The Many Faces of US Politics...

[muppet]

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.

And yet higher interest rates are desperately craved by the banks, who are owned by the 1% according to yourself. I really wish the 1% would make up their minds what it is they want.

Pension problems include, but are not limited to, DB schemes unable to pay, draconian funding rules in the crash, politicians pandering to unions offering terms that could never be met (a US problem mainly), various governments raiding easy targets (Ireland, Britain, Argentina, Bulgaria, Poland....) etc.

[whitey]

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.

n cycle IL, MA and MD, (the bluest of the blue) states that voted overwhelmingly for Obama in BOTH 2008 and 2012 voted in Republican governors.

[whitey]

Howie pulled those numbers directly from the states website....so while you may not like him or agree with him,.the numbers are 100 accurate. These aren't "do fvck all" types of jobs, these are "do fvckin nothing" types of jobs created for politically connected people and their families (some of whom retire in their early 40s to land another do nothing job with yet another pension)

Last election Il, MA and MD, (the bluest of the blue states, who overwhelmingly voted for OBAMA in 2008 and 2012) voted in Republican governors

[easytiger95]

Whitey - the example you posted from Howie Carr is about organized crime and its influence on politics - if the GOP had been the dominant party in MA, the Bulgers would have gravitated towards that. It does not cover your original point, that Republicans have a better economic record than careerist Dems. In fact, bad and all as the corruption in Ma seems to be, it has nothing to do with the point you were making. If perhaps, you said that all career pols, Dem and Rep, are susceptible to corruption, you'd probably have a point. There are plenty of GOP examples to go with the one that you are highlighting.

Nor does the existence of 3 Red governors in Blue states point to anything other than the GOPs skill at winning downticket races and their lack of skill in winning the presidency. It does not point to a groundswell of Dem voters revolting against the financial incompetence of their party overloads. Which was your point. There are 50 states, you know.

Listen, everyone know that machine politics in MA has always been dirty - but it doesn't follow that Republicans (in most states, as was your original post) are better economic managers from that fact.

[whitey]

Whitey - the example you posted from Howie Carr is about organized crime and its influence on politics - if the GOP had been the dominant party in MA, the Bulgers would have gravitated towards that. It does not cover your original point, that Republicans have a better economic record than careerist Dems. In fact, bad and all as the corruption in Ma seems to be, it has nothing to do with the point you were making. If perhaps, you said that all career pols, Dem and Rep, are susceptible to corruption, you'd probably have a point. There are plenty of GOP examples to go with the one that you are highlighting.

Nor does the existence of 3 Red governors in Blue states point to anything other than the GOPs skill at winning downticket races and their lack of skill in winning the presidency. It does not point to a groundswell of Dem voters revolting against the financial incompetence of their party overloads. Which was your point. There are 50 states, you know.

Listen, everyone know that machine politics in MA has always been dirty - but it doesn't follow that Republicans (in most states, as was your original post) are better economic managers from that fact.

While Howies post does mention Whitey, Billy Bulger his brother, who the article is focusing on and who's is pictured in the article, was the most powerful politician in MA FOR DECADES.

Again...believe what you want about why people voted in 3 Republican Governors in 3 of the bluest states in the country-LOL

http://wtax.com/news/101101-rauner-applealed-to-some-independents-democrats/

http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2014/11/05/gops-charlie-baker-defeats-martha-coakley-in-massachusetts/

[easytiger95]

I know well who Billy Bulger is, having lived in MA between 96-98 - and he was obviously a corrupt politician, with a very close family connection to organized crime. Extrapolating from his corruption that Republicans in most states are better at managing finances then careerist Dems is bizarre on all levels.

Control of the redistricting process has left Republicans in the majority in legislatures all over the States and in congress. I'm not saying that Dems didn't gerrymander the districts when they had control, it's just that the GOP are doing it on a far bigger and more organized scale - couple that with blatantly racist voter registration laws in many states to combat a non-existent threat (voter fraud) and you have a system guaranteed to produce a few aberrations like 3 Republican governors in 3 ostensibly blue states.

Still doesn't explain your original point - which my original response rebutted.

[easytiger95]

Interesting you cite WTAX. Carries the Rush Limbaugh and Laura Ingraham shows. How's thing in the echo chamber? Echoey?

[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.

And yet higher interest rates are desperately craved by the banks, who are owned by the 1% according to yourself. I really wish the 1% would make up their minds what it is they want.

Pension problems include, but are not limited to, DB schemes unable to pay, draconian funding rules in the crash, politicians pandering to unions offering terms that could never be met (a US problem mainly), various governments raiding easy targets (Ireland, Britain, Argentina, Bulgaria, Poland....) etc.

At the moment debt holders want rates to be as negative as possible cos the lower the discount rates the higher the value of debt.
ZIRP has had the biggest impact on pension scheme insolvency. The BHS scheme was in surplus in 2008 for example.
Banks can always be shorted. They aren't necessarily winners. Deutsche Bank has trouble generating 10% RoE

[whitey]

I know well who Billy Bulger is, having lived in MA between 96-98 - and he was obviously a corrupt politician, with a very close family connection to organized crime. Extrapolating from his corruption that Republicans in most states are better at managing finances then careerist Dems is bizarre on all levels.

Control of the redistricting process has left Republicans in the majority in legislatures all over the States and in congress. I'm not saying that Dems didn't gerrymander the districts when they had control, it's just that the GOP are doing it on a far bigger and more organized scale - couple that with blatantly racist voter registration laws in many states to combat a non-existent threat (voter fraud) and you have a system guaranteed to produce a few aberrations like 3 Republican governors in 3 ostensibly blue states.

Still doesn't explain your original point - which my original response rebutted.

You didn't rebut anything....you threw up some ridiculous article chronicling the economic woes of perennially poor states with no significant tax base or industry. Some are rural states with minuscule populations and GDP s that are statistically insignificant

Then you attempted to draw an unbroken line between these states economies and the fact some of them have Republican governors.

[muppet]

"Banks can always be shorted. They aren't necessarily winners."

If the conspiracy is always by the 1%, and always for the 1%, then how can they ever lose?

[seafoid]

"Banks can always be shorted. They aren't necessarily winners."

If the conspiracy is always by the 1%, and always for the 1%, then how can they ever lose?

it's like rock paper scissors
the people kill the power of the 1%
And it usually happens when they own more than 40% of everything
The French revolution happened at a time economically similar to now.

[muppet]

"Banks can always be shorted. They aren't necessarily winners."

If the conspiracy is always by the 1%, and always for the 1%, then how can they ever lose?

it's like rock paper scissors
the people kill the power of the 1%
And it usually happens when they own more than 40% of everything
The French revolution happened at a time economically similar to now.

The answer to 'why does the 1% keeps screwing us?' can't possibly be 'because there is going to be a revolution'.

[seafoid]

"Banks can always be shorted. They aren't necessarily winners."

If the conspiracy is always by the 1%, and always for the 1%, then how can they ever lose?

it's like rock paper scissors
the people kill the power of the 1%
And it usually happens when they own more than 40% of everything
The French revolution happened at a time economically similar to now.

The answer to 'why does the 1% keeps screwing us?' can't possibly be 'because there is going to be a revolution'.

why does a dog lick his bollocks?
Why did AIB keep writing dud mortgages?
Why do things fall apart?
Why do fools fall in love?

It doesnt have to be a revolution btw. Bevan was elected. You just need enough people who say stop. The ECB and the Fed have zero credibility but they are still respected. It is called social magic.
The Irish Times was interesting in 2010 when it lookrd as though serious reform might happen. There were loads of articles about how poor the system is. They wouldnt be published now.

[easytiger95]

I know well who Billy Bulger is, having lived in MA between 96-98 - and he was obviously a corrupt politician, with a very close family connection to organized crime. Extrapolating from his corruption that Republicans in most states are better at managing finances then careerist Dems is bizarre on all levels.

Control of the redistricting process has left Republicans in the majority in legislatures all over the States and in congress. I'm not saying that Dems didn't gerrymander the districts when they had control, it's just that the GOP are doing it on a far bigger and more organized scale - couple that with blatantly racist voter registration laws in many states to combat a non-existent threat (voter fraud) and you have a system guaranteed to produce a few aberrations like 3 Republican governors in 3 ostensibly blue states.

Still doesn't explain your original point - which my original response rebutted.

You didn't rebut anything....you threw up some ridiculous article chronicling the economic woes of perennially poor states with no significant tax base or industry. Some are rural states with minuscule populations and GDP s that are statistically insignificant

Then you attempted to draw an unbroken line between these states economies and the fact some of them have Republican governors.

It wasn't an article - it was series of independent reports detailing economic performance across 7 metrics in each state which is then collated into an average - and you can reference them for any time period you want. The reason some of these states have no significant tax base is because it is Republican policy to reduce the size of government and reduce taxes - with predictable results as in Kansas and Louisiana.

Whereas you reference partisan right wing websites and one particular scandal in your home state and then attempt to draw an unbroken line between them and the belief that Republicans in many states manage finances better than careerist Democrats.

I'll let others be the judge as to whose sources are more factual.

[seafoid]

Has anyone any thoughts on the republicans post Trump and the senate elections? If the voters dump the policies where does that leave the party?