The Many Faces of US Politics...

[whitey]

No I didn't describe Charlie Barker as Tea Party - nor did I describe everyone who won in 2014 as Tea Party - but it seems intellectual honesty has gone out the window here. I said the vast majority of the current crop of Republican governors (which does not tie them to an election cycle nor is it a blanket statement) are in hock to the principles of Grover Norquist - and they are. Check it out for yourself - Grover has a pledge and everything 

Giving an example of 94 and 95 is completely dishonest as the political scene is far more divided now then it was then and you had the whole Reagan democrat thing going - that is not happening now. So no, I don't see a pattern, unlike the pattern I did see when I laid out the facts that of the 10 worst performing states in the country economically, 7 were led by Republican governors and 1 had just got rid of a Republican Governor. And the criteria measuring those rankings were an average of several different economic indices, not just credit rating in the bond market (you'll excuse me if I take the ratings of Moodys and Standards and Poor with a grain of salt, no matter what they indicate)

I would recommend you do some reading up before pinning your economic arguments to Reagan Democrats, rating agencies and right wing websites. I'd also recommend you do this reading before making demonstrably false and biased remarks like Democratic career politicians are worse economic managers than Republicans.

Lol....of course you ignored the CT part.

(I threw IL in for the craic and of course you rose to the bait)

Believe whatever you want

http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/business/2015/07/06/state-fiscal-health-pension-funds-report/29763379/

[seafoid]

Bill Kristol reportedly unveiling a Conservative Independent candidate for the General.

Trump must be shitting himself he has zero chance if the Republican vote is diluted in any way!!

Do you have a link for that?

[muppet]

Good man muppet. What is going on now in the states is no different to the Anglo bailout. The system works for the ultra rich and nobody else.

What happened Anglo was uneducated spoofers thought they could bluff the markets and went long on banks/property when everyone else was desperate to go short (The Big Short was at a very advanced stage by then).

That is a long way from the conspiracy you are suggesting is happening in the US. I said earlier that TARP would be a better argument for the case you are advancing but you seem to miss that all the time.

[seafoid]

Good man muppet. What is going on now in the states is no different to the Anglo bailout. The system works for the ultra rich and nobody else.

What happened Anglo was uneducated spoofers thought they could bluff the markets and went long on banks/property when everyone else was desperate to go short (The Big Short was at a very advanced stage by then).

That is a long way from the conspiracy you are suggesting is happening in the US. I said earlier that TARP would be a better argument for the case you are advancing but you seem to miss that all the time.

It was much bigger than Anglo.  Finance has been bailed out consistently going back to the 1980s. AIB failed twice and in both cases taxpayers ponied up. Greek bondholders were paid off in full. Hedge funds that bought Anglo debt for 30 cents on the Euro got paid the full euro. Moral Hazard is still rampant.

Now growth is impossible. Earnings and revenues are falling  in the US.

[muppet]

Good man muppet. What is going on now in the states is no different to the Anglo bailout. The system works for the ultra rich and nobody else.

What happened Anglo was uneducated spoofers thought they could bluff the markets and went long on banks/property when everyone else was desperate to go short (The Big Short was at a very advanced stage by then).

That is a long way from the conspiracy you are suggesting is happening in the US. I said earlier that TARP would be a better argument for the case you are advancing but you seem to miss that all the time.

It was much bigger than Anglo.  Finance has been bailed out consistently going back to the 1980s. AIB failed twice and in both cases taxpayers ponied up. Greek bondholders were paid off in full. Hedge funds that bought Anglo debt for 30 cents on the Euro got paid the full euro. Moral Hazard is still rampant.

Now growth is impossible. Earnings and revenues are falling  in the US.

B-b-b-but you were the one who brought up the Anglo bailout.

[seafoid]

Plámásing capital for so long is why the US and Eurozone can't have higher interest rates.

[easytiger95]

No I didn't describe Charlie Barker as Tea Party - nor did I describe everyone who won in 2014 as Tea Party - but it seems intellectual honesty has gone out the window here. I said the vast majority of the current crop of Republican governors (which does not tie them to an election cycle nor is it a blanket statement) are in hock to the principles of Grover Norquist - and they are. Check it out for yourself - Grover has a pledge and everything 

Giving an example of 94 and 95 is completely dishonest as the political scene is far more divided now then it was then and you had the whole Reagan democrat thing going - that is not happening now. So no, I don't see a pattern, unlike the pattern I did see when I laid out the facts that of the 10 worst performing states in the country economically, 7 were led by Republican governors and 1 had just got rid of a Republican Governor. And the criteria measuring those rankings were an average of several different economic indices, not just credit rating in the bond market (you'll excuse me if I take the ratings of Moodys and Standards and Poor with a grain of salt, no matter what they indicate)

I would recommend you do some reading up before pinning your economic arguments to Reagan Democrats, rating agencies and right wing websites. I'd also recommend you do this reading before making demonstrably false and biased remarks like Democratic career politicians are worse economic managers than Republicans.

Lol....of course you ignored the CT part.

(I threw IL in for the craic and of course you rose to the bait)

Believe whatever you want

http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/business/2015/07/06/state-fiscal-health-pension-funds-report/29763379/

Ah. I see - anytime I call you on your inconsistencies, you were just having "the craic"...(backs slowly away)

I suppose I should know better than to expect logic from a Republican. I don't "believe" - I research it from credible sources and make my choices from there. It is the Republican penchant to conflate evidence with "belief" which gave us trickledown economics, WMDs and snowballs in Congress.

[whitey]

No I didn't describe Charlie Barker as Tea Party - nor did I describe everyone who won in 2014 as Tea Party - but it seems intellectual honesty has gone out the window here. I said the vast majority of the current crop of Republican governors (which does not tie them to an election cycle nor is it a blanket statement) are in hock to the principles of Grover Norquist - and they are. Check it out for yourself - Grover has a pledge and everything 

Giving an example of 94 and 95 is completely dishonest as the political scene is far more divided now then it was then and you had the whole Reagan democrat thing going - that is not happening now. So no, I don't see a pattern, unlike the pattern I did see when I laid out the facts that of the 10 worst performing states in the country economically, 7 were led by Republican governors and 1 had just got rid of a Republican Governor. And the criteria measuring those rankings were an average of several different economic indices, not just credit rating in the bond market (you'll excuse me if I take the ratings of Moodys and Standards and Poor with a grain of salt, no matter what they indicate)

I would recommend you do some reading up before pinning your economic arguments to Reagan Democrats, rating agencies and right wing websites. I'd also recommend you do this reading before making demonstrably false and biased remarks like Democratic career politicians are worse economic managers than Republicans.

Lol....of course you ignored the CT part.

(I threw IL in for the craic and of course you rose to the bait)

Believe whatever you want

http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/business/2015/07/06/state-fiscal-health-pension-funds-report/29763379/

Ah. I see - anytime I call you on your inconsistencies, you were just having "the craic"...(backs slowly away)

I suppose I should know better than to expect logic from a Republican. I don't "believe" - I research it from credible sources and make my choices from there. It is the Republican penchant to conflate evidence with "belief" which gave us trickledown economics, WMDs and snowballs in Congress.

How are the Unicorns keeping these days???

Isn't that the word you used to describe Republican governors of Democratic States?

When presented with evidence to the contrary, you start renting and raving about trickle down economics and WMD's.

IL, MA and Maryland.......the bluest of a the bluest states elected REPUBLICAN governors last time out. MA has elected Republicans in 4 of the last 5 elections.  CT 2 out of 3 (and 3/4 if you count an Independent Republican, Lowell Weicker.

Chris Christie has been the governor NJ since 2010 and WI which has voted Democrat in the last SEVEN Presidential elections has had  Scott Walker as governor since 2011.


Pat the unicorn on the head for me, next time you go out to feed him

[easytiger95]

Yes, I was ranting and raving - and one of the unicorns told me that republicans have a far better economic record than democrats. What is your My Little Pony name Whitey?

[easytiger95]

Whitey you where trying to say that  Bernie Sanders lack of private sector experience means he will perform poorly in office.

Then you turn it into a Dem v Rep thing based on your own presumptions that more democrats are career politicians than republicans.

Firslty Bernie Sanders isnt even a proper Democrat.

Secondly even though its irrelevant I am sure you give us a break down of politicians private sector experience v party allegiance.

Thirdly once you've proved that Im sure you could give us another break down of states economic performance v their politicians political allegiance.

It should be easy enough to prove on way or the other. But I suspect that its a typical political soundbite designed to appeal to popularity as most people work in the private sector and resent the security, stability, rights and benefits of public sector workers, and are frustrated when dealing with the methodical and bureaucratic nature of public services. So when you throw all of that in together people assume that public sector workers dont have a clue how the real world works, however that is based on nothing more than a presumption of the masses. But sure its a usefull way to disparage politicians so who cares if its right or wrong

Again...this is a discussion page, therefore one expresses opinions. My opinions (in my opinion) are very well backed up by facts, even though you may interpret the facts differently than I do.

States run by career politicians (mainly, but not exclusively Democrats) have serious issues with deficits, entitlements and spending that they ignored for decades in an effort to cling to power.

In the sames way that Republicans demonize immigrants and welfare recipients, Democrats demonize high earners and big business. 

Now we have a self styled socialist, career politician, whos playing the class envy card running for office, and you think he will be all of a sudden become fiscally conservative (or at least moderate).....I just cant see it, but agiain thats just my opinion, which is about as valid as yours

Sorry Whitey, have to call BS on this.

http://uk.businessinsider.com/state-economy-ranking-q4-2015-2016-1?r=US&IR=T

This is a link for the states (including DC) economic performance in the final 2 quarters of 2015 - worst performers below

51 - West VA - Democratic Governor
50 - New Mexico - Republican Governor
49 - Oklahoma - Republican Governor
48 - Louisana - Democratic governor (but given the raging dumpster fire that was the state's finances after Jindal, you could almost mark this one red)
47 - Wyoming - Republican governor
46 - Mississippi - Republican governor
45 - Alabama - Republican governor
44 - Arkansas - Republican governor
43 - North Dakota - Republican governor
42 - Missouri - Democratic governor

Anyone else see a pattern emerging? It was the same proportion for the first two quarters of 2015 - 7 red states and 3 blue states in the bottom ten, just some different names - like Christie in NJ and Brownback in Kansas.

Being a career politician has nothing to do with poor economic performance (even though the Republicans are stuffed to the gills with careerists, much as they like to portray themselves as gallant Tea Party outsiders). Poor economic performance comes from poor choices informed by ideology of trickle down, austerity, cutting taxes and hollowing out the state. And if that ideololgy hasn't been discredited by the decline of American cities and infrastructure over the past thirty years, it should surely have been consigned to the dustbin of history after the European experience of the past ten years.

Just in case you forget what the point is. Difficult for a unicorn I know.

[easytiger95]

http://uk.businessinsider.com/state-economy-ranking-sources-and-methods-2016-1?r=US&IR=T

And there's the methodology for the statistics measured across 7 different metrics. It's fairly straightforward - the prevailing Republican ideology is not about wealth creation, it is about wealth transfer. I doubt you're a one percenter Whitey, but it is endlessly fascinating as to why middle class American voters would go anywhere near the GOP on economic grounds

[whitey]

Whitey you where trying to say that  Bernie Sanders lack of private sector experience means he will perform poorly in office.

Then you turn it into a Dem v Rep thing based on your own presumptions that more democrats are career politicians than republicans.

Firslty Bernie Sanders isnt even a proper Democrat.

Secondly even though its irrelevant I am sure you give us a break down of politicians private sector experience v party allegiance.

Thirdly once you've proved that Im sure you could give us another break down of states economic performance v their politicians political allegiance.

It should be easy enough to prove on way or the other. But I suspect that its a typical political soundbite designed to appeal to popularity as most people work in the private sector and resent the security, stability, rights and benefits of public sector workers, and are frustrated when dealing with the methodical and bureaucratic nature of public services. So when you throw all of that in together people assume that public sector workers dont have a clue how the real world works, however that is based on nothing more than a presumption of the masses. But sure its a usefull way to disparage politicians so who cares if its right or wrong

Again...this is a discussion page, therefore one expresses opinions. My opinions (in my opinion) are very well backed up by facts, even though you may interpret the facts differently than I do.

States run by career politicians (mainly, but not exclusively Democrats) have serious issues with deficits, entitlements and spending that they ignored for decades in an effort to cling to power.

In the sames way that Republicans demonize immigrants and welfare recipients, Democrats demonize high earners and big business. 

Now we have a self styled socialist, career politician, whos playing the class envy card running for office, and you think he will be all of a sudden become fiscally conservative (or at least moderate).....I just cant see it, but agiain thats just my opinion, which is about as valid as yours

Sorry Whitey, have to call BS on this.

http://uk.businessinsider.com/state-economy-ranking-q4-2015-2016-1?r=US&IR=T

This is a link for the states (including DC) economic performance in the final 2 quarters of 2015 - worst performers below

51 - West VA - Democratic Governor
50 - New Mexico - Republican Governor
49 - Oklahoma - Republican Governor
48 - Louisana - Democratic governor (but given the raging dumpster fire that was the state's finances after Jindal, you could almost mark this one red)
47 - Wyoming - Republican governor
46 - Mississippi - Republican governor
45 - Alabama - Republican governor
44 - Arkansas - Republican governor
43 - North Dakota - Republican governor
42 - Missouri - Democratic governor

Anyone else see a pattern emerging? It was the same proportion for the first two quarters of 2015 - 7 red states and 3 blue states in the bottom ten, just some different names - like Christie in NJ and Brownback in Kansas.

Being a career politician has nothing to do with poor economic performance (even though the Republicans are stuffed to the gills with careerists, much as they like to portray themselves as gallant Tea Party outsiders). Poor economic performance comes from poor choices informed by ideology of trickle down, austerity, cutting taxes and hollowing out the state. And if that ideololgy hasn't been discredited by the decline of American cities and infrastructure over the past thirty years, it should surely have been consigned to the dustbin of history after the European experience of the past ten years.

Just in case you forget what the point is. Difficult for a unicorn I know.

Lol....the politicians DONT run the ECONOMY.....they run the STATE....


The politicians are responsible for deficits, credit ratings and pension underfunding and Blue states such as IL, CA, NJ are in serious trouble

[whitey]

http://uk.businessinsider.com/state-economy-ranking-sources-and-methods-2016-1?r=US&IR=T

And there's the methodology for the statistics measured across 7 different metrics. It's fairly straightforward - the prevailing Republican ideology is not about wealth creation, it is about wealth transfer. I doubt you're a one percenter Whitey, but it is endlessly fascinating as to why middle class American voters would go anywhere near the GOP on economic grounds

I am not a 1%, but when you live in an overwhelmingly blue state and see the way Dems are absolutely fvcking destroying the financial wellbeing of the state by buying votes and giving family members do nothing jobs with pensions some can start taking in their 40s......regular private sector people like me get really angry.

https://howiecarrshow.com/t-pension-list-a-map-of-bulger-fams-free-rides/

I have never lived in a Red State so I don't know what goes on there too, but the mantra I hear so often on here, is that Dems are the party of the little guy and that Republicans and are only out for the 1% is absolute bullshit.  In a state like this Repubs are out for the working people

[seafoid]

Whitey you where trying to say that  Bernie Sanders lack of private sector experience means he will perform poorly in office.

Then you turn it into a Dem v Rep thing based on your own presumptions that more democrats are career politicians than republicans.

Firslty Bernie Sanders isnt even a proper Democrat.

Secondly even though its irrelevant I am sure you give us a break down of politicians private sector experience v party allegiance.

Thirdly once you've proved that Im sure you could give us another break down of states economic performance v their politicians political allegiance.

It should be easy enough to prove on way or the other. But I suspect that its a typical political soundbite designed to appeal to popularity as most people work in the private sector and resent the security, stability, rights and benefits of public sector workers, and are frustrated when dealing with the methodical and bureaucratic nature of public services. So when you throw all of that in together people assume that public sector workers dont have a clue how the real world works, however that is based on nothing more than a presumption of the masses. But sure its a usefull way to disparage politicians so who cares if its right or wrong

Again...this is a discussion page, therefore one expresses opinions. My opinions (in my opinion) are very well backed up by facts, even though you may interpret the facts differently than I do.

States run by career politicians (mainly, but not exclusively Democrats) have serious issues with deficits, entitlements and spending that they ignored for decades in an effort to cling to power.

In the sames way that Republicans demonize immigrants and welfare recipients, Democrats demonize high earners and big business. 

Now we have a self styled socialist, career politician, whos playing the class envy card running for office, and you think he will be all of a sudden become fiscally conservative (or at least moderate).....I just cant see it, but agiain thats just my opinion, which is about as valid as yours

Sorry Whitey, have to call BS on this.

http://uk.businessinsider.com/state-economy-ranking-q4-2015-2016-1?r=US&IR=T

This is a link for the states (including DC) economic performance in the final 2 quarters of 2015 - worst performers below

51 - West VA - Democratic Governor
50 - New Mexico - Republican Governor
49 - Oklahoma - Republican Governor
48 - Louisana - Democratic governor (but given the raging dumpster fire that was the state's finances after Jindal, you could almost mark this one red)
47 - Wyoming - Republican governor
46 - Mississippi - Republican governor
45 - Alabama - Republican governor
44 - Arkansas - Republican governor
43 - North Dakota - Republican governor
42 - Missouri - Democratic governor

Anyone else see a pattern emerging? It was the same proportion for the first two quarters of 2015 - 7 red states and 3 blue states in the bottom ten, just some different names - like Christie in NJ and Brownback in Kansas.

Being a career politician has nothing to do with poor economic performance (even though the Republicans are stuffed to the gills with careerists, much as they like to portray themselves as gallant Tea Party outsiders). Poor economic performance comes from poor choices informed by ideology of trickle down, austerity, cutting taxes and hollowing out the state. And if that ideololgy hasn't been discredited by the decline of American cities and infrastructure over the past thirty years, it should surely have been consigned to the dustbin of history after the European experience of the past ten years.

Just in case you forget what the point is. Difficult for a unicorn I know.

Lol....the politicians DONT run the ECONOMY.....they run the STATE....


The politicians are responsible for deficits, credit ratings and pension underfunding and Blue states such as IL, CA, NJ are in serious trouble

pension underfunding is usually ZIRP related so it's a 1% issue.
If American workers had the link between productivity and pay restored growth would return.

[easytiger95]

Lol....the politicians DONT run the ECONOMY.....they run the STATE....

Wow - are you seriously saying that policy decisions taken by politicians don't effect the economy? Tell that to the citizens of Kansas, Louisiana et al who have seen their tax base gutted, their deficits ballon and their infrastructure funds raided just to keep the lights on. Hardly "the invisible hand of the market.

I have never lived in a Red State so I don't know what goes on there too

If that is the case then where does this come from?

States run by career politicians (mainly, but not exclusively Democrats) have serious issues with deficits, entitlements and spending that they ignored for decades in an effort to cling to power.

Seems like you've made a huge generalization and you're just trying to back it up.

I am not a 1%, but when you live in an overwhelmingly blue state and see the way Dems are absolutely fvcking destroying the financial wellbeing of the state by buying votes and giving family members do nothing jobs with pensions some can start taking in their 40s......regular private sector people like me get really angry.

If that is the case, then you have every right to be angry. But I have every right to be skeptical of the source you quoted - notable "conservative" talk show host Howie Carr. It's all a bit echo chambery, isn't it?

the mantra I hear so often on here, is that Dems are the party of the little guy and that Republicans and are only out for the 1% is absolute bullshit.  In a state like this Repubs are out for the working people

this is the heart of your argument, and what Omaghjoe originally called you on. You have a partisan point of view, and fair dues, you are more than entitled to hold them - but I, and others, are more than entitled to interrogate your view and sources. To be honest, I would hold firmly to the belief that anyone that holds the view above, and is a middle class or working class voter, has swallowed the culture wars Kool Aid - one of the main planks of which is that the GOP are guardians of the blue collar worker. For me to refute that, however, I'm not going to quote Rachel Maddow or Salon.com - I'm going to give you freely available statistics from what is, as far as I can see, an impartial source, that contradicts your generalization.

Once again, we come back to evidence v belief. I know which side I come down on. If you want to graze in the meadows with the unicorns, work away.