Progressives, part 3...

posted by jmog

No, neither side is really going to shrink the government ever, even through the Rs say they will, they won’t  either. Ds are full on board with federal expansion.

So if both side would make it bigger if in power why wouldn’t a “status quo” and no/slower growth be better? Let them fight over stupid shit like morons and never pass anything which means the status quo doesn’t change and the federal government doesn’t grow as fast as if either party were in power.

And it is perfectly rational when you know both sides will grow the government, and they won’t work together anymore, to vote for gridlock so they won’t grow the government.

And if they magically start working cross party lines again like 20 years ago then it’s a win win.

The last time we had a balance budget was when the power was split. 

I have had this debate with my buddy in Orange County who is a libertarian.

The problem I have with your line of thinking is it is passive. It is not about finding a solution, but just good with the status quo, which seems to contradict the libertarian ideology to me. 

You say the fed may be growing more slowly, but the last 10 years so the opposite has happened. Spending has increased as each side gains power and trys to one up the other. 

They are passing more things by default as the spending train keeps rolling. 

By just saying you like gridlock, you are agreeing with that philosophy of more spending by default, which I know you and other do not support. 

It would be one thing if you were aggressively supporting libertarian candidates and ideas. But, as you said, you are not as you are supporting the status quo of gridlock or the lesser of two evils on the ballot. 

Also, odd you just are waiting for something magic to happen and not actually working to make that change happen. 

I may be wrong, but I am going off your own words of supporting gridlock which just makes the current situation worse and contradicts what I thought was the libertarian mission. 

posted by ptown_trojans_1

I have had this debate with my buddy in Orange County who is a libertarian.

The problem I have with your line of thinking is it is passive. It is not about finding a solution, but just good with the status quo, which seems to contradict the libertarian ideology to me. 

You say the fed may be growing more slowly, but the last 10 years so the opposite has happened. Spending has increased as each side gains power and trys to one up the other. 

They are passing more things by default as the spending train keeps rolling. 

By just saying you like gridlock, you are agreeing with that philosophy of more spending by default, which I know you and other do not support. 

It would be one thing if you were aggressively supporting libertarian candidates and ideas. But, as you said, you are not as you are supporting the status quo of gridlock or the lesser of two evils on the ballot. 

Also, odd you just are waiting for something magic to happen and not actually working to make that change happen. 

I may be wrong, but I am going off your own words of supporting gridlock which just makes the current situation worse and contradicts what I thought was the libertarian mission. 

1. The massive expansions happened when one side had POTUS and Congressional control. Both Rs and Ds. Not when the 2 sides were splitting power.

2. The 2 party system suck donkey balls. I would be all for electing an actual small federal government candidate like a libertarian if it was actually physically possible in our system. Trash the whole system and give me a libertarian and I am in 100%. A libertarian will never be a national candidate with a 2 party system locked down.

3. Find me a better strategy than what I do to slow down federal government growth, fill me in since I don’t use logic and you do, mister “middle road”.

posted by jmog

1. The massive expansions happened when one side had POTUS and Congressional control. Both Rs and Ds. Not when the 2 sides were splitting power.

2. The 2 party system suck donkey balls. I would be all for electing an actual small federal government candidate like a libertarian if it was actually physically possible in our system. Trash the whole system and give me a libertarian and I am in 100%. A libertarian will never be a national candidate with a 2 party system locked down.

3. Find me a better strategy than what I do to slow down federal government growth, fill me in since I don’t use logic and you do, mister “middle road”.

Not disagreeing with 1, but your gridlock approach just continues those policies. It doesn't slow, it just continues with continuing budget resolutions. 

Well number 2 is not realistic as the system is not going to blow up unless you drive policy and people to change it, which given your passive approach, you are not doing.

I don't have the answers, but stay engaged in trying to promote bipartisan policy.  That to me seems a better strategy than just throwing up hands, complaining, yet not offering any practical solutions other than both suck and they need to figure it out. 

That's my main annoyance around here. Easy to complain, harder to try and work toward actual solutions. 

posted by ptown_trojans_1

Not disagreeing with 1, but your gridlock approach just continues those policies. It doesn't slow, it just continues with continuing budget resolutions. 

Well number 2 is not realistic as the system is not going to blow up unless you drive policy and people to change it, which given your passive approach, you are not doing.

I don't have the answers, but stay engaged in trying to promote bipartisan policy.  That to me seems a better strategy than just throwing up hands, complaining, yet not offering any practical solutions other than both suck and they need to figure it out. 

That's my main annoyance around here. Easy to complain, harder to try and work toward actual solutions. 

One problem is you didn’t answer the question. If both sides always grow the side of the federal government when they are in power, and I believe in a smaller federal government as described in the Constitution….what/who should I vote for since you apparently use logic and I do not?

Your problem is that factual history backs up my position and conjecture backs up yours.

Every single major spike in the lasr 25 years in federal spending as a percent of GDP was when one side had unified control  (both sides have done it) and every dip down or stagnation in federal spending as a percentage of GDP was when power was divided.

Sure it’s a little more nuanced than that, but that is still factual information, and the best predictor of future behavior is past behavior.

https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/FYONGDA188S

https://www.foxnews.com/us/education-board-member-gets-booted-defending-constitution-speaking-socialism

It's as if Virginia turned into Venezuela overnight.  Who the hell are these radicals?

posted by jmog

One problem is you didn’t answer the question. If both sides always grow the side of the federal government when they are in power, and I believe in a smaller federal government as described in the Constitution….what/who should I vote for since you apparently use logic and I do not?

Your problem is that factual history backs up my position and conjecture backs up yours.

Every single major spike in the lasr 25 years in federal spending as a percent of GDP was when one side had unified control  (both sides have done it) and every dip down or stagnation in federal spending as a percentage of GDP was when power was divided.

Sure it’s a little more nuanced than that, but that is still factual information, and the best predictor of future behavior is past behavior.

https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/FYONGDA188S

Who should you vote for? Find and encourage candidates. Thats how. It seems like you just want the easy approach, just sit back and let them magically appear. You do not want to do the leg work on growing your political movement. 

The 2020 spike was divided government, but it was the covid year, so easy to forget. But, yes, the spending overall does slow in divided government, but that is not achieving your policy solution, the spending continues. 

Instead of just throwing up your hands, do something. 

How many of you on here are actually involved in the local or regional political process? 

I was in Maryland, and am involved here in Ohio too.

If you want to change the system, you have to work at it and not just complain about on a message board. 

Good news from the SOTU, def need gas for at least 10 years. Or like 100.

posted by ptown_trojans_1

Who should you vote for? Find and encourage candidates. Thats how. It seems like you just want the easy approach, just sit back and let them magically appear. You do not want to do the leg work on growing your political movement. 

The 2020 spike was divided government, but it was the covid year, so easy to forget. But, yes, the spending overall does slow in divided government, but that is not achieving your policy solution, the spending continues. 

Instead of just throwing up your hands, do something. 

How many of you on here are actually involved in the local or regional political process? 

I was in Maryland, and am involved here in Ohio too.

If you want to change the system, you have to work at it and not just complain about on a message board. 

So your solution is that I need to grow the National libertarian party from basically scratch and overhaul  the whole 2 party system?

Or, and hear me out, I can work to take care of my family.

I can’t believe you agree with me, that spending is slowed during split government, yet still tell me I’m wrong and I need to overhaul the whole 2 party system myself.

Sometimes your act is insufferable.

posted by jmog

Sometimes your act is insufferable.

You actually said this to someone else on here…you.  Wow

posted by Dr Winston O'Boogie

You actually said this to someone else on here…you.  Wow

Ptown agreed with my statement then told me I was wrong with a straight face…so yes I did  

posted by jmog

Ptown agreed with my statement then told me I was wrong with a straight face…so yes I did  

The "insufferable" part...that's what blew me away.  Your posting is easily the most insufferable on here.  

posted by iclfan2

Good news from the SOTU, def need gas for at least 10 years. Or like 100.

Yeah, he came off as pretty sharp in acknowledging energy needs out a decade. 

posted by jmog

So your solution is that I need to grow the National libertarian party from basically scratch and overhaul  the whole 2 party system?

Or, and hear me out, I can work to take care of my family.

I can’t believe you agree with me, that spending is slowed during split government, yet still tell me I’m wrong and I need to overhaul the whole 2 party system myself.

Sometimes your act is insufferable.

If you really care about your own policy views as you say, then yes. Otherwise, you are doing the least you can do, and as I said are being very passive. You are doing nothing but complaining and hoping something magically happens. 

You are still stuck on thinking gridlock slows or stops growth. Your chart shows otherwise. It still grows and rose dramatically in 2020, under divided government. 

Gridlock government also does not address the core spending problems like entitlement reform and immigration reform. If you care about your policy problems, ignoring the reform only makes it worse as we spend more and more. 

You can take care of your family and be involved in getting your policy solutions implemented. You seem to not like the answer...you have to do more and not just say I will vote the opposite party and call it a day. That is lazy. 

If you or others on here actually care...do something. 

https://www.foxnews.com/us/california-cities-rattled-prostitution-human-trafficking-broad-daylight-cops-pin-blame-new-law

Lovely 

posted by QuakerOats

https://www.foxnews.com/us/california-cities-rattled-prostitution-human-trafficking-broad-daylight-cops-pin-blame-new-law

Lovely 

You and Tucker Carlson are obsessed with California cities.  If they're that bad, don't visit them.  

posted by ptown_trojans_1

If you really care about your own policy views as you say, then yes. Otherwise, you are doing the least you can do, and as I said are being very passive. You are doing nothing but complaining and hoping something magically happens. 

You are still stuck on thinking gridlock slows or stops growth. Your chart shows otherwise. It still grows and rose dramatically in 2020, under divided government. 

Gridlock government also does not address the core spending problems like entitlement reform and immigration reform. If you care about your policy problems, ignoring the reform only makes it worse as we spend more and more. 

You can take care of your family and be involved in getting your policy solutions implemented. You seem to not like the answer...you have to do more and not just say I will vote the opposite party and call it a day. That is lazy. 

If you or others on here actually care...do something. 

My own chart proves my assertion.

And you are telling people they are voting wrong even though their stated goal, slowed/reduced government growth, is achieved by the way they vote.

Seems rather like the Dunning-Kruger effect. You know how I should vote better than I do….

posted by Dr Winston O'Boogie

You and Tucker Carlson are obsessed with California cities.  If they're that bad, don't visit them.  

I am not obsessed with California cities, nor would I visit any.  I feel bad for most of the Cali residents having their cities and once-great state get pulverized in a matter of one generation.  But, when you legalize crime, this is the outcome.

posted by QuakerOats

I am not obsessed with California cities, nor would I visit any.  I feel bad for most of the Cali residents having their cities and once-great state get pulverized in a matter of one generation.  But, when you legalize crime, this is the outcome.

I’ve been to SF for two separate weeks during the last six months.  I’d hardly call it pulverized.  All I know is I walked from the financial district to the Presidio one afternoon and the city couldn’t have been better.  

posted by Dr Winston O'Boogie

You and Tucker Carlson are obsessed with California cities.  If they're that bad, don't visit them.  

Almost as obsessed as you are with Quakers posts.  If they're that bad, don't respond to them.

I spent 6 months working in SF several years ago.  It was a shit hole then before becoming even more of a shithole in recent years.

Easily the worst big city I've even been in.

And there are more than a few places that have great weather but without the crushing taxes or ridiculous COL.