Originally Posted by radind

I forgot to mention that I watched several episodes of " Nazis: Evolution of Evil" on AHC last night. This is a sobering reminder of the true evil of Hitler and the need to be watchful so that we do not ever go down this evil path. Extreme authoritarianism from any group must be resisted.

I can't say that Hitler knew that he would start catastrophic wars (paradoxically he wanted Great Britain as a partner in crime) or exterminate the Jews. He wanted and got absolute power, and with his own vile desires he was able to wage any war and murder any enemy.

The Germans considered Hitler less dangerous than the German Communists, one of the most violent and strident Communist Parties outside of the Soviet Union at the time. One Communist poster from around 1930 called for a "German Soviet Union"... basically a German-style USSR. By 1930 much of the character of the Soviet Union was well known.

The Germans would have never supported Hitler had they known that he intended to turn workers into serfs, establish concentration camps, allow the formation of a secret police modeled upon the Cheka, treat the Jews as pariahs (let alone exterminate them), and wage aggressive war against most countries in Europe. A tyrant as brutal as Stalin? No -- that was for a backward country with a heritage of despotism, and not the sophisticated and enlightened Germany. Persecute the Jews? They were competent enough to make their case as the definitive model minority. Wage aggressive warfare? After the First World War, only a madman wanted another bloodbath. Hitler let everyone assume what they wanted to believe. He would betray those assumptions.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

The result of the 2014 election as far as Congress is concerned was a foregone conclusion and, on a practical level, not very important, since even with a miracle the Democrats weren't going to take a big enough majority in both houses to actually do anything. Had they done better, we would have had two years of gridlock and a government that can't do anything. As it is, we're going to have -- two years of gridlock and a government that can't do anything. Which is more or less what the Republican Party wanted, so they were going to win whether they won or lost the election itself. Perhaps this helps explain why Millennials such as Kepi didn't bother to vote.

Another way of putting it is that many people recognize that things must get really bad before people insist on pervasive change. The best ally of the Communist is not the reformer who wants a better world -- to the contrary, it is the selfish reactionary out only for himself, who believes that no human suffering can ever be in excess so long as he derives a benefit from such suffering. Communist insurgencies are possible where misery is the norm and the elites so want it to remain so that they treat would-be reformers as criminals. Crony capitalism, and not social democracy going 'too far' is the usual predecessor of Communist rule.

Some of us expect the GOP to double down on a reactionary, dehumanizing agenda of monopolization, cheap labor, degradation of the workplace, environmental destruction, scapegoating of minorities and the poor, ridicule of the rational processes, brutal law enforcement, privatization of any government assets that can turn a profit, harsh changes in the tax law, and perhaps even some military adventures. The GOP now has two Houses of Congress in which they have complete control of the political agenda for the next two years.

If such leads quickly to another meltdown like that we just had, then so be it. Someone who marries a violent brute must expect to be beaten. Democrats need only refuse to vote with Republicans on the worst of their agenda. That is a high risk position for a Party with little power -- and the Republican Party might be working on making the Democratic Party even more marginal, as did the Nationalist Party of South Africa, which made sure that the opposition might be close to winning back power in a fair election it would make things just unfair enough to get a complete victory. To get anything, like a road, the nominal opposition had to sell out. The Nationalist Party of South Africa? It gave the world the word and practice known as Apartheid.

On the other hand, if you look at the statewide initiatives and referendums that passed last year, a marked contrast to the Congressional election outcome presents. Every state with a minimum wage increase on the ballot passed it, including those that sent Republicans to the House and Senate. Every "personhood" anti-abortion measure failed. Two states legalized marijuana. The number of states allowing same-sex marriage continues to increase, and the courts have struck down every attempt to block it at the federal level. So we see voters quite willing to endorse progressive measures, when those measures are offered.

Promising signs, but given a choice between crony capitalism and democracy the Republican Party will support crony capitalism. Beware salami tactics, though. Protecting your union by sacrificing other unions is a raw deal.

What I'm seeing here is that in this phase of the Crisis, the federal government has become largely irrelevant. That's a marked contrast to the last two Crises, for an interesting reason (I believe) emerging from the fact that we're still fighting a phase of the Civil War. (I'll explain that in a minute.) In any case, don't look to Washington to solve the problems we're facing until very late in the Crisis, but that doesn't mean things can't get done. They'll just get done on a lower level.

With the GOP it is simple: they get everything and toss a few scraps toward some sell-outs. Expect to get nothing from the federal government if you are not among those who bought the current Congress. The Koch dynasty is only beginning its ascent to join the most powerful noble families of all time. Sure, they will accept the formality of a Constitution and even a republic with (rigged) elections that invariably split 52-47 in their favor... and they do not need crowns, thrones, or scepters which are silly unless one belongs to the House of Windsor, Saxe-Coburg-Gotha, Orange, Glucksburg, Borbon, Saud, etc. Let someone like Scott Walker, so far a perfect tool, serve as President as the nominal successor to Washington, Lincoln, and the two Roosevelts... as a regent for a noble family exempt from all restraints. Let Americans choose between the flunkies that the Koch family consider acceptable. Of course once the GOP gets full control of the American political process we can all expect an economic crash just as severe in its start as the last one, only lasting three years before America has any chance to dig its way out. That is how the Great Depression started. Within two years nobody will trust any right-wing, corporatist solution.

What I mean by the continuation of the Civil War is this. We use that name for the pitched-battle phase that took place from 1861 to 1865, but if we look at the underlying conflicts, the thing started a lot earlier than that and continued after the shooting stopped, following the rhythm of the saeculum but always trying to resolve the same issues. That's a conflict between the mainstream American culture and the oddball white Southern culture that once dominated it and has been losing power ever since. You can see the conflict reflected in a number of passages of the Constitution, which means it goes at least all the way back to the Revolutionary Crisis.

The Founding Fathers could never figure what to do about slavery. Some apparently thought that the 'peculiar institution' would die as State after State abolished it. Several states indeed abolished slavery within a couple of decades after the establishment of the United States. Even Virginia contemplated the emancipation of slaves. But slavery got a new lease on life with the cotton gin and the westward expansion of the United States.

When a model for the emancipation of slavery became evident in the British Empire, America made the wrong choice.

The Civil War Crisis did not begin with the Confederate forces laying siege to Fort Sumter. It began before that -- with the Fugitive Slave Law, the Fred Scott decision, John Brown's raid on Charles Town, and Bleeding Kansas. The Crash of 1857 didn't help.

During the Civil War itself, the federal government was relevant and able to act because most of the Southern Congresscritters weren't sitting, their states having seceded. This freed the federal government to do a lot of things like building railroads and homesteading and new public education work and so on and so on that had been blocked by the Southern votes before the secession happened. In the Great Power Crisis, the federal government was highly relevant probably because of the political anomaly that made Franklin Roosevelt a Democrat. Most economic reformers and progressives of that time were Republicans like his cousin Theodore. If he'd followed Cousin Teddy's footsteps in that respect, very likely the Southern Democrats would have obstructed a lot of what he tried to do, but because he was a Democrat he pulled them in via party loyalty and got incredible things done. (Mr. Hitler helped quite a bit, too.)

No national leader can get all the legislation he wants unless he is a dictator and the Legislature is nothing more than a rubber-stamp institution. The best that anyone can hope for is that for all the acrimony in American politics, nothing gets done. The gridlock changes in style, but it is still gridlock.

The Southern Congresscritters are obstructing rather than seceding, and the parties have switched both regional and ideological positions so that party loyalty doesn't bring them into line -- they're Republicans now. As a result, we have a paralyzed federal government, and the Democrats are presenting all (sane) points on the political spectrum, from very progressive to very conservative (but not loony). The oddball South is at its weakest in U.S. history, but still has enough strength to keep anything from getting done at the national level. Most likely we are going to have to play out the final act of the Civil War before the federal government will be able to accomplish anything.<p>

When people start recognizing that the GOP has nothing to offer but poverty, exploitation, and militarism, they will reject it. Maybe we will see a left-wing version of the Tea Party. Just wait until the Republicans have their 2016 national convention in Cleveland. There will be loud demonstrations. Just imagine what happens when the Mayor of Cleveland refuses to keep peaceful demonstrators away from Convention sites. Of course the GOP will demand "Free Speech Zones" safely away from convention venues so that the fat-cats won't have to see anyone deriding their reactionary agenda. Will the Democratic mayor comply with the demands of the Republican Governor of Ohio? They might agree on weapons-free zones and to have the cops bust people for throwing objects. That might be all.

Regarding the 2016 presidential election, that will be decided in the Democratic primaries. No GOP candidate who can win the nomination can also win the election. So for the presidency at least, the important question is who the Democrats will nominate. Of course, see above re the Civil War; that may not be an important consideration yet. The numbers say the Dems will retake the Senate next year, too; the House is a bit harder to call. That may or may not go blue.

The GOP has largely avoided scandals of corruption; corruption usually takes time to develop. In 2006 several Republican congresscritters were figured in scandals. Republican state legislatures in Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Ohio have gerrymandered congressional districts to the advantage of Republicans.

We stand to get a really-nasty situation: taxation with distorted representation and no service. That is even worse than the situation before the American Revolution. Let there be an economic meltdown and a government that doesn't have a clue that things are miserable, and Americans will be extremely angry. In 2006 Americans were disgusted with corruption and a bungled war. Those were easy to solve; change the politicians.

Citizens United is the absolute worst decision of the Supreme Court. Dred Scott and Plessy v. Ferguson simply ratified what was already so. Citizens United has facilitated the transformation of our representative democracy into a plutocratic oligarchy. If I were thirty years younger I would emigrate. If I had children I would encourage them to emigrate. The United States may have seen its last good days.

This is a time for Millennials, not Boomers, to drive the process, but that doesn't mean driving it in a conventional way by voting for candidates that Blue Boomers would prefer. Our generation has really already done its job, by dramatically revising the consensus values in the Awakening and Unraveling eras. I think we did a pretty good job of that, ably assisted by Xers of course, but at this point the best we can do is get out of the way -- maybe offering a few sage words of advice from time to time.

The current clique of Boom leadership has had its time and proved extremely wanting. It shows the worst traits of an Idealist generation -- ruthlessness, selfishness, and arrogance. If it has religion it has used it on behalf of superstition and inequality. It has used education to twist learning into indoctrination. If it has culture... OK, Steven Spielberg has no political power. I look at the corporate elite of Boom executives and I see rapacious exploiters who demand to be seen as benefactors -- which is how Transcendental slave masters insisted upon being seen outside the South.

Some Boomers have been shut out of political influence (I know enough to avoid contacting 'my' Congressman on any issue); what is to say that they might not guide younger adults on the fine points of social democracy?

The Republicans will be able to do more damage than before; they already have, by putting destruction into the budget bill. Much of our environmental protection, and regulations against financial gambling and buying of elections, has already been stripped. Through further blackmail of this kind they can do further damage. For the rest, we depend on Obama and the filibuster to block Republican outrage. Also, Obama will not be able to make any appointments from now on. But he is also the only person in government who can accomplish anything constructive in the next 2 years, by executive order according to the law.

Expect nothing whatever of value from congress this term, and probably not until at least 2021. Generations are totally irrelevant. It is not time for anyone of any generation to "get out of the way and make room for others," unless they personally feel too old, tired, uninterested, incompetent, or conservative. The only politicians we need to get out of the way are Republicans; and if possible, Democrats In Name Only (DINOs; true dinosaurs). This is not a generational question at all. It is totally an ideological and party question. Good leaders will be needed from all generations to help take us through the Crisis, which potentially is a gateway to a more just and creative nation.

Originally Posted by Ragnarök_62

I don't care for affirmative action and the no nukes thing. The "right to clean air/water" is a winner. Folks have no right to pollute my body with assorted emissions. Keeping religion out of the public sphere is also a winner.The negative income tax is an excellent idea. Now, if they'd support decrufting stuff that the Federal government should not be doing, that would be real good.

I don't know what a "negative income tax" is. I favor pretty much the current system, made somewhat-more progressive.

Abolish the Department of Education. Local school boards and teachers know a lot more on what is needed. Teachers are educated on how to convey knowledge, not fill out bureaucratic paperwork to send to Washington.

Abolish Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac/VA housing stuff. These enable sprawl and are earmarks for the housing industry

I wonder why they haven't mentioned closing down useless military bases along with their position on useless military hardware.

I'm not sure your more-conservative positions on these issues were covered on the test though. Nukes, the Dept of Education and Fannie Mae were not mentioned iirc. Perhaps I am more liberal than you on affirmative action, since I support it, though only moderately. You may have some residual beliefs in trickle-down economics to look at, judging by your score. Notice that the Republican Party got a big fat zero on my score. There was no way for me to plan or engineer that.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

I don't know what a "negative income tax" is. I favor pretty much the current system, made somewhat-more progressive.

We already have a real wonky version of a NIT with the Earned Income Tax Credit. It's more of a complement to the income tax system than a supplement, since it involves giving people money instead of taking it away. I'd personally prefer a guaranteed basic income as it's more simple, but NITs would still be a net positive for the poor if done properly.

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

Another way of putting it is that many people recognize that things must get really bad before people insist on pervasive change.

Uh -- no. That has absolutely nothing to do with anything I said. Clearly, you didn't get it.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Expect nothing whatever of value from congress this term, and probably not until at least 2021.

True enough, but the same would be true if the Democrats had done much better last year. It's inevitable.

Why? Two reasons, one cultural, the other built into the Constitution. The cultural factor is the oddball culture of the white South, which has always -- from the very beginning -- been at odds with and hostile to mainstream American values. To paraphrase Lincoln, what this oddball subculture wants and has always wanted is that government of the people, by the people, and for the people SHALL perish from the Earth. The subculture is more comfortable with an oligarchy and doesn't like democracy.

The structural reason is that the Constitution permits a minority to exercise veto power over the majority. It can't legislate, but it can prevent legislation.

There are also two reasons why all this is more of a problem now than in the past. One, paradoxically, is that the white Southern subculture is weaker than it has ever been. It sees its own mortality, and this gives it a circle the wagons mentality and a willingness to use scorched-earth tactics. It was more willing to compromise in the past, except for the brief secession period when the mindset was similar even though the subculture was much stronger (it was not threatened as such, but the institution of slavery was).

The other reason is the weirdness of party politics in the U.S. After the Civil War, the Democratic Party was the party of Southern whites, hardly ever able to win national elections but able to monkey-wrench the legislative gears the way the Republicans do now. That changed beginning with the Franklin Roosevelt administration. For a while, Southern whites stayed with the Democrats even as the party left their values behind, and could be rallied behind legislative action on many shared efforts. Today, Southern whites have moved to the GOP, and we are back to the same situation as after the Civil War, only with the party labels switched.

The only solution to this is for the oddball white Southern subculture to be completely discredited and become politically dead. Until then, we won't be able to accomplish much at the federal level and federal elections won't matter much except as damage control. Real change will happen through petitions, referendums and initiatives, and action at the state and local level, as well as internationally.

Originally Posted by Hutch74

I'm not sure how this is relevant any more than the GOP map that shows 80% (or whatever high figure it is) of Americas land represented by Republicans. One Republican represents the entire states of Wyoming and thats a large area.

2 Democratic Senators represent the most populous state-California (you also have New York, Pennsylvania, Illinois) so of course total vote for the Dems might be higher. I guess both parties have to trot out something that makes them feel good.

Personally, I like the system as it is. Constitutional Republic, checks and balances, give the states (even the smaller ones) a bit of say. Tyranny of the minority by the majority should also include California not being able to throw its weight around to say Rhode Island. It's worked generally for over 200 years.

Except we now have the opposite of the tyranny of the majority. The empty square states have undue sway, and the system, already rigged to do nothing rather than something, plays in favor of the square-state conservative bent.

The tyranny is there, but it's the majority getting dumped on by the minority. To achieve a true Progressive swing, the electorate will have to be roughly 60% Progressive, an distributed at least well enough to offset the square-state problem.

Skipping comments on the sections I agree with in near totality, I'll stick to these points.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

... Regarding the 2016 presidential election, that will be decided in the Democratic primaries. No GOP candidate who can win the nomination can also win the election. So for the presidency at least, the important question is who the Democrats will nominate. Of course, see above re the Civil War; that may not be an important consideration yet. The numbers say the Dems will retake the Senate next year, too; the House is a bit harder to call. That may or may not go blue.

This is a time for Millennials, not Boomers, to drive the process, but that doesn't mean driving it in a conventional way by voting for candidates that Blue Boomers would prefer. Our generation has really already done its job, by dramatically revising the consensus values in the Awakening and Unraveling eras. I think we did a pretty good job of that, ably assisted by Xers of course, but at this point the best we can do is get out of the way -- maybe offering a few sage words of advice from time to time.

There are really several different scenarios here.

First, we have the potential for a duel between the House of Bush and the House of Clinton. Starting with the most obvious point: neither of these two will appeal to Millies, and finsihing with another obvious point: neither is llikely or may be even capable of doing anything other than promote more corporatism. Clinton will attract some white males and Bush will certainly attract some Hispanics. They seem to be a wash there. The real impact will be the down-ticket races. If the Millies stay home and low turnout happens, this could be a rout for the GOP ... again.

Second, looking at the other potential candidates, none of them looks shiny and new either. Either party could go terminally stupid, but the less-stupid party will still have a hard time motivating the Millies. This plays-out as another 4 years of gridlock ... or worse.

Third, either of these results could finally trigger a serious third-party effort. EW will lbring out the Millies better than anyone else, but she seems unwilling to run. I don't see Bernis Sanders runing, but Howard Dean might. None can win, so the race goes to the GOP candidate, but the down-ticket races might shift left, dramatically.

So we just don't know. I would feel more positive in Hillary would walk away, but a Democrat losing in 2016 is a lot better than a loss in 2020.

Interesting you mention 60% progressive. Not that the Democratic supermajority in 2009-2010 was fully progressive by any means with its 60 votes in the Senate, but the 60 votes were there. Of course, while the Republican party has redefined itself over the years, the same hasn't occured in the Democratic party. And even so, some of these 'empty square states', have elected Democratic Senators.

It seems to me the Democratic party is long overdue for reinventing itself, and that probably includes tossing out some of your long-time members.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

Except we now have the opposite of the tyranny of the majority. The empty square states have undue sway, and the system, already rigged to do nothing rather than something, plays in favor of the square-state conservative bent.

The tyranny is there, but it's the majority getting dumped on by the minority. To achieve a true Progressive swing, the electorate will have to be roughly 60% Progressive, an distributed at least well enough to offset the square-state problem.

The voters will likely ask this question-which is the lesser of two evils?

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

I don't know what a "negative income tax" is. I favor pretty much the current system, made somewhat-more progressive.

and

Originally Posted by Bronco80

We already have a real wonky version of a NIT with the Earned Income Tax Credit. It's more of a complement to the income tax system than a supplement, since it involves giving people money instead of taking it away. I'd personally prefer a guaranteed basic income as it's more simple, but NITs would still be a net positive for the poor if done properly.

1. Yes, it would be a modified variant of the EITC. The only difference is that unemployed folks, disability folks, etc. would be able to file. The income wouldn't have to be "earned". I'd keep the IRS as the enforcer since they do a good job in ferreting out fraud.
2. As for Bronco's stuff, you need to know what the individual/families' base income is to begin with. Again, that supports the use of the IRS, since they already get the documentation right now.
3. for Bronco80: How do you keep folks from goldbricking? Why work when you'll just get something anyhow?
Now this is something I know about. I'd drop my minimum wage job in a heartbeat and just go with my IRA withdrawals as my base income. Sorry Bronco80, if there's a way to doing stuff like goldbricking , I'll do it. You see, the Jones cohorts of your generation can be very resourceful if need be.

I'm not sure your more-conservative positions on these issues were covered on the test though.

Nope, not on the test except perhaps the nuke one.

the Dept of Education and Fannie Mae were not mentioned iirc.

Nope, those weren't on the test, though I think the should be.
Dept. of Education = Federal bureaucrats meddling in something I think belongs strictly at the local level.
Fannie Mae/Freddy Mac/some parts of the VA/HUD = corporate welfare for the housing industry/Realtors.

Perhaps I am more liberal than you on affirmative action, since I support it, though only moderately.

Yes, because it's a lightning rod, IMHO. Since I fail the "one drop" rule, do I deserve a preference?
We know that our African American brethren didn't get here voluntarily. So they got screwed.
We also know some of my ancestors got screwed from the Indian Removal act.
We also know homosexuals got screwed most likely from doctrinaire religious teachings.
There's probably others I forgot.

So, when choosing from assorted groups who got screwed, I fail to see how a fair allotment can be make amongst the aforementioned set of screwed groups. Now then you add European Americans, that adds another group that in theory didn't get screwed having to atone for past screwings.

You may have some residual beliefs in trickle-down economics to look at, judging by your score. Notice that the Republican Party got a big fat zero on my score. There was no way for me to plan or engineer that.

Not really, my guess is that questions like affirmative action added to my Republican score.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

The Republicans will be able to do more damage than before; they already have, by putting destruction into the budget bill. Much of our environmental protection, and regulations against financial gambling and buying of elections, has already been stripped. Through further blackmail of this kind they can do further damage. For the rest, we depend on Obama and the filibuster to block Republican outrage. Also, Obama will not be able to make any appointments from now on. But he is also the only person in government who can accomplish anything constructive in the next 2 years, by executive order according to the law.

Expect nothing whatever of value from congress this term, and probably not until at least 2021. Generations are totally irrelevant. It is not time for anyone of any generation to "get out of the way and make room for others," unless they personally feel too old, tired, uninterested, incompetent, or conservative. The only politicians we need to get out of the way are Republicans; and if possible, Democrats In Name Only (DINOs; true dinosaurs). This is not a generational question at all. It is totally an ideological and party question. Good leaders will be needed from all generations to help take us through the Crisis, which potentially is a gateway to a more just and creative nation.

At least you will not be disappointed . I am expecting some positive results because many Republicans understand that the voters are unhappy with Washington politicians in general, and there will be another election in 2016.
Since the new Congress has not convened, they deserve a few days to see what they do.

Originally Posted by radind

At least you will not be disappointed . I am expecting some positive results because many Republicans understand that the voters are unhappy with Washington politicians in general, and there will be another election in 2016.
Since the new Congress has not convened, they deserve a few days to see what they do.

The Republicans could conceivably go pragmatic. Maybe they will try to make some outreach that they have not done since 2000.

So far I see no indication that the Republican Party has learned anything from the catastrophic failure of the Rove/Cheney/Bush Administration except to be more ruthless, devious, and decisive. So far key Republicans have endorsed the sorts of financial hustles that created a speculative boom that made one of the severest panics in American history possible. They sound as reckless as ever, which is bad enough whatever the ideology. If they start a War for Profits they will go full-bore on brutality toward the enemy and (in view of how rank-and-file Republicans believe), turn up the torture.

If I am to predict what Republicans will have as their legislative agenda, then I need only look at what the backers of Freedom Works, Club for Growth, and Americans for Prosperity want. I predict a reliance upon the enrichment of elites at the cost of great loss to everyone else with the promise of economic miracles. If there are no miracles, then what matters most is to be achieved and maintained indefinitely. I predict efforts to eviscerate unions if not outlaw them. I predict every possible removal of environmental and occupational safety laws on the assumption that such frustrate "growth". They will try to change the tax laws to force more of the burden of taxes onto the non-rich while greatly reducing the tax burden upon the rich and destroy the social safety net so that people will have more incentive to work longer, harder, and under harsher conditions for much less.

The Republican Party is a coalition of radical libertarians who want no government activity in the economy -- including efforts to create and enforce crony capitalism, rapacious elites out only for themselves who happen to be the most blatant materialists who ever lived, and Protestant fundamentalists who believe that the only moral way to live is to suffer in This World to deserve delights in the Next World. Contradictions between those groups will become obvious quickly. Libertarians believe in the freedom to indulge in sex (with the aid of contraception and abortion) for pleasure even if the sex is between two men or between two women -- all of which runs afoul of the Religious Right, which deems that sex is strictly for procreation as Divine Law. Liberals believe in academic freedom, but that could run afoul of both the Religious Right (which wants school prayer and the promotion of young-earth creationism through political fiat). The Corporate Right thrives more completely upon crony capitalism than upon free markets; such demands that the government favor pre-determined winners over losers as a free market does not that runs afoul of libertarianism. Although acquiescence in whatever human suffering happens as the Will of God because such reflects the inscrutable and necessary choice of God, the Religious Right will have trouble with Corporate America dealing in gambling, booze, pornography, and blasphemous entertainment because such are profitable.

Liberals and socialists of course get nothing but pain interspersed with some gallows humor for now... and vague hope that their time will be back.

Originally Posted by radind

At least you will not be disappointed . I am expecting some positive results because many Republicans understand that the voters are unhappy with Washington politicians in general, and there will be another election in 2016.
Since the new Congress has not convened, they deserve a few days to see what they do.

I don't see how there could be much positive result, since their announced priorities are all negative. At best, they might work with Democrats to do a couple of things they have already failed to do with Democrats (infrastructure funding, corporate tax reform). The hope that Republicans might "understand" something like what you mention, has to be balanced with the fact that there are more of them, and they thus have more power to continue acting as they have acted, if they so choose.

Originally Posted by TimWalker

The voters will likely ask this question-which is the lesser of two evils?

That's a pretty safe prediction.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

True enough, but the same would be true if the Democrats had done much better last year. It's inevitable.

So it seems.

Why? Two reasons, one cultural, the other built into the Constitution. The cultural factor is the oddball culture of the white South, which has always -- from the very beginning -- been at odds with and hostile to mainstream American values. To paraphrase Lincoln, what this oddball subculture wants and has always wanted is that government of the people, by the people, and for the people SHALL perish from the Earth. The subculture is more comfortable with an oligarchy and doesn't like democracy.

Quite so. Left-over aristocracy.

The structural reason is that the Constitution permits a minority to exercise veto power over the majority. It can't legislate, but it can prevent legislation.

There are also two reasons why all this is more of a problem now than in the past. One, paradoxically, is that the white Southern subculture is weaker than it has ever been. It sees its own mortality, and this gives it a circle the wagons mentality and a willingness to use scorched-earth tactics. It was more willing to compromise in the past, except for the brief secession period when the mindset was similar even though the subculture was much stronger (it was not threatened as such, but the institution of slavery was).

Yes.

The other reason is the weirdness of party politics in the U.S. After the Civil War, the Democratic Party was the party of Southern whites, hardly ever able to win national elections but able to monkey-wrench the legislative gears the way the Republicans do now. That changed beginning with the Franklin Roosevelt administration. For a while, Southern whites stayed with the Democrats even as the party left their values behind, and could be rallied behind legislative action on many shared efforts. Today, Southern whites have moved to the GOP, and we are back to the same situation as after the Civil War, only with the party labels switched.

I would date the change in Democrats to the populist party campaign in 1892 and its takeover of the Democrats in 1896. The populist platform of 1892 was to a large extent a blueprint for the New Deal. Woodrow Wilson was to some extent a progressive Democrat. The Republicans moved right over the same years, starting with McKinley. Reagan is practically a retread of Harding, Coolidge and Hoover. Reagan even had a picture of Coolidge put up in the White House. The geographic switch of parties was made in the 1960s. This started in 1964 when several southern states voted for Goldwater, and others trended that way, followed by Nixon's southern strategy. It took some decades but now the switch is complete.

The only solution to this is for the oddball white Southern subculture to be completely discredited and become politically dead. Until then, we won't be able to accomplish much at the federal level and federal elections won't matter much except as damage control. Real change will happen through petitions, referendums and initiatives, and action at the state and local level, as well as internationally.

Yes, and I hope people in some states will end gerrymandering. We did it here in CA; why not elsewhere? By just CA doing that it decreased the Republican count in the House by 4.

Originally Posted by Ragnarök_62

1. Yes, it would be a modified variant of the EITC. The only difference is that unemployed folks, disability folks, etc. would be able to file. The income wouldn't have to be "earned". I'd keep the IRS as the enforcer since they do a good job in ferreting out fraud.
2. As for Bronco's stuff, you need to know what the individual/families' base income is to begin with. Again, that supports the use of the IRS, since they already get the documentation right now.
3. for Bronco80: How do you keep folks from goldbricking? Why work when you'll just get something anyhow?
Now this is something I know about. I'd drop my minimum wage job in a heartbeat and just go with my IRA withdrawals as my base income. Sorry Bronco80, if there's a way to doing stuff like goldbricking , I'll do it. You see, the Jones cohorts of your generation can be very resourceful if need be.

1. The IRS can usually tax cash income. It can rarely tax non-cash income such as room and board for an unemployed person who lives with relatives and does most of the housework, childcare, and ordinary shopping.

2. Work on the books, and the IRS can withhold income.

3. Higher income means the ability to buy more or better goodies. So long as the marginal tax rate is under 100% one has an incentive to work

Dept. of Education = Federal bureaucrats meddling in something I think belongs strictly at the local level.
Fannie Mae/Freddy Mac/some parts of the VA/HUD = corporate welfare for the housing industry/Realtors.

The only rationale for the Department of Education is to establish standards so that completing fifth grade in Columbus, Georgia means that one is ready to begin sixth grade in Columbus, Nebraska, to do federal research on educational techniques, and to monitor the use of federally-supplied grants and loans to students.

Yes, because it's a lightning rod, IMHO. Since I fail the "one drop" rule, do I deserve a preference?
We know that our African American brethren didn't get here voluntarily. So they got screwed.
We also know some of my ancestors got screwed from the Indian Removal act.
We also know homosexuals got screwed most likely from doctrinaire religious teachings.
There's probably others I forgot.

The poor who live in loud, cramped living spaces who cannot concentrate on homework. Poverty correlates strongly to educational under-performance. With poverty often come chaotic lives, malnutrition, and families hostile to learning.

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

The Republicans could conceivably go pragmatic. Maybe they will try to make some outreach that they have not done since 2000.

So far I see no indication that the Republican Party has learned anything from the catastrophic failure of the Rove/Cheney/Bush Administration except to be more ruthless, devious, and decisive. So far key Republicans have endorsed the sorts of financial hustles that created a speculative boom that made one of the severest panics in American history possible. They sound as reckless as ever, which is bad enough whatever the ideology. If they start a War for Profits they will go full-bore on brutality toward the enemy and (in view of how rank-and-file Republicans believe), turn up the torture.

If I am to predict what Republicans will have as their legislative agenda, then I need only look at what the backers of Freedom Works, Club for Growth, and Americans for Prosperity want. I predict a reliance upon the enrichment of elites at the cost of great loss to everyone else with the promise of economic miracles. If there are no miracles, then what matters most is to be achieved and maintained indefinitely. I predict efforts to eviscerate unions if not outlaw them. I predict every possible removal of environmental and occupational safety laws on the assumption that such frustrate "growth". They will try to change the tax laws to force more of the burden of taxes onto the non-rich while greatly reducing the tax burden upon the rich and destroy the social safety net so that people will have more incentive to work longer, harder, and under harsher conditions for much less.

The Republican Party is a coalition of radical libertarians who want no government activity in the economy -- including efforts to create and enforce crony capitalism, rapacious elites out only for themselves who happen to be the most blatant materialists who ever lived, and Protestant fundamentalists who believe that the only moral way to live is to suffer in This World to deserve delights in the Next World. Contradictions between those groups will become obvious quickly. Libertarians believe in the freedom to indulge in sex (with the aid of contraception and abortion) for pleasure even if the sex is between two men or between two women -- all of which runs afoul of the Religious Right, which deems that sex is strictly for procreation as Divine Law. Liberals believe in academic freedom, but that could run afoul of both the Religious Right (which wants school prayer and the promotion of young-earth creationism through political fiat). The Corporate Right thrives more completely upon crony capitalism than upon free markets; such demands that the government favor pre-determined winners over losers as a free market does not that runs afoul of libertarianism. Although acquiescence in whatever human suffering happens as the Will of God because such reflects the inscrutable and necessary choice of God, the Religious Right will have trouble with Corporate America dealing in gambling, booze, pornography, and blasphemous entertainment because such are profitable.

Liberals and socialists of course get nothing but pain interspersed with some gallows humor for now... and vague hope that their time will be back.

I have a different take on the current religious state of America. In my opinion, the country is actuallly mostly secular at a deep level and shows little evidence of a true Biblical worldview. The predominate impression of a Christian nation seems to me largely an illusion( a carryover from days long past).

i see the young earth group as a diminishing minority. in my opinion the polls showing large number of Christians are mostly counting nominal Christians with ties to old traditions.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

I don't see how there could be much positive result, since their announced priorities are all negative. At best, they might work with Democrats to do a couple of things they have already failed to do with Democrats (infrastructure funding, corporate tax reform). The hope that Republicans might "understand" something like what you mention, has to be balanced with the fact that there are more of them, and they thus have more power to continue acting as they have acted, if they so choose.

If they act as you predict, I predict a rout of the Republicans in 2016.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

Why? Two reasons, one cultural, the other built into the Constitution. The cultural factor is the oddball culture of the white South, which has always -- from the very beginning -- been at odds with and hostile to mainstream American values. To paraphrase Lincoln, what this oddball subculture wants and has always wanted is that government of the people, by the people, and for the people SHALL perish from the Earth. The subculture is more comfortable with an oligarchy and doesn't like democracy.

The South was settled by aristocratic gentlemen who preferred lives of ease to earning money from trades or commerce. Many were the second sons of aristocratic families accustomed to leaving the work to peasants. They typically got large land grants as inducements to emigrate to the New World. The older son would get the old estate in (typically southwestern) England and keep the bonded farm laborers. But what is a giant estate worth if one does not have peasants to do the farm work or raise the livestock? First there were white indentured servants, but they had some problems. Many would themselves expire before their term of indenture expired. Eventually came slaves to solve the labor shortage.

Poor whites have typically thought themselves entitled to superior positions in life to blacks of any kind in the South. A middle-class black like Barack Obama is an extreme affront to lower-class white self-esteem, particularly in the South. How low the percentage of whites voting for Barack Obama in most Southern states in 2008 and 2012 is just amazing.

It is hard to see what tangible benefits poor whites get from voting with the reactionary agricultural interests who still dominate Southern politics. On the other side, middle-class blacks, Hispanics, and Asians vote heavily Democratic, probably out of distrust of the Southern agrarian elite that creates much of the political culture of the GOP.

The structural reason is that the Constitution permits a minority to exercise veto power over the majority. It can't legislate, but it can prevent legislation.

Which means that votes largely on partisan lines invariably fail. The Senate filibuster may be all that stops some reckless, corrupt, or folly-laden legislation. But with partisan polarization so severe as it now is, there won't be much bipartisan legislation of substance. Republicans might want to pass a national Right-to-Work (for starvation wages only) law as the Koch family wants,but it will die in a Senate filibuster. Likewise an abortion ban, mandatory school prayer, replacement of evolution with young-earth creationism in schools, outlawry of homosexuality, etc. go nowhere.

We can expect vituperative debate but gridlock until one of the two Parties knocks its opposition into impotency. Then history moves fast, and either gloriously or horribly depending on which side one is on.

But know well: the economic elites are themselves in political lockstep. So it is with the Southern agrarian magnates, tycoons, and executives... all infamous for their potential for extreme exploitation of the helpless. They have their vision for the American worker: helpless, scared, obedient, undemanding, and hungry. Those elites would love the power of life and death over workers, and whether the means of death is slow starvation or a hanging matters little. Fear is the perfect tool for owners and bosses who have no conscience, empathy, or scruples. It would be redundant to tell you what political constellation creates my nightmare, one that people in their sixties will not survive unless they are complicit.

There are also two reasons why all this is more of a problem now than in the past. One, paradoxically, is that the white Southern subculture is weaker than it has ever been. It sees its own mortality, and this gives it a circle the wagons mentality and a willingness to use scorched-earth tactics. It was more willing to compromise in the past, except for the brief secession period when the mindset was similar even though the subculture was much stronger (it was not threatened as such, but the institution of slavery was).

One aspect of such is that whites in the South are generally monocultural. Just contrast the phone books in a small town in the North or the South. In the North one can expect to see plenty of surnames not associated with the British Isles. German, of course, but some Italian, Polish, Scandinavian, Greek -- but those surnames are rare in the rural South. Louisiana is an obvious exception due to the French surnames... To be sure, Southern whites typically got to know people who looked little like them, but the word for them rhymed with the name of Roy Rogers' horse.

The other reason is the weirdness of party politics in the U.S. After the Civil War, the Democratic Party was the party of Southern whites, hardly ever able to win national elections but able to monkey-wrench the legislative gears the way the Republicans do now. That changed beginning with the Franklin Roosevelt administration. For a while, Southern whites stayed with the Democrats even as the party left their values behind, and could be rallied behind legislative action on many shared efforts. Today, Southern whites have moved to the GOP, and we are back to the same situation as after the Civil War, only with the party labels switched.


The only solution to this is for the oddball white Southern subculture to be completely discredited and become politically dead. Until then, we won't be able to accomplish much at the federal level and federal elections won't matter much except as damage control. Real change will happen through petitions, referendums and initiatives, and action at the state and local level, as well as internationally.

Without the South (which now likely excludes Florida and Virginia), the United States would probably alternate between a conservative-democratic party and a social-democratic party. Now it has a conservative party and a party going far to the right. Poor Southern whites don't realize it, but they are being exploited badly. The more that they support reactionary ideas, the more they will get the shaft. But once they give up on the idea that they are entitled to be better off than anyone non-white and that non-whites, especially Southern blacks, are their brethren and not rivals in economic interests, the Southern Right is cooked politically.

Here's how I did:

Total 68%
Social 55%
Economic 80%
picture Barack Obama
Democratic incumbent President; IL Senator (2004-2008) Barack Obama's answers
Barack Obama's stances
Biographical Profile
Total 65%
Social 55%
Economic 75%
picture Joe Biden
Vice President; previously Democratic Senator (DE) Joe Biden's answers
Joe Biden's stances
Biographical Profile
Total 63%
Social 50%
Economic 75%
picture Hillary Clinton
Secretary of State; previously Democratic Senator (NY) Hillary Clinton's answers
Hillary Clinton's stances
Biographical Profile
Total 63%
Social 65%
Economic 60%
picture Bernie Sanders
Socialist Jr Senator; previously Representative (VT-At-Large) Bernie Sanders's answers
Bernie Sanders's stances
Biographical Profile
Total 45%
Social 35%
Economic 55%
picture Brian Schweitzer
Democratic MT Governor Brian Schweitzer's answers
Brian Schweitzer's stances
Biographical Profile
Total 38%
Social 40%
Economic 35%
picture Scott Keller
Independent Challenger Scott Keller's answers
Scott Keller's stances
Biographical Profile
Total 33%
Social 25%
Economic 40%
picture Chris Christie
Republican Governor Chris Christie's answers
Chris Christie's stances
Biographical Profile
Total 23%
Social 25%
Economic 20%
picture Jeb Bush
Republican FL Governor; V.P. prospect Jeb Bush's answers
Jeb Bush's stances
Biographical Profile
Total 18%
Social 25%
Economic 10%
picture John Bolton
Republican 2016 Primary Challenger John Bolton's answers
John Bolton's stances
Biographical Profile
Total 18%
Social 30%
Economic 5%
picture Rand Paul
Republican 2016 Primary Challenger Rand Paul's answers
Rand Paul's stances
Biographical Profile
Total 15%
Social 20%
Economic 10%
picture Ben Carson
Republican 2016 Primary Challenger Ben Carson's answers
Ben Carson's stances
Biographical Profile
Total 15%
Social 5%
Economic 25%
picture Peter King
Rep./Ind./Cons./Right-To-Life Representative (NY-3) Peter King's answers
Peter King's stances
Biographical Profile
Total 13%
Social 15%
Economic 10%
picture Rob Portman
Republican Jr Senator; previously Representative (OH-2) Rob Portman's answers
Rob Portman's stances
Biographical Profile
Total 10%
Social 10%
Economic 10%
picture Ted Cruz
Republican 2016 Primary Challenger Ted Cruz's answers
Ted Cruz's stances
Biographical Profile
Total 8%
Social 0%
Economic 15%
picture Marco Rubio
Republican Senator (FL) Marco Rubio's answers
Marco Rubio's stances
Biographical Profile

Originally Posted by Bronco80

We already have a real wonky version of a NIT with the Earned Income Tax Credit. It's more of a complement to the income tax system than a supplement, since it involves giving people money instead of taking it away. I'd personally prefer a guaranteed basic income as it's more simple, but NITs would still be a net positive for the poor if done properly.

Anything to add complexity, apparently. I agree, a Basic Income for all is the right approach, but money will go to "those people", so it won't happen.

Originally Posted by Hutch74

Interesting you mention 60% progressive. Not that the Democratic supermajority in 2009-2010 was fully progressive by any means with its 60 votes in the Senate, but the 60 votes were there. Of course, while the Republican party has redefined itself over the years, the same hasn't occured in the Democratic party. And even so, some of these 'empty square states', have elected Democratic Senators.

It seems to me the Democratic party is long overdue for reinventing itself, and that probably includes tossing out some of your long-time members.

I'm not a Democrat, but I have voted for them in the past as the lesser evil. There was a time that the Dems were actually pretty forward looking, but that ended with Richard Nixon's successful war on liberalism. I agree with you about reinvention. The next period of advancement needs a party to drive it, and there isn't one.

Originally Posted by radind

I have a different take on the current religious state of America. In my opinion, the country is actuallly mostly secular at a deep level and shows little evidence of a true Biblical worldview. The predominate impression of a Christian nation seems to me largely an illusion( a carryover from days long past).

i see the young earth group as a diminishing minority. in my opinion the polls showing large number of Christians are mostly counting nominal Christians with ties to old traditions.

I'm buried in Fundies here in Jerry Falwell's hometown. Even the well educated are likely to be young-earthers.