dajafi wrote:This whole immigration thing sucks. But maybe something good will come from it.

Why it sucks: this is the clearest example I can remember of our dysfunctional politics. The action the president is about to take is broadly popular and, so far as I've seen, there's very little substance grounds to oppose it. But it will never, ever come to the floor of the House of Representatives, because members of the unrepresentative majority of an unrepresentative majority have no political incentive to vote yes and every political reason to vote no. So his choices are either to accede to the irrationality of the system, perpetuating real personal and economic harm to millions of people; or to take an action that, if not illegal (and, based on the similar past actions of Republican presidents, it's not illegal), still expands the scope of executive power in new and unsettling ways. I don't think the Republicans can possibly hate this president any more than they do, or irrationally try to "stop him" any more than they already are, without blowback that their smarter tacticians are willing to accept. But the president isn't the only Democrat in the capital (it only feels that way…), and I'm sure this will poison the well in some new way.

Why something good might come from it: there must come a point where even the hardest-core on the right realize, or are brought to the realization, that ultra-partisanship can reach a point of diminishing returns. If this isn't that, I'm not sure what is. The Chamber of Commerce is onboard with this, I'm guessing by their silence. Business money obviously had a lot to do with this month's election results. Maybe they can not only somewhat mute the tangible response to Obama's action, but push the new majority to take certain steps that might not have "majority of the majority" support within an embarrassingly unrepresentative caucus, but can win a clean majority vote and are wanted by the country. Who knows: this sort of thing might even raise the approval of the Congress above that of head lice, which presumably would please the leaders of its new majority.

RichmondPhilsFan wrote:

Bucky wrote:Incoming Nevada House Speaker is Quite The Piece of Work

Holy crap. That stuff wouldn't even fly here in Virginia. Our politicians are much more genteel in their bigotry and homophobia.

pacino wrote:cballs, i agree

Monkeyboy wrote:So you're not going to answer the simple question. If you can't answer that question, how can you possibly have an opinion on this stuff?

TomatoPie wrote:
I have a basic belief that a society grounded in rule of law and well-protected ownership rights is a society that will yield the best prospects for success. Success for all - not just those born into wealth. There are few restrictions on ownership; while that allows some to acculumate wealth that offends the have-nots and those who need to feel good by condemning the prosperous, it also leaves the door open to everyone. Yeah, the door is easier to reach and move if you are born into it, but most of us have parents or grandparents who were poor immigrants - or slaves. And when you look at how groups prosper or fail to, those who shun the handouts prosper faster and more fully. Those who wait for wealth to be redistributed can continue to scrap over crumbs instead of grabbing some real pie.

We all can be grabbing pie, without Uncle Sam's help.

Now go grab a pie.

CalvinBall wrote:As opposed to the Rs "OMG Obama is awful."

Werthless wrote:Monkeyboy, you're arguing against what TP said, it sounds. And more specifically:

Monkeyboy wrote:So you're not going to answer the simple question. If you can't answer that question, how can you possibly have an opinion on this stuff?

When I joined this board, I wrote posts that were thousands of words apiece on these very topics, only to have a bunch of posters shit on them with one-liners. I don't fucking care that you think I need to restate my position in order to have an opinion on this stuff. That statement doesn't even make sense. I have an opinion on how to reduce poverty, make government more moral, and improve outcomes across the income spectrum. Go dredge up the archive if you care -- look for threads I started with subject lines referencing political theory -- and I'd be happy to re-engage on them. If I wanted to spend hours researching, writing, organizing my work, synthesizing my thoughts, I may as well write a novel or go back and get a phd in political science (Note: sick jerseyhoya burn there).

I've stated many times before that I am not a traditional Republican, but instead lean libertarian. I'm very critical of the idea that an elected body will solve all of our problems through writing "smart-enough" laws, and am critical of the expansion of social spending without the requisite improvement of outcomes that the spending was supposed to produce. That shouldn't be a radical position -- it's not even a position, really, but a statement of reality -- but apparently it's interpreted to mean that poor people don't deserve any safety net from starvation.

If I had to sum up how I would change our country: fix our education system by tying education spending to the child, end the war on drugs, simplify the tax code, slash corporate taxes and end corporate subsidies, increase direct cash payments to low income individuals, open our borders.

td11 wrote:good piece by Matt Yglesias: http://www.vox.com/2014/11/20/7254849/c ... underreach

pacino wrote:principal reduction not off the table; GET UM WARREN

Phan In Phlorida wrote:(sigh) 1950s... It was an era with sky-high marginal tax rates and large government bureaucracies.