just the elected ones.

Let's take the money and special interests out and see what this nation can accomplish with statesmen and stateswomen instead of politicians and lobbyists.

Then no news "coverage" either. The major media outlets would pretty much pick the candidates under your scenario. Without "money" there is no way one can get past the barrage of "news". Look at Ross Perot.

Plus the "staffers" of most politicians are about as smart as a box of rocks. To expect them to understand anything more than their iPhone is a stretch. One Colorado bimbo thought that you had to throw out firearm magazines after you shot all the bullets in them. The county sheriffs wanted to talk to the legislators before they passed some gun bills. The idiots didn't even want to hear from experienced law enforcement officers before they drafted their brain dead bills.

I think some of you folks overestimate the virtues of Democracy. Are voters really so dumb they vote for the candidate that shows up the most on TV? If so they deserve what they get. If not what difference does it make who gets the most money?

BESIDES where does this campaign money go???? It nearly all gets spent on media advertising. Now tell me who "won". It's like when the lawyers get $4,000,000 in fees for getting me a $10 coupon for my next jar of Nutella.

[lektrode]

Re: Win? Who won?

This is why my proposal to get rid of all campaign funding except for a federal stipend to each candidate polling at least 30%. There would be no candidate spending, no unions, no Wall Street or corporations, no "dark" money.

I would also eliminate all lobbying. These Senators and Congressmen have staffs; they can do the research and share with their party. The Library of Congress could provide research to non-incumbents of equal value.

The Presidential candidates might receive $75 million each, senators maybe $15 million, and congressional reps $3 million. They would have debates and franking for debate announcements would be available to all candidates, not just the elected ones.

Let's take the money and special interests out and see what this nation can accomplish with statesmen and stateswomen instead of politicians and lobbyists.

my .02:

1 - LIMIT 'campaign season' to 30day prior to the election and have that 30 be DURING THEIR 'SUMMER BREAK'
even if that means that election day needs to be moved

2 - LIMIT (eliminate) the profits the lamerstream media is creaming off the top with all their contrived controversies
(the PUBLIC airwaves etc, should function for the benefit of THE PUBLIC not 'them' in the either the political class nor the lamerstream media op/ed depts )

3 - LIMIT the beltway's primary slushfund: their ability to SPEND MORE THAN WHAT COMES IN
(which mainly benefits the wall st/beltway axis of evil, while the leftover crumbs trickle-down to The Rest of US via the sewers of lwr manhattan)

and if they dont balance the budget within 3% - THEY DONT GET PAID

4 - LIMIT the benefits to the political class of even being within the beltway: ELIMINATE THEIR GOLD-PLATED BENEFITS
(and i DONT CARE if that means that 'only the rich can afford to serve' = PURE BS, since NH proves otherwise and i'd much rather have people WHO HAVE MADE IT BEFORE THEY RUN, than the ones who make it after they get in there - by writing some overly-media-hyped discount bin book or insider trading)

4 - LIMIT lobbying to ONE INDUSTRY-ELECTED OFFICIAL LOBBYIST per industry
(vs the good ole boy back slappers that spin round n round in the revolving door)

5 - MANDATE THAT ALL ELECTED PUBLIC OFFICIALS MUST SEND THEIR KIDS TO THE PUBLIC SCHOOLS IN THEIR DISTRICTS

and finally:

LIMIT THEIR TERMS in office and ELIMINATE the revolving door = NO RETIREMENT BENEFITS whatsoever

make em all GO BACK TO WORK LIKE THE REST OF US (just like NH's volunteer legislature does)

MANDATE THAT ALL THE LAWS APPLY TO THEM INCLUDING social 'security'

oh - and one other idea - since we now have all sorts of race/ethnic/gender-based quotas on all sorts of public sector programs, i say there ought to be QUOTA-LIMITS ON THE OCCUPATIONAL MAKEUP OF BOTH HOUSES

with political 'scientists' and lawyers LIMITED to their appx % of the economy as a whole, since its NUTS to have the .gov run such a small sliver of the population (not sure how that would be accomplished) that has an absolute CONFLICT OF INTEREST by 'engineering' the sausage-making/legislative process to be as opaque/complicated as it could get - so that ONLY THE LAWYERS CAN DECIPHER IT ?

exhibit A: the tax code
exhibit B: the 'affordable' care act (which dont even apply to them)

[Ghent12]

Re: What If The Republicans Win?

Wow. Dude, I pretty much wrote that last comment flippantly - kind of, well, to show, you know, that it's probably juuuuuuust a little bit nutty to define real world political things involving fallible people in such ideal ways they can only exist in Heaven and Hell.

But you kind of went with it...and so...I'm not sure what to make of that.

I guess I just see reality as a lot more gray than you? Never so black and white. Of course the market is full of force. Of course the state is full of force too. Of course lots of state interaction is voluntary. Of lots of market interaction is voluntary too. It's all mixed up, man. You kind of need both. This black and white stuff only works in a philosopher's utopian sketchbook.

Or at least that's my real world experience anyways...

This is semantics, so it matters what your definitions are. How do you define force? The second Google definition for the noun works well enough for my purposes, "coercion or compulsion, especially with the use or threat of violence." This definition implies that all actions required by the state are instances of force, since there is the underlying threat of violence if compliance is not given. Any market can use force, but most typically this force is derived from the state (i.e. enforcing the laws, such as contract law). Other sources of force in markets can be from non-state actors, especially within black markets. A free market, however, is free of force to include free from the force exerted by the state.

Things are not all mixed up, but your confusion is understandable. If you disagree with the ground rules (i.e. the definitions), then there is no point in this conversation.

[dcarrigg]

Re: What If The Republicans Win?

This is semantics, so it matters what your definitions are. How do you define force? The second Google definition for the noun works well enough for my purposes, "coercion or compulsion, especially with the use or threat of violence." This definition implies that all actions required by the state are instances of force, since there is the underlying threat of violence if compliance is not given. Any market can use force, but most typically this force is derived from the state (i.e. enforcing the laws, such as contract law). Other sources of force in markets can be from non-state actors, especially within black markets. A free market, however, is free of force to include free from the force exerted by the state.

Things are not all mixed up, but your confusion is understandable. If you disagree with the ground rules (i.e. the definitions), then there is no point in this conversation.

Nah, man. All I know is I've been threatened by one too many Knuckleheads and Goombahs in my day to think only state police can project force, and I've been coerced by one too many bosses to say that the "free" labor market can't make you do sh*t you don't wanna. Hell, I've even been in a fist-fight or two (or three...) in my time as a younger guy, and none too few were over dollars and cents. Plus, I'm sure I myself have been on the coercin' side more than once or twice in businesses I've run or things I've been in charge of. It's only natural.

I long ago stopped caring too much about the black markets and perfect utopias and the impossible to achieve theoretical mumbo jumbo. It's sometimes fun to chat about. But not when there's true believers in the room. Then it's just rude.

Plus I just got this guy, and he's 7 months old, and he's keeping me a bit too busy to sit here arguing about utopia:

[don]

Re: What If The Republicans Win?

Jon Stewart election 110414 by lookatmyshirt


John Stewart

[Ghent12]

Re: What If The Republicans Win?

Nah, man. All I know is I've been threatened by one too many Knuckleheads and Goombahs in my day to think only state police can project force, and I've been coerced by one too many bosses to say that the "free" labor market can't make you do sh*t you don't wanna. Hell, I've even been in a fist-fight or two (or three...) in my time as a younger guy, and none too few were over dollars and cents. Plus, I'm sure I myself have been on the coercin' side more than once or twice in businesses I've run or things I've been in charge of. It's only natural.

I long ago stopped caring too much about the black markets and perfect utopias and the impossible to achieve theoretical mumbo jumbo. It's sometimes fun to chat about. But not when there's true believers in the room. Then it's just rude.

Plus I just got this guy, and he's 7 months old, and he's keeping me a bit too busy to sit here arguing about utopia:

It is clear you did not read or did not understand what I said. Enjoy your puppy.

[shiny!]

Re: What If The Republicans Win?

Nah, man. All I know is I've been threatened by one too many Knuckleheads and Goombahs in my day to think only state police can project force, and I've been coerced by one too many bosses to say that the "free" labor market can't make you do sh*t you don't wanna. Hell, I've even been in a fist-fight or two (or three...) in my time as a younger guy, and none too few were over dollars and cents. Plus, I'm sure I myself have been on the coercin' side more than once or twice in businesses I've run or things I've been in charge of. It's only natural.

I long ago stopped caring too much about the black markets and perfect utopias and the impossible to achieve theoretical mumbo jumbo. It's sometimes fun to chat about. But not when there's true believers in the room. Then it's just rude.

Plus I just got this guy, and he's 7 months old, and he's keeping me a bit too busy to sit here arguing about utopia:

He's a real beauty. Did you adopt him? What's his name?

[dcarrigg]

Re: What If The Republicans Win?

Yeah, Shiny! We adopted him. Went by 'Huff' when we found him & we didn't change his name. Figured may as well keep the name and the food the same if everything else in his world was changing.

[dcarrigg]

Re: What If The Republicans Win?

Thanks! I'm having fun with him. He's a little handful.

And don't think I don't understand or don't read what you write, man. I know all about Mises, Rothbard, the NAP, and their little club down at Auburn. It just ain't my cup-o-tea.

I guess you could say I'd be yelling, "Roll Tide!" if you dropped me in the stands at the Iron Bowl, if you know what I mean.