Republican Primary

[ishii]

Not for mathematicians. Again, if we focus on the votes that matter more, then we have to give a value of zero for those that end up mattering not at all. The percentage is an average, based on how many people vote in a national election. Smaller states will have a slightly greater percentage than larger states. I gave an average.

Now, that is four times I stated this was an average. Feel free to ignore that again.

Yes but to focus on the average is misleading. If someone in Florida in 2000 had decided to stay home based on your “average”, they would have given up a chance to have a big impact on a national election. Feel free to ignore my point though.

Ishii

 

[Raskolnikov]

Not for mathematicians. Again, if we focus on the votes that matter more, then we have to give a value of zero for those that end up mattering not at all. The percentage is an average, based on how many people vote in a national election. Smaller states will have a slightly greater percentage than larger states. I gave an average.

Now, that is four times I stated this was an average. Feel free to ignore that again.

Perhaps this is why voting should be mandated by law. Because it is mathematically irrational.

The reason I don’t have bear traps around my house, even though I know there are some bears in my region, and on rare occasions they have attacked people (always a story sure to make the news), the statistical likelihood of being attacked by a bear tomorrow is so profoundly minute, that I have yet to act upon the risk. Who knows though, maybe tomorrow’s the day…

 

[ishii]

Perhaps this is why voting should be mandated by law. Because it is mathematically irrational.

The reason I don’t have bear traps around my house, even though I know there are some bears in my region, and on rare occasions they have attacked people (always a story sure to make the news), the statistical likelihood of being attacked by a bear tomorrow is so profoundly minute, that I have yet to act upon the risk. Who knows though, maybe tomorrow’s the day…

You might have a better chance at getting struck by lightning than getting mauled by a bear, statistically, but if you go hiking in Montana you might want to take a precaution.

Ishii

 

[Gift_from_God]

No they dont Scott. the Republcian party is far superior to the democrat party in every way

It’s called the Democratic Party. If the GOP is superior to the Democratic Party, then what are they doing to help the poor and middle class? I don’t see them doing anything

 

[the_7th_one]

It’s called the Democratic Party. If the GOP is superior to the Democratic Party, then what are they doing to help the poor and middle class? I don’t see them doing anything

It can be argued that both are hurting the poor and middle class. Just look at gas prices up close to 100% in the last 3 years

 

[ishii]

It’s called the Democratic Party. If the GOP is superior to the Democratic Party, then what are they doing to help the poor and middle class? I don’t see them doing anything

Its not even so much about what the GOP is doing, but what the Democrat party is doing - which is waging a war on the Catholic church, babies, and marriage, to name a few. Last I checked the GOP is not doing those things. Now we can argue about which policy will best help the poor - the Democrat policy of more government or the GOP policy of less government. But there is no arguing the war on freedom of conscience that the Democrat party is waging and there is no arguing the secular left values that the Democrat party has embraced.

Ishii

 

[LisaA]

It’s called the Democratic Party. If the GOP is superior to the Democratic Party, then what are they doing to help the poor and middle class? I don’t see them doing anything

Andrew Wilkow said the most brilliant thing to answer these questions: The Government does not exist to solve our problems. The Government exists to protect our freedoms. But this attitude that Big Brother is here to make our lives easy seems more and more pervasive.

The Government should not be doing something to “help the poor and middle class.” The Government should be getting out of the way of people trying to make a living, trying to start businesses, trying to locate their businesses in states or locations that allow them the most freedom to produce a product for the best price. The more the Government meddles in our lives the more difficult it is for us to support our families and live productively. Tell me a current problem we are facing that Government meddling has not created? Financial collapse? Thank you Community Reinvestment Act, Fanny and Freddy, NINJA loans (No income no job), and transferring the risk of these bad loans from lending institutions to the taxpayers. Huge numbers of welfare/foodstamp/Medicaid dependent citizens? More government meddling, government programs that do nothing but keep people dependent, rewarding bad behavior and refusing to face the truth about their role in the demise of the family, particularly the black family.

The Government, Federal specifically, has a few enumerated roles…like running the military and the post office. Since when should the Federal Government decide on lightbulbs, children’s lunches, insurance provisions, pay for people to drive overprice exploding electric cars…the list goes on and on.

Remember the Government is not here to solve your problems or mine. It should focus on its few enumerated powers and protecting freedom. Otherwise get outta the way
Lisa

 

[Raskolnikov]

Andrew Wilkow said the most brilliant thing to answer these questions: The Government does not exist to solve our problems. The Government exists to protect our freedoms. But this attitude that Big Brother is here to make our lives easy seems more and more pervasive.

The Government should not be doing something to “help the poor and middle class.” The Government should be getting out of the way of people trying to make a living, trying to start businesses, trying to locate their businesses in states or locations that allow them the most freedom to produce a product for the best price. The more the Government meddles in our lives the more difficult it is for us to support our families and live productively. Tell me a current problem we are facing that Government meddling has not created? Financial collapse? Thank you Community Reinvestment Act, Fanny and Freddy, NINJA loans (No income no job), and transferring the risk of these bad loans from lending institutions to the taxpayers. Huge numbers of welfare/foodstamp/Medicaid dependent citizens? More government meddling, government programs that do nothing but keep people dependent, rewarding bad behavior and refusing to face the truth about their role in the demise of the family, particularly the black family.

The Government, Federal specifically, has a few enumerated roles…like running the military and the post office. Since when should the Federal Government decide on lightbulbs, children’s lunches, insurance provisions, pay for people to drive overprice exploding electric cars…the list goes on and on.

Remember the Government is not here to solve your problems or mine. It should focus on its few enumerated powers and protecting freedom. Otherwise get outta the way
Lisa

Fair enough. How’d you like to pave your own roads? Print your own currency, then see if anyone will take it? Police your own neighborhood? Dispose of your own waste? How do you, on your own, plan to keep private industries from polluting your water supply or air? How do you plan to keep private corporations from colluding and forming cartels to squeeze their consumers?

Seriously, like a higher capital gains tax is the next step to 1984? At the moment, of course, it’s more like keeping Gingrich from abolishing capital gains tax altogether.

Simply saying that you oppose everything the government does (you don’t, even if you think you do) and saying that it is invariably bad and wrong is as preposterous as saying it is invariably right and good.

 

[bbarrick8383]

Fair enough. How’d you like to pave your own roads? Print your own currency, then see if anyone will take it? Police your own neighborhood? Dispose of your own waste? How do you, on your own, plan to keep private industries from polluting your water supply or air? How do you plan to keep private corporations from colluding and forming cartels to squeeze their consumers?

Seriously, like a higher capital gains tax is the next step to 1984? At the moment, of course, it’s more like keeping Gingrich from abolishing capital gains tax altogether.

Simply saying that you oppose everything the government does (you don’t, even if you think you do) and saying that it is invariably bad and wrong is as preposterous as saying it is invariably right and good.

We have 3 levels of government, generally when people say they oppose government intervention…they are referring to one of those levels, not all of them.

 

[ishii]

Fair enough. How’d you like to pave your own roads? Print your own currency, then see if anyone will take it? Police your own neighborhood? Dispose of your own waste? How do you, on your own, plan to keep private industries from polluting your water supply or air? How do you plan to keep private corporations from colluding and forming cartels to squeeze their consumers?

Seriously, like a higher capital gains tax is the next step to 1984? At the moment, of course, it’s more like keeping Gingrich from abolishing capital gains tax altogether.

Simply saying that you oppose everything the government does (you don’t, even if you think you do) and saying that it is invariably bad and wrong is as preposterous as saying it is invariably right and good.

Did you not read this part Raskolnikov?

*The Government, Federal specifically, has a few enumerated roles…like running the military and the post office. Since when should the ***Federal Government **decide on lightbulbs, children’s lunches, insurance provisions, pay for people to drive overprice exploding electric cars…the list goes on and on.

I think LisaA is specifically referring to the federal government, just maybe. But I could be wrong.

Ishii

 

[Raskolnikov]

We have 3 levels of government, generally when people say they oppose government intervention…they are referring to one of those levels, not all of them.

I dunno, the state seems to get a lot of flack where I’m from. And just look at what conservatives are saying about Romney because of his Massachusetts healthcare system? It doesn’t seem to matter that it was done at the state level, it is still no less “socialist” to many.

At any rate, who wants to go back to the time where every state had its own currency? And how much more expensive is it for every state to have its own military and its own ATF? And pollution generally doesn’t obey state boundaries, nor does the flow of water (What can Nevadans do about what Coloradans put in what eventually becomes their drinking water?). Governmemt didn’t become more a national affair just because it wanted to. 2 hundred years ago household industries produced most goods and services by far. Today multinational corporations do, and dealing with the economy on that level, be it in the form of requisitioning lad for the building of a new plant, building roads and bridges across many states to facilitate transportation of goods, or mitigating the effects of a mass lay-off resulting from a market fluctuation, it is harder than ever for state or local governmentsto deal with such things, which is probably the main reason why most of the state governments got so indebted to the federal gov’t in the first place.

 

[bbarrick8383]

I dunno, the state seems to get a lot of flack where I’m from. And just look at what conservatives are saying about Romney because of his Massachusetts healthcare system? It doesn’t seem to matter that it was done at the state level, it is still no less “socialist” to many.

I fully support any states right to do what they want with healthcare, regardless of how stupid it is.

At any rate, who wants to go back to the time where every state had its own currency?

Me. Stop the printing now please. I’ll stick to coins if it means keeping the government in check.

And how much more expensive is it for every state to have its own military and its own ATF?

I believe the military is covered in the constitution.

And pollution generally doesn’t obey state boundaries, nor does the flow of water (What can Nevadans do about what Coloradans put in what eventually becomes their drinking water?). Governmemt didn’t become more a national affair just because it wanted to. 2 hundred years ago household industries produced most goods and services by far. Today multinational corporations do, and dealing with the economy on that level, be it in the form of requisitioning lad for the building of a new plant, building roads and bridges across many states to facilitate transportation of goods, or mitigating the effects of a mass lay-off resulting from a market fluctuation, it is harder than ever for state or local governmentsto deal with such things, which is probably the main reason why most of the state governments got so indebted to the federal gov’t in the first place.

Sounds like Nevada and Colorado have a mutual interest in keeping their own environment clean.

Most state governments got so indebted?

Some states make money off the feds while others lose money. It’s not a win win relationship they all have together. I’m surprised some states put up with it at all.

 

[Raskolnikov]

Did you not read this part Raskolnikov?

The Government, Federal specifically, has a few enumerated roles…like running the military and the post office. Since when should the ***Federal Government ***decide on lightbulbs, children’s lunches, insurance provisions, pay for people to drive overprice exploding electric cars…the list goes on and on.

I think LisaA is specifically referring to the federal government, just maybe. But I could be wrong.

Ishii

When the state government won’t do its job, then the federal government sees fit to step in. Now, we could debate then what is the job of the state government. Should the state government institute healthy food programs in schools, or what role should it play in dealing with pollution? If we define a role, and it fails to live up to that role, then who else should do it?

Personally, I want the most efficient way of doing things being done, regardles of whether it is just spontaneous, or from Washington, or from Columbus. if federal school lunch programs improve children’s health effectively, then I do not care that it was the federal government that did it. It simply doesn’t bother me.

And some things, believe it or not, the federal government does better than any lesser governments, just by virtue of its position. That’s wy it monopolizes currency production, why it controls the armed forces. As for insurance, well, the insurance industry amounts to collecting and writing checks; or deciding who to write checks to, and who to collect them from. And it is no easier to manage an insurance policy of a person who lives in your zip code than a person who lives on the other side of the country, so being local isn’t reall yan advantage there. Also, the larger the insurance company (or the larger it’s pool of customers), the lower the per capita risk, and therefore the lower the premium. SO, theoretically, the ideal insurance company is the largest possible insurance company. So there is a reason for considering a single national insurance company. It could certainly be debated, though, whether the state itself should found a federal insurance company (much like it founded a national bank a long time ago) or if it should sponser a provate company’s monopoly, like what states do with energy companies.

 

[LisaA]

Fair enough. How’d you like to pave your own roads? Print your own currency, then see if anyone will take it? Police your own neighborhood? Dispose of your own waste? How do you, on your own, plan to keep private industries from polluting your water supply or air? How do you plan to keep private corporations from colluding and forming cartels to squeeze their consumers?

Seriously, like a higher capital gains tax is the next step to 1984? At the moment, of course, it’s more like keeping Gingrich from abolishing capital gains tax altogether.

Simply saying that you oppose everything the government does (you don’t, even if you think you do) and saying that it is invariably bad and wrong is as preposterous as saying it is invariably right and good.

In all fairness I’d say you are setting up a strawman. There are some specific powers of the federal government and they should stick to those national issues such as the military and as indicated, leave the other issues for the states or local governments. Case in point the Dept of Education takes money from states, sucks some of it up into its maw and then redistributes money back to the states. So tell me what is the benefit of this processs? Are our students doing any better than they were prior to the DoE? Nope they are doing worse.

With respect to disposing of my waste, we have a private garbage collection service that seems to function quite well for a whopping $20 a month. Do I need the federal or even the state government to regulate my trash pick up? Now maybe the state needs to regulate waste disposal plants or facilities but it doesn’t need to arrange for trash pick up.

My overall point is that we are becoming more and more dependent on the government to solve problems instead of trying first to solve them at the closest level possible…start with yourself, then family, then church/community and if that fails move up the food chain to a locality, city, state etc. There are very few problems that are either effectively or economically dealt with by the federal government. But we are constantly hearing “what is the government going to do for the poor and middle class?” It’s a self defeating attitude that will become a self fulfilling prophecy.

Lisa

 

[bbarrick8383]

When the state government won’t do its job, then the federal government sees fit to step in.

When the state government won’t do it’s job it may be because the people of that state don’t want it to. Many states try to live within their means, while some don’t. The fed’s…well you can see how well they live within their means.

Just because there is a need for healthier school lunches, doesn’t mean the state can afford to do so. Just because the state can not afford to do something, the government should step in and pay for it.

 

[Raskolnikov]

bbarrick8383:

Me. Stop the printing now please. I’ll stick to coins if it means keeping the government in check.

You want to mint coins in your basement? Do you fancy that precious metal standards are safe, reliable, or something? Do you know why the Spanish empire collapsed? A big part of it was inflation. They were on the gold standard too.

One thing Karl Marx was right about was that gold (or silver) is a superstition. People ascribe to it value arbitrarily; it’s price goes up even as it gets more useless in a modern society. It doesn’t go up because it’s inherently more stable; it goes up for the same reason the Euro goes up when the $ goes down: because it’s a socially accepted alternate store of value. There’s nothing special about precious metals, though; we had depressions even more frequently while we were on the gold standard than before we (thank God!) abadoned it. Ultimately, all currency is fiduciary. The very idea of money is a fiduciary concept, doesn’t matter whether paper, gold, or seashells.

Sounds like Nevada and Colorado have a mutual interest in keeping their own environment clean.

What does Colorado care about the state of the water once it leaves Colorado? Why not dump all their waste and pollution in the Colorado River right by the border? Let the Nevadans deal with it when it flows downstream.

Most state governments got so indebted?

Some states make money off the feds while others lose money. It’s not a win win relationship they all have together. I’m surprised some states put up with it at all.

A few decades ago most states began accepting large amounts of federal aid, and eventually they were “hooked” on it. This is probably why they put up with it.

Here’s a fun fact: the overall flow of federal tax revenue is from ‘blue states’ to ‘red states.’ Many of the states who’s politicians speak most adamantly against the federal government soak up the most federal money. In fact, it is likely that tax breaks in Mississippi are often effectively paid for by taxpayers in Massachussets.

 

[Raskolnikov]

When the state government won’t do it’s job it may be because the people of that state don’t want it to. Many states try to live within their means, while some don’t. The fed’s…well you can see how well they live within their means.

Just because there is a need for healthier school lunches, doesn’t mean the state can afford to do so. Just because the state can not afford to do something, the government should step in and pay for it.

Fair enough, but if the taxpayers want school lunches, then that’s what they want.

One may say it’s unconstitutional for the federal government to do such and such, and I may be the only person in American who won’t try to create my own interpretation of the constitution to make it compatible. The constitution has been wrong before, and thus ammended. If I think something should be done that isn’t constitutional, I’d rather change it than just reinterpret it. I think that’s one universal hypocrisy iin America, is that no one will admit when they disagree with the constitution, though I am wuite sure virtually everyone, whatever their political persuasions, does disagree with it on some matter.

But back to the topic. I’m afraid our spending situation has as much to do with out national character as with our government. Ther Germans and the Chinese both have what most Americans would call fairly sizable governments, but both are creditor nations. And I don’t know if our debt will heaver go down, because raising taxes and reducing total spending are unpopular and hamper the economy in the short run, and that’s all that matters when you run for election every 2 or 4 years.

 

[bbarrick8383]

You want to mint coins in your basement?

No, I want Government to mint coins in DC like it’s supposed to.

Do you fancy that precious metal standards are safe, reliable, or something? Do you know why the Spanish empire collapsed? A big part of it was inflation. They were on the gold standard too.

I can only imagine someone, 100 years or so from now saying. Do you know why the American empire collapsed?

As a matter of fact, one of the PAC’s made a video of a future Chinese economics lesson. The professor was talking about the downfall of the American economy. Was very good.

One thing Karl Marx was right about was that gold (or silver) is a superstition. People ascribe to it value arbitrarily; it’s price goes up even as it gets more useless in a modern society. It doesn’t go up because it’s inherently more stable; it goes up for the same reason the Euro goes up when the $ goes down: because it’s a socially accepted alternate store of value. There’s nothing special about precious metals, though; we had depressions even more frequently while we were on the gold standard than before we (thank God!) abadoned it. Ultimately, all currency is fiduciary. The very idea of money is a fiduciary concept, doesn’t matter whether paper, gold, or seashells.

I’d rather be on a standard set by a free market economy than a standard controlled by some guy in a bank with a direct line to the federal government.

What does Colorado care about the state of the water once it leaves Colorado? Why not dump all their waste and pollution in the Colorado River right by the border? Let the Nevadans deal with it when it flows downstream.

Because in the long term it would lead to war, in the short term it would be a bunch of locals hauling it back and dumping it on the step of their capitol building.

A few decades ago most states began accepting large amounts of federal aid, and eventually they were “hooked” on it. This is probably why they put up with it.

Yes, they receive federal aid. But they end up paying more per dollar than they return in federal aid. So, why put up with it?

Here’s a fun fact: the overall flow of federal tax revenue is from ‘blue states’ to ‘red states.’ Many of the states who’s politicians speak most adamantly against the federal government soak up the most federal money. In fact, it is likely that tax breaks in Mississippi are often effectively paid for by taxpayers in Massachussets.

I know. New Jersey is a state that pays more than they receive. Oklahoma, last I checked is a state that receives more than they pay.

Doesn’t make a dang bit of sense to me, but it needs to stop.

 

[bbarrick8383]

Dunno if I’ve posted this here before, but has anyone watched this song?

youtube.com/watch?v=uZfRaWAtBVg

I love it.

 

[ishii]

When the state government won’t do its job, then the federal government sees fit to step in. Now, we could debate then what is the job of the state government. Should the state government institute healthy food programs in schools, or what role should it play in dealing with pollution? If we define a role, and it fails to live up to that role, then who else should do it?

I think its pretty well spelled out in our constitution in the enumerated powers. As for the role of state government versus local, city government or private sector, that would seem to be a decision for the citizens of each state. I don’t know about the “heathy food programs” in schools. If that means a bureaucrat telling a 4 year old to eat chicken nuggets instead of the turkey sandwich that her mom made then count me out. The state government can be just as much as a nanny as the federal govt. I do think that the state government can be held accountable more effectively than can the federal government, for obvious reasons.

Personally, I want the most efficient way of doing things being done, regardles of whether it is just spontaneous, or from Washington, or from Columbus. if federal school lunch programs improve children’s health effectively, then I do not care that it was the federal government that did it. It simply doesn’t bother me.

Fine, but its counter intuitive for the federal govt. to be more effective at running a school lunch program in Ohio than the state govt. I suppose that most effective lunch program is a Mom and Dad who take their responsibilities seriously.

And some things, believe it or not, the federal government does better than any lesser governments, just by virtue of its position. That’s wy it monopolizes currency production, why it controls the armed forces. As for insurance, well, the insurance industry amounts to collecting and writing checks; or deciding who to write checks to, and who to collect them from. And it is no easier to manage an insurance policy of a person who lives in your zip code than a person who lives on the other side of the country, so being local isn’t reall yan advantage there. Also, the larger the insurance company (or the larger it’s pool of customers), the lower the per capita risk, and therefore the lower the premium. SO, theoretically, the ideal insurance company is the largest possible insurance company. So there is a reason for considering a single national insurance company. It could certainly be debated, though, whether the state itself should found a federal insurance company (much like it founded a national bank a long time ago) or if it should sponser a provate company’s monopoly, like what states do with energy companies.

Agree with you on the armed forces. There are some things that the federal government needs to do. One thing the federal government did that is awesome: the national parks and forests. Right now, however, it does too much, too inefficiently.

Ishii