Of course, no one is actually trying to break into my home. If the were they'd likely succeed. Just as California causing immigrants to prefer easier entry points doesn't prove California's border is secure. And California's fence is only on one of its borders. It does nothing to stop illegals who entered the country somewhere else from entering California. So it doesn't even secure California's border.

As always, you see what you want to see. And think facts prove your arguments simply because you ignore all the facts that don't.

There's no need to supercede federal immigration laws to build a fence at the state border. There's no federal law against it. California's already done it. Haven't they?

And if you're talking about states securing their own borders, regardless of the impact on neighboring states, then you're not talking about securing the nation's border.--What is that? Bait and switch?--Or just lying?

If Arizona is seeing increased illegal immigration following California's building a fence then the fence wasn't good for Arizona. Which means it wasn't good for the country, only for California.--Maybe.--At least, for now.--But then, you wingers think the wealthy shifting their problems onto the poor is the way the world is supposed to work.

Then there's your bragging about communities interfering with the federal government trying to enforce immigration law, at the same time you excoriate Obama for supposedly not enforcing immigration law.

So none of your arguments make any sense but you think that they're irrefutable?! Just your usual self-delusional alternate reality rightwing irrationality.

Then those same states are, of course, allowed to supersede FEDERAL IMMIGRATION law under the same principle, right??

Check... And Mate.... :D

Michale

California DID secure CALIFORNIA's border..

California PROVED that securing the border IS possible and even feasible...

But Democrats took a look at what California did and said, "Holy Crap!!! We CAN secure the border and prevent all those new Democrat Voters from coming in!! We simply MUST stop ANY talk of securing the border!!!!!"

If Southern border states want fences on the border so badly, because they're so vital to their safety and economy, they are free to build their own.--At their own expense.

Yea, whatever it takes to make sure the free flow of illegal Dem voters continues unabated..

Gotcha :D

Michale

Texas, and Arizona are part of the border. California did not secure the border by shifting mist activity to some other point on the border. Your proof that the border can easily be secured doesn't prove a thing. China built one hell if a fence--and it didn't work. East Germany built on hell of a fence, and it didn't work.

You wingers, with you contempt for both history, and science, always claim that your fantasies can be reality, if only you get to spend enough money making them happen. Other peoples money.

This country has had enough of being bankrupted because of winger bigotry and paranoia. If Southern border states want fences on the border so badly, because they're so vital to their safety and economy, they are free to build their own.--At their own expense.

Do you mean Bush's surge that actually worked??

Until Obama threw it all away??

THAT surge???

:D

Michale

And WHY is Texas (it's actually Arizona, but why quibble) easier??

BECAUSE CALIFORNIA HAS A FENCE!!

It ain't rocket science, LD...

NO border has EVER been successfully physically secured.

Not 1000% secure no.. But, as California has PROVEN, it's easy to make it 98% secure...

China tried like hell. East Germany tried like hell.

Yea, cuz millions and millions are clamoring to get into China and East Germany...

But, once again, you prove my point for me..

No one is claiming that a border can be 1000% secure..

But that doesn't mean you can't make it 80% secure. Or 90% secure... Or, in the case of California, 98% secure...

Which is why immigration reform will do far more to secure our borders.

EXACTLY. The Senate Immigration Reform will do WONDERS to secure our borders.

BECAUSE IT STARTS WITH BORDER SECURITY!!

I'm impressed, though, that I've been able to insult your intelligence. I never thought that I'd ever even be able to find any signs of it, much less successfully target it! Your current contention that we could accomplish the impossible if we only throw enough money at it, (like a "surge?" Iraq "strategy" 2.0?!) only goes to show just how tiny a target it is.

I accept your concession of the debate.. :D

Michale

And the only reason California has seen a decline in illegal immigration is that Texas is now easier, so that's where they cross. No matter how you reinforce some point will always be weakest and that's where illegal immigrants will cross. California hasn't secured the border. They've shifted the problem to someone else.

NO border has EVER been successfully physically secured. China tried like hell. East Germany tried like hell. People all over the world have been trying for thousands of years. And no one has ever succeeded. But, you, Michale are positive that all it takes is "will" because you've lived in border towns?! Delusional much?

ACTUAL security experts, Mr. Military Counter-Terrorism Expert will tell you that the goal of security isn't to prevent ingress and egress because that's impossible. Its to make it difficult and expensive. Which works just fine unless the reward for violating security is worth all the risk and effort, in which case someone will violate it anyway.

Which is why immigration reform will do far more to secure our borders. It would reduce the incentive to violate the law instead of just trying to escalate the cost. Trying to build fences faster that immigrants can find ways across is a fools errand.

We've already been the arms race route to national security. Many times! Its always turned out to be an all or nothing strategy. Its always threatened to destroy us. Nothing could be stupider than making it the go to strategy until it fails us, we slip, and finally wind up destroying ourselves. Its a last resort not a prime tactic.

I'm impressed, though, that I've been able to insult your intelligence. I never thought that I'd ever even be able to find any signs of it, much less successfully target it! Your current contention that we could accomplish the impossible if we only throw enough money at it, (like a "surge?" Iraq "strategy" 2.0?!) only goes to show just how tiny a target it is.

OK, if you want to play the "qualify" game I'll bite.. :D

True.. NO border in the history (or FUTURE) of humankind has been nor will ever be 1000% secure...

For everyone who builds a fool-proof rat trap there will always be a bigger and better fool of a rat..

But, we're not talking about securing the borders against a super-007 James Bond type...

We're not talking about securing the border against a Transformer or a Sam/Dean Winchester or a Borg Drone (DD of 36 Please :D) or a (insert your favorite superhero here)...

We're talking about securing the border to prevent the kind of invasion we are seeing in the here and now along the border..

I have worked that border.. I have LIVED that border...

San Diego SO..

San Ysidro, IB, Otay Mesa, Chula Vista, National City.. Those were my stomping grounds...

So anyone who says we can't secure the border against illegal immigrants, is someone who is completely and utterly ignorant of the situation, the circumstances and security in general...

Michale

Bullshit...

You insist--are positive, that all it takes is "the will." The Great Wall of China couldn't do it. Its never been done before. But just because you want to do it it must be possible! Not only possible but mandatory!

So, yer claim is that fences don't work??

Well someone better tell the Secret Service. The White House is completely insecure...

Every military base in the country is insecure, according to you...

Newsflash for ya, Sunshine..

When California built a fence on their southern border, illegal immigrants were cut by 98%...

So, please... Lose the "borders can't be secured" BS...

It insults my intelligence and makes you look ignorant..

And there is no legal means of immigration for most.

Oh.. NOW you are going to qualify it..

There IS legal immigration...

THAT is the only requirement that you stated to initiate border security..

So, we're agreed..

Border Security, THEN more immigration...

Michale

No border in the history of mankind has ever been able to be physically secured. You are delusional. As always.

You insist--are positive, that all it takes is "the will." The Great Wall of China couldn't do it. Its never been done before. But just because you want to do it it must be possible! Not only possible but mandatory!

Well, unfortunately for you, whatever you may want, securing the border by force is not possible. And never will be. Securing the border will require the support and cooperation of the people outside of our borders.

And there is no legal means of immigration for most. That is the problem. And as long as that's the case there will be no way to secure the border.

Further, Legal Immigration IS available..

So, let's secure that border...

Good call....

Michale

Bullshit....

ANY border, ANY barrier, ANY line separating a part from other parts can be secured..

All it takes is the will....

Michale

Reality doesn't depend on what you want. The birder can not be secured until legal immigration is made available.--But if you just insist on building a tall fence I vote for placing it along the Mason-Dixon line.

You don't support the federal government. You don't want to pay taxes. You already get more out if the federal government than you pay in taxes. You think you should ba able to decide your own laws instead if obeying the federal government.--And then you go crying about how Obama isn't solving all your problems for you!

Please! I know how proud you all are of your ignorance. And you've certainly proven that no one else can come close to your proficiency at ignorance.--But tell it to someone who gives a damn! Illegal immigrants come here to work. The South just thinks its "entitled" and wants everyone else to pay for its stupidity so it doesn't have to. Immigrants aren't the South's problem. The South is the South's problem. Deal with it.

In my experience, sadly this is true. If people vote, people win. I see where you're coming from now. I've been having this same discussion with many folks in my neighborhood.

On immigration, the Chamber of Commerce position is in support of work visas because it gives employers coercive control over cheap imported laborers.

This makes sense as well. Again, sadly. It did strike me as strange that the Chamber was willing to give up leverage over workers. Struck me that is as very "UnChamber-like".

Their support makes more sense now. Appreciate the info.

-David

No...

Immigration REFORM is about Border Security...

Immigration Amnesty is about minting fresh new Democrats voters...

So, either way... Yer wrong..

Your insistence that legal immigration shouldn't be made available isn't because immigrants are illegal,

No.. My insistence is that legal immigration shouldn't be made available until the Border is secure..

Michale

The communities along the southern border are destroying themselves.

Of course they are..

They have that tens of thousands of illegals are invading the communities at Obama's behest have absolutely NOTHING to do with it...

huffpost.com/us/entry/5548577

HUFFPO is your "proof"???

Where's the Daily KOS link??? :D

https://www.google.com/maps/ms?msid=215860821987081633721.0004fd39453513c9dc418&msa=0&ie=UTF8&ll=38.993572,-95.405273&spn=29.283014,54.404297&t=m&source=embed&dg=feature

At least MY evidence is made up of... ya know...

FACTS....

Michale

Of course they are..

They have that tens of thousands of illegals are invading the communities at Obama's behest have absolutely NOTHING to do with it...

http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/5548577

HUFFPO is your "proof"???

Where's the Daily KOS link??? :D

https://www.google.com/maps/ms?msid=215860821987081633721.0004fd39453513c9dc418&msa=0&ie=UTF8&ll=38.993572,-95.405273&spn=29.283014,54.404297&t=m&source=embed&dg=feature

At least MY evidence is made up of... ya know...

FACTS....

Michale

The communities along the southern border are destroying themselves.

http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/5548577

Your belief that states controlled by Conservatives are economic basket cases because they're filled with illegal immigrants to exhausted, or stupid, to travel a few hundred miles more to northern states that actually have jobs may play well with the rabid Right, but its nonsense.

The only ones southerners have to blame for their economies are themselves. As further evidenced by the fact that whenever they gain national control the entire nation's economy suffers, just like the South's.

Immigration reform is about legal immigrants, not illegal immigrants. Your insistence that legal immigration shouldn't be made available isn't because immigrants are illegal, its because your prejudices want immigrants to always be made illegal.

Vast majority of LEGAL immigrants..

We're not talking about LEGAL immigrants...

We're taking about people who have, heretofore, been ILLEGAL immigrants..

Do you HONESTLY think that, once they are allowed into the country legally, they will MAGICALLY become model citizens???

"Were these MAGIC grits!!!?? Did you get them from the same guy who sold Jack his beanstalk beans!!???"
-Joe Pesci, MY COUSIN VINNY

:D

It isn't immigration that destroys economies.

Yea???

Tell that to the communities along the southern border...

-In other words its the trickle-down economics and concentration of wealth you embrace that kills economies.--Just as its killing ours.

Yea...

And Obamanomics has done a REAL bang-up job so far, eh???

Tell me...

Why is Obama's poll numbers dropping like lead anchors???

"Vast Right Wing Conspiracy"??? :D

Or that the American people are fed up with incompetence???

"I'll take DOOR NUMBER 2, Alex!!"

Michale

Your "10s of millions" assumes "(with NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVEr)" that you know how many immigrants there will be in the future. Since the vast majority of immigrants to this country have always sought to earn a living through legal means, my assumption is easily as credible as your "projection."

It isn't immigration that destroys economies. Its unproductive business overhead in the form of executives and owners siphoning off so much of the wealth generated by production that there isn't enough left to pay for productive workers. Its the wealth derived from production going to so few people that there isn't enough demand for goods and services created.--In other words its the trickle-down economics and concentration of wealth you embrace that kills economies.--Just as its killing ours.

of course not..

The Messiah is ALWAYS blameless..

I am surprised you would actually feel the need to articulate this..

{/sarcasm}

:D

Michale

This assumes (with NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVEr) that illegal immigrants will obtain goods thru legal means..

Michale

And the children flooding the border are not workers looking for jobs. Nor are they the result of Obama's policies. They're the result of desperate people being exploited by those falsely telling them there's an Obama policy that would provide for their children. It is not true, and Obama isn't responsible for the lies told by others.

Just as the paranoid fantasy of tens of millions of immigrants flooding the country taking all the jobs is nonsense. If tens of millions of immigrants flood the country they'll need food, clothes, housing, transportation..., creating hundreds of millions more of jobs. Jobs are not zero sum. That's why immigration fuels economies rather than draining them.

More workers means more productivity. More productivity means more goods and services to be bought and sold. Wealth isn't zero sum either. Its created by worker productivity. The more workers, the more production. The more production, the more money for workers. The more money for workers, the more demand for goods and services. The more demand for goods and services, the more jobs. The more jobs, the more workers.

Perhaps in the long term... :D

Killer of Immigration Reform Identified As David Brat
http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2014/07/immigration-reform-killer-identified-david-brat.html

Michale

Howz THAT for irony?? :D

Michale

Polls may indicate that the public gets it right but their voting indicates they don't really care enough, which is where they get it wrong. Rightwing extremists have disproportionate influence because they vote for more than just the Presidency.

When you've got thirty percent or so who are vocal and adamant, with forty or fifty percent who are silent and ambivalent, advocating for the extremist thirty percent is representative government. The majority who didn't care enough to voice an opinion are faithfully represented by politicians who don't care what those opinions may be. It isn't enough for the public to get it right in private polls. They have to show up and get it right at the polls.

This latest primary I worked ninety percent of voters were over seventy! The vast majority were male, and Republican. Doesn't matter who selects the candidates when people don't care enough to vote. That's the reason presidential midterm elections favor the minority party. The majority can be depended upon not the to participate, while the minority actually cares who wins.

No.. I am talking about the 10s of millions who are PROJECTED to be here once Democrats get their Immigration Amnesty..

We are seeing the results on the southern border right now..

It's an interesting question though. Am I missing any other reasons you can think of why the Chamber might support reform?

The corporate interests are not supporting reform. The corporate interests, including the Chamber, are supporting amnesty...

We need Immigration REFORM.. Not Immigration Amnesty...

Reform gives us Border Security first and foremost..

Amnesty gives us what we are seeing at the southern border right now...

Michale

The mid to lower income people. The minorities whose job market is ALREADY brutal is going to have millions and millions of new workers thrown into that very same job pool.

Aren't they already in the job pool? You can't flood our country with people who are already here.

From an economic perspective, it would actually help the average person because right now people are competing with those willing to work for far lower wages and benefits because of the threat of deportation.

What it would change is several things:

- Their situation. As citizens, we could no longer pay them less than minimum wage while threatening to kick them out of the country.
- Taxes. Citizens pay taxes.
- Attractiveness to labor. Many businesses seriously are struggling to find highly skilled workers. Immigration reform would make our country more attractive to highly skilled workers from other countries.

Am I leaving anything out?

You are right though that the U.S. Chamber supports immigration reform. Here's their position from their website:

"America has had the opportunity to grow and thrive because we have attracted and welcomed the most talented and the hardest working people to our shores. The U.S. Chamber has collaborated with a variety of odd bedfellows including faith organizations, law enforcement, and ethnic groups to build a movement for commonsense immigration reform that strengthens border security, expands the number of visas for high- and lesser-skilled workers, makes improvements to the federal employment verification system, and provides an earned lawful status for the undocumented with no future bar to citizenship. The door to the American dream must always remain open."

Here, I think the U.S. Chamber is actually trying to do the right thing. It is something, however, which I think would hurt many businesses in the short term (because they'd have to pay any illegal workforce more as a legal workforce).

The Chamber might be interested in this issue because of their membership. Remember, there's a few very large companies who prop up the Chamber. They don't represent all business interests but typically the interests of these few large companies. One of the reasons they may support immigration reform is that these companies quite likely already "do the right" thing and don't employ those in the country illegally. In other words, it might help level the playing field for their most prominent members by eliminating an illegal competitive advantage some businesses currently hold when they hire illegally.

It's an interesting question though. Am I missing any other reasons you can think of why the Chamber might support reform?

-David

I also have to wonder if the Left (AND the Right for that matter) are ALSO giving away their agenda in the interests of Party loyalty...

Cutting off their noses to spite their face, so to speak..

I elaborate more here:

http://www.chrisweigant.com/2014/06/30/supreme-courts-lack-of-religious-diversity/

Or WILL elaborate more once I actually put my thoughts to screen.. :D

Michale

I laughed! *snort*

*chortle* :D

I mean here and there there's going to be differences of opinion. In these cases, I believe your 3rd option. I can say a lot of things about you, Michale (as you can about me too, I'm sure ... heheh) but "low information" is not one of them.

I would definitely agree with that sentiment and reciprocate the same sentiment...

It does however make me wonder if we aren't giving away many of the things we agree on while fighting over a relatively small number of things we disagree on.

Troo.. Very troo...

Michale

I laughed! *snort*

They just believe things differently than you do.

In some cases, yes. But the statistics seem to tell a different story. They say that by and large we agree much more with each other (and much less w/ corporate special interest groups) than maybe we think we do.

In other words, we almost literally would be better off if we simply randomly chose people from the phone book as our elected representatives.

I mean here and there there's going to be differences of opinion. In these cases, I believe your 3rd option. I can say a lot of things about you, Michale (as you can about me too, I'm sure ... heheh) but "low information" is not one of them. In fact, you frequently surprise me with how much you know about issues-even when we fundamentally disagree.

It does however make me wonder if we aren't giving away many of the things we agree on while fighting over a relatively small number of things we disagree on.

Just interesting.

-David

Get it?? Put FOURTH?? This THIRD?? Get it???

tough room.... :^/

:D

Michale

There is a third possibility...

The possibility exists that people AREN'T low information, NOR are they misinformed..

They just believe things differently than you do..

THAT's the trap ya'all fall into..

You think that no one could POSSIBLY think something different and be right.

So, if people DO think something different they are either low information people or they are lied to...

Applying Occam's Razor, I would put forth that it is this third possibility that is the most likely of the three...

Michale

On education, on foreign policy, on the economy, on immigration, on voting rights, on equality, etc, etc.

Yet our elected officials, over and over, continue to get it wrong. They continue to push for school privatization (including prominent Dems like Rahm, Obama, and Steve Beshear from Kentucky). They put industry lobbyists in charge of government agencies responsible for regulating industry (Tom Wheeler, the most egregious example). They block immigration reform. They shut down the government over an issue as trivial as raising the debt ceiling. They push for war. They fail to fix "too big to fail" instead choosing half-ass measures recommended by (any guesses?) financial industry insiders. They fight for new, bigger trade agreements with Asia. I could go on.

Did you read the Gilens and Page study? They examined nearly 1800 issues from 1981 to 2002 in which a national survey asked a favor/oppose question about the issue. This is how they assessed the public's influence on policy.

They conclude:

"The central point that emerges from our research is that economic elites and organized
groups representing business interests have substantial independent impacts on U.S. government
policy, while mass-based interest groups and average citizens have little or no independent
influence."

In other words, the public gets it right, Congress gets it wrong and fights for special interests anyways. Again and again.

This leads me to think it's much more than a few bad actors.

This leads me to question the idea that the majority of Americans are "low information" voters and are simply misinformed.

This leads me to believe we don't live in a representational democracy where our elected leaders follow the will of the people who elect them.

Perhaps this is why so many fight against democracy?

Me personally, I think the reason is much more visceral than that. I think the reason is that when it comes right down to it, many people believe that, if allowed to make decisions, the "masses" are too stupid to make them correctly. In other words, we need elites to run government.

It also, however, gives me hope that if we can actually achieve more democracy, that government would be much better run.

Thoughts?

-David

I agree "corrupt" isn't really accurate when talking about the electorate. And I agree that most people sincerely believe they're doing the right thing with their vote.

But in my experience people almost always think they're doing the right thing when they are doing the wrong thing. Which is why I blame ignorance, not corruption. And why I think its important to recognize the electorate is the real problem, not corrupt politicians.

Six hundred plus congress-critters is enough to mitigate a few bad actors. And education turns people trying to do the right thing doing the wrong thing into people trying to do the right thing doing the right thing.--Marriage equality being a recent example.

I also agree that more people actively engaging in the political process is always a good thing.--Whatever party they choose. Much as I disagree with Conservatives I think they're elevating important issues so they can no longer be ignored. Issues that for far too long have been ignored. Though the issues I think important aren't the ones they think important! Just as how I think issues should be resolved definitely isn't how they think they should be resolved.

Personally, I started as a poll-watcher for Carter. But for many years now I've been an election judge. Stomping around town knocking on doors is a younger persons game! But I'm glad to hear you're doing it, and encouraging others to participate as well.

It shows what can happen when people stand up and reject the monied interests.

One easy way to stand up and influence government and our representatives is to become a precinct/ward chair for one of the parties.

It's not hard to do and I can now say that I'm a precinct captain for the Dem party in our county. The precinct chairs determine who is going to run for the different parties.

I agree with your assessment of the electorate though I struggle with the word "corruption" when it comes to people. Why? Because I've found that most people genuinely believe that they're doing the right thing. That they are acting morally. Even though I may fundamentally disagree with some of their beliefs.

This may seem like splitting hairs but I've found it makes a big difference in approach. Mostly I've learned to talk more about my values and beliefs.

When it comes to politicians, however, the people we elect do betray our trusts. It's not necessarily that these politicians are bad, but they live in an insane world. A world where they are judged on how much money they raise rather than on what they do for the general public.

Martin Gilens and Benjamin Page just published a new study showing that politicians do indeed respond more to wealthy individuals and organized business groups.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/weigel/2014/04/24/gilens_and_page_find_that_rich_americans_rule_politics_but_despair_the_fact.html

Glass-Steagall is repealed under Clinton. Drug companies gain retail prices for wholesale purchases under George Bush’s prescription drug plan. The same requirement remains under the passage of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) under Barack Obama. The Bush Tax cuts for the wealthy. NAFTA. Clinton's welfare reform.

If politicians don't appease the special interests, the special interests spend millions to hundreds of millions making life miserable.

What's the answer?

That's the big question, isn't it? Maybe it is a less "corrupt" electorate. Who believes they're being corrupt though? Everyone I know thinks they're doing the right thing.

Until our two "sides"(I'll put this in quotes because I believe these sides are largely false) or enough people from the two "sides" can come together to work towards a common goal, we're largely going to live with a divide-and-conquer mess.

I would like to see this common goal be the elimination of special interest influence on our government. However it's accomplished.

-David

Not really... Since I ain't conservative I can't speak to their ideas, good or otherwise.. :D

I *CAN* give you some common sense ideas borne from a political agnostic..

Could you be specific on what problems you are looking to solve??

One overall common sense idea is to remind Obama and the Democrats that they work for ALL Americans.

Not just the Americans who voted for them... Not just the Americans who agree with them..

Obama and the Democrats have seem to have forgotten that...

Michale

Ahhhhh The "freedom loving" Obama Administration....

Any red lines here???

No!??

REALLY?????

Michale

Nixon said something quite similar...

Michale

Nothing you said offended me. My point is that our government is representative. Politicians aren't particularly corrupt. They fairly represent the attitudes of the people who elect them.

I'm simply saying you can't solve a problem, any problem, until you first identify just what the problem is. As long as we elect people because we think that they will promote our interests over those of others we will have "corruption." Because"corruption" is nothing more than people who promote their own interests over the interests of others.

We think we have influence over politicians because if they don't do what we want we'll refuse to fund their campaigns and vote them out of office. We require politicians who are sensitive to their own interests. We require politicians who are responsive to campaign contributors.

Railing against corrupt politicians won't solve our problems. Because it isn't the politicians who are corrupt. Its the electorate.

For example, the electorate bought into supply-side economics. They bought into the notion that destroying unions would save them money. By reducing salaries and saving companies money. Well salaries have been reduced. The electorate's salaries. (Just who's salaries did anyone think would be reduced?) Money has been saved. And profits have soared. That those savings and profits have come out of the pockets of the electorate that thought it could save money by forcing others to work for less, wasn't corruption. It was the democratic process. It was thinking we could profit by exploiting others.

Cantor's loss was a reminder that people don't have to vote for the candidate with all the money. The money in politics buy influence because voters are easily manipulated by their selfishness, greed, shortsightedness, and indifference to others.

I apologize if I gave the impression I was saying that you are selfish, shortsighted, or apathetic. That wasn't my intent. I was referring to all of us. Because the corruption that's giving us difficulties is society's, not politicians'.

We don't need to restore representative government, we need to realize that it is representative, and stop picking scapegoats instead of taking responsibility for dealing with our problems. It isn't that the people we elect betray our trust, its that the things we elect them to do are ultimately counterproductive and damaging. Capitalism isn't just about competition. It requires cooperation as well.

We need to learn that crossing the line from profiting to exploiting will cost us rather than benefit us. We need to stop being corrupt to end corruption.

I hate to say it but I don't think size has anything to do with it. Heheh.

A small, corrupt government is still a corrupt government.

Shit. We've been reducing government since Reagan. And it's only gotten more corrupt.

The key is to give them JUST enough power to do their jobs AS IT IS DESIGNED but no more.

I think the key is getting people who aren't corrupt. And changing the incentives.

At the risk of reducing this to a RvL/DvR argument, it was the Democrats who got rid of Glass-Steagall.

Fair enough. At least Clinton signed it. What you're leaving out are the Republicans who passed the repeal through Congress and supported it.

It's time for a change in leadership.

I would buy this if we could put someone in place who would be better. And if we could replace Congress with less corrupt people.

All of the options I've seen so far won't make anything better.

I am interested if you hear any good ideas from the conservative side though. I do appreciate the different perspectives.

-David

But therein lies the problem..

You put people in power and then that power corrupts them...

It seems to me that reducing the power reduces the chance for corruption.

Is that not logical???

Of course, you reduce the power you also reduce their effectiveness...

The key is to give them JUST enough power to do their jobs AS IT IS DESIGNED but no more..

THAT is the EXACT problem that the SCOTUS addressed in their recent rulings.. Too much power is being consolidated into the hands of too few people...

Well, I wouldn't phrase it that way. But in the case of Glass-Steagall, these were good regulations that kept the financial industry in check for over 50 years. Less than 8 years after we got rid of them, we crashed the entire economy.

At the risk of reducing this to a RvL/DvR argument, it was the Democrats who got rid of Glass-Steagall...

THEY broke the country..

Your argument to put them back in power thus makes no sense...

Remember, government is "we the people".

Yes it is... And, how has that been going the last 6 years???

And if we get rid of something and it f*cks up our country, maybe we should put it back.

Agreed... So, why haven't we??? After 2008, if it is so obvious that it was losing Glass-Steagall that fraked things up, why hasn't our government re-installed the legislation??

Because the status quo is to the GOVERNMENT'S (Right *AND* Left) benefit...

It's not a Right vs Left issue.

It's a right vs wrong issue...

It's time for a change in leadership...

We just need to agree who is best to lead that change...

Michale

Yeah, I know. I'm not really fond of either either.

It's why I feel that somehow any breakthrough is gonna have to come in some other way, shape, or form.

There's a couple folks who are doing some interesting things in this area. Lawrence Lessig has the best analysis of the corruption in Washington I've seen. Republic, Lost is his book.

This is him writing in The Atlantic (for free): http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/04/campaign-finance-and-the-nihilist-politics-of-resignation/360437/

His goal is to try to get people into office who will pledge to fight against corruption. I don't know as I agree with his methods, but I do agree with the idea that we're going to need to try some different things.

Nick Hanauer is another interesting case. He's a member of the .01% who makes some good business arguments.

So creating MORE government bureaucracies with more power over people's everyday lives is the way to create LESS corruption?

Well, I wouldn't phrase it that way. But in the case of Glass-Steagall, these were good regulations that kept the financial industry in check for over 50 years. Less than 8 years after we got rid of them, we crashed the entire economy.

I hate bureaucracy. Especially when it's pointless.

What we shouldn't be doing, however, is calling good rules "bureaucracy" and getting rid of them.

If it truly is bureaucracy, I'm all for getting rid of it. However, I also know that markets don't regulate themselves and there's a lot of good done by the public sector. At least there used to be *sigh*.

Interestingly enough, one of the side effects of the war on government is that as more and more "government haters" are elected to office, government becomes increasingly incompetent. It would be like hiring someone into your company who hates your company and wants to bring it down from within.

If we elect people whose incentive is to f*ck up government, we shouldn't be surprised when we get a f*cked up government. Self-fulfilling prophecy.

I'm ok with people who hate bureaucracy and want to reduce it when it makes sense. But we shouldn't be reducing government just to reduce government.

Remember, government is "we the people".

And if we get rid of something and it f*cks up our country, maybe we should put it back.

-David

OK, no one SERIOUS is talking about SERIOUSLY destroying the government.

Each side has crackpots. The minute we start taking the crackpots serious, then there is nothing worth saving...

God bless 'ya, Michale. I like you but sometimes you get caught up in your Republican zeal and hatred of "liburals".

In my defense, I hate Republicans too... :D I just hate "liberuls" because they are so damn hypocritical about things..

Yes. Because there was less government. Because we got rid of the regulations limiting corporate power.

So creating MORE government bureaucracies with more power over people's everyday lives is the way to create LESS corruption???

As we have seen, this is simply not accurate... The VA debacle alone PROVES beyond ANY doubt that MORE GOVERNMENT = MORE CORRUPTION...

Michale

Except that guy in the article you posted.

Government was made bigger and more controlling.

By getting rid of Glass-Steagall regulations?

God bless 'ya, Michale. I like you but sometimes you get caught up in your Republican zeal and hatred of "liburals".

Corruption increased...

Yes. Because there was less government. Because we got rid of the regulations limiting corporate power.

Sorry, Michale. I'm not buying the war against gub'ment. It's the same war corporate special interest groups have been selling since the '80s.

-David

Every Democrat in the country will take charge of 3 illegal immigrants. They will feed, clothe and shelter those immigrants and provide for their schooling, their medical care and any other needs.

Awesome idea!!!

Obama should implement this immediately...

Wonder how many volunteers he would get??

I can bet.....

NONE.... ZERO..... ZILCH.... NADA.....

The Left talks a great game..

But only when it's someone else who has to pay the bills...

Michale

And if you are for LESS government, then that makes you......

A REPUBLICAN!!!!

:D

Michale

No one is talking about destroying.. It's a straw man argument that the Left makes up so they can knock it down.

Like the "War On Women" or "Anyone who disputes climate change is a denier" and other garbage like that.

Government has it's place.. The problem is ya'all believe that the government should control more and more.. That kind of control then, in turn, leads to the corruption that ya'all CLAIM to be against..

A smaller government with LESS power is LESS inclined to be corrupt...

Simple logic..

Glass-Steagall, as the person in your article mentions, is a great example of good government.

And who got rid of it??

Democrats...

You prove my point for me.

Government was made bigger and more controlling. Corruption increased...

Why is that? Btw, "rail against corporations". Cut it out w/ the spin.

Uh... This is the FTP By definition, it's a "spin zone" :D

I point out the obvious: what corporations are interested in is cheap labor and paying less to our country (or any country for that matter).

And Immigration Amnesty will give those corporations the VERY access to that cheap labor..

Immigration REFORM, on the other hand, will LESSEN the control of corporations and make them pay workers more...

So, if it's the middle class you are fighting for, then you should be fighting on my side. The side of Immigration REFORM.. Not Immigration Amnesty...

If Obama's Amnesty program gets approved WHO do you think is going to pay the biggest price???

The mid to lower income people. The minorities whose job market is ALREADY brutal is going to have millions and millions of new workers thrown into that very same job pool...

How can ANYONE who claims to be for middle class Americans can support Immigration Amnesty is really beyond me...

Michale

In a democracy, people are the government. The problem, as LD points out, is that we're far from a democracy.

By destroying the government, you take power away from people.

Getting rid of government would only leave the people responsible for the corruption (corporate special interests) in charge.

Don't worry though. Corporate interests will never let the libertarian dream happen though. They need the police as enforcers for when people fight back.

Glass-Steagall, as the person in your article mentions, is a great example of good government.

Your author is exactly right that this is the type of thing we need. Real laws to ensure a working economy.

As history has demonstrated, markets don't regulate themselves. Unfortunately, I think we're going to have see many more collapses before we free ourselves from this propaganda.

Corporations are FOR Immigration Amnesty for the EXACT same reasons you rail against corporations.

Why is that? Btw, "rail against corporations". Cut it out w/ the spin. I point out the obvious: what corporations are interested in is cheap labor and paying less to our country (or any country for that matter).

-David

If yer still around in this commentary, I would very much like to hear your thoughts on my Obama Impeachment analysis, comment #27...

There are two further salient points that would make an Obama Impeachment viable whereas the Clinton Impeachment was not..

1. Obama's poll numbers are low 40s and on the way down.. Clinton's poll numbers were at low 60s and moving up. Impeaching a popular POTUS is infinitely harder than impeaching an unpopular POTUS who, for all intents and purposes, has received a vote of NO CONFIDENCE from the American People.

2. Clinton's impeachment was because of perjury and obstruction of justice.. Crimes that really didn't affect Joe and Jane SixPack.. Obama's crimes are affecting a wide swath of Joes and Janes across the country...

For these reasons and so many more, I can almost guarantee that the GOP will be VERY unlikely to pay a political price for impeaching Obama...

Whether Obama is actually convicted and removed from office?? That's a little less sure.. It will defend on several factors..

If you ARE interested in pursuing this topic, I would love to hear your thoughts on the socio-racial effects of an Obama impeachment....

Watt's style rioting?? That would be my guess...

Anywho.... If ya get a free second... :D

Michale

Corporations are FOR Immigration Amnesty for the EXACT same reasons you rail against corporations..

So, by supporting Immigration Amnesty and not Immigration Reform, you are actually SUPPORTING the very corporations that you are railing against..

Where's the logic???

Michale

Which is EXACTLY what the SCOTUS/Hobby Lobby ruling did..

It take power away from Obama's power-mad administration and gave it back to the people. In this case, the business owners who just want to run their business in accordance with their beliefs...

Michale

Yea...

Last time Obama said he was going to "fix" our Immigration system, he gave us DACA which directly lead to the catastrophe that is occurring on our southern border...

I don't know if this country can handle more Obama "fixes"....

Michale

Yea...

Last time Obama said he was going to "fix" our Immigration system, he gave us DACA which directly lead to the catastrophe that is occurring on our southern border...

I don't know if this country can handle more Obama "fixes"....

Michale

I guess I need to read more closely, eh? :D

So, we are in agreement.. We need to take power away from the government and give it to the people..

This will be a win/win because it will mean LESS corruption from the government and more freedom/liberty for the people..

Common ground.. A wonderful thing... :D

Michale

Then the solution is clear.

Don't give the government MORE power...

If you want to have less corruption, then take power AWAY from the government and give it to the people...

Michale

In the more than five years that Mr. Obama has been in office, the court has rejected the government’s argument with a 9-0 decision 20 times.

It's not about Right vs Left. It's not about Democrats vs Republicans..

It's about a POTUS who can't accept the word "NO" from the other two equal portions of our government..

It's about a child who has to have everything HIS way without ANY thought to the consequences of his lawless actions...

The Legislative third of our government has told Obama "NO"...

The Judicial third of our government has told Obama "NO"...

You would THINK that any sane executive would step back and say, "Maybe it's me..."

But Obama's ego is simply too big a part of his life for such useful (to the country) self-examination..

Obama is always right. It's everyone else who is wrong...

2017 can't come fast enough....

Michale

Obama must be so proud of himself.. :^/

Michale

I believe freedom involves the rights of others.

Exactly...

NOT just the rights of the people who believe as you do..

This ruling upheld the rights of the people to run their business as they see fit..

I'm kinda surprised by you on this one, Michale. Didn't realize you were so religious.

I am kinda surprised myself.

But then I realized that this isn't about religion..

It's about, as you say, the rights of others to believe as they want to believe and to run their lives and their businesses according to their beliefs..

Ya know. That old hokey saying about not agreeing with what you say but defending your right to say it??

Democrats seem to have forgotten that..

I want to get rid of the corruption.

Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely...

LD,

We might begin by facing reality for a change instead of pretending America has always been a bastion of individual freedom and democracy--until just recently.

It may be just recently for YOU, but for many of us... Not so much.

Oh give me a break and cry me a river...

You know, LD.. There will come a time, hopefully in the not so distant future, where the races are going to have to give up on their victim status and will have to own up to the responsibilities of true equality...

In short, races can only play the victim for so long before other races get sick and tired of it..

If you hate this country so much, don't let the door hit you on the backside on yer way out...

Michale

I can hear you-or rather read you-just fine.

Ok, yeah. Sure. You're right. It's been going on for much longer than 40 years.

Great. You win.

What leads you to think that I'm being selfish and shortsighted though?

If cooperation on less corruption requires me to admit that we've never been the pillar of democracy I desire, than that's easy to do as it's not hard to do.

It's also easy for me to agree that less apathy and shortsighted indifference to others is a good thing though I feel somewhat accused (confused?) by this comment.

I don't wish to fight you as I think we believe in the same things. But I'm going to be honest, my first reaction was where does this guy get off with the self-righteousness?

Can we at least agree that more democracy and less corruption would be a good thing? Aren't we fighting for the same thing?

Or do you just care about being more "right"? I mean we can fight with each other if you want. This doesn't seem very productive to me, however.

Peace.

-David

America's reputation as the pillar of democracy has always been a myth. Government corruption was instituted before the Constitution was even written. Slave owners were guaranteed the right to own slaves for at least another fifty years under a Constitutional compromise in order to win the support of the rich support for the Constitution.

America has a LONG history of selling out peoples individual rights and freedoms to placate the interests, and greed, of the wealthy. The problem isn't that we've somehow strayed from the true way. Its that we've cultivated an astounding ability to both live in denial and ignore the plight of others that's now hurting us as well.

America's frequent total disregard for the rights and freedoms of people only becomes an issue when it hits a little too close to home. Government is certainly no more corrupt than its always been. And certain far LESS corrupt than its often been!

People only think its more corrupt, and more of a problem, because they fear the corruption is now affecting THEM, instead of just some insignificant people. Not that government is more corrupt.

Allow me to suggest that the solution isn't just less corruption, its less apathy and selfish shortsighted indifference to others. That is, after all, what CAUSES the corruption, and it always has been.

We might begin by facing reality for a change instead of pretending America has always been a bastion of individual freedom and democracy--until just recently.

It may be just recently for YOU, but for many of us... Not so much.

I completely agree with him that the problem is that government is not being run for the common good anymore.

It's being run for special interests.

Where I disagree with him is that he seems to think the solution is getting rid of government. He wants to throw the baby out with the bathwater.

I want to get rid of the corruption.

Our government used to be the idol of the free world with its checks and balances. The problem is that corporations figured out how to bypass these checks and balances.

The question I would ask is, why do corporations want to get rid of government? Why have they fought this fight for the last 40 years?

What are they gaining and what are we, the people, losing?

The answer is, they gain cheap labor and they've cut their dues to our country. We lose wages and services and our country is being sold off bit by bit.

Here's the other odd part about Martin's rant. He claims that the repeal of Glass-Steagall was the final straw. Here, he's right.

But how would Glass-Steagall ever get reinstated without government?

In other words, this guy makes no sense. First, he claims we were right to have government regulation, then he wants to get rid of government.

Government isn't the problem. It's the corruption of government.

I believe we need to get rid of the corruption and return the government to the people (democracy!).

-David

Hmmm ... Every cult member ever was sincere about their beliefs.

So there's some kind of sincerity test ... who determines what's sincere and what's not? Why is one religion better than another?

I guess we'll find out when all the "sincere" nuts test out this precedent.

*sigh*

I believe freedom involves the rights of others. Not just the rights of certain religious groups who claim that somehow they are more "sincere" (in other words, better) than everyone else.

Let's be honest. Their shit stinks the same as everyone else's. No matter how self righteous or "sincere" they claim to be.

I'm kinda surprised by you on this one, Michale. Didn't realize you were so religious.

Freedom took a big step backwards today.

Something Democrats sincerely seem to lack.

Really? How so?

-David

No.. You have to SINCERELY believe in those freedoms..

Ya know.. Sincerity??

Something Democrats sincerely seem to lack...

And what, exactly, is good about unanimous decisions? You believe SCOTUS is, for some reason, incapable of being unanimously wrong? Repeatedly?

Funny how you ONLY think the SCOTUS is wrong when they go against your messiah..

Yea... NO agenda there, eh?? :D

Michale

Once again you demonstrate your total lack of understanding of the concept of logic.

So all I have to do is say I believe in some religion and I can disobey any law I want?

I can't wait to see the parade of nut jobs that use this as a precedent.

Yay freedom*!!!

-David

*Freedom does not apply if you're a woman, an employee of Hobby Lobby, or someone who disagrees with the religious views of Hobby Lobby.

For the record, that's the best record the SCOTUS has had in over a century....

Michale

And yet, over 66% of the decisions made this term were unanimous...

Kinda kills yer theory, eh?? :D

Michale

Actually, it's a BOOST for freedom...

Business owners can run their business as their beliefs and integrity dictates..

NOT as their government dictates..

Let the Free Market work...

Michale

In ADDITION to the 300 SF troops already sent..

Way ta go, Obama!!!!!

Didn't think Obama had it in him to give a big hearty middle finger to his base....

Good job, CnC...

Michale

It looks like the Roberts court is giving up all pretenses of objectivity.

"Approving some religious claims while deeming others unworthy of accommodation could be 'perceived as favoring one religion over another,' the very 'risk the [Constitution's] Establishment Clause was designed to preclude." - Justice Ginsberg

Another blow to freedom in the good 'ole USA.

-David

Bwwhahahahahahahahahaha

So much for "science", eh??? :D

Michale

I mean, 2/3rds of the government of this country think that Obama is out of control and needs to be reigned in and slapped down...

Michale

OK.. So we are agreed..

Obama is responsible for his lying...

For, if Obama didn't lie, he would have nothing to apologize for...

Common ground...

So, what do you think about the SCOTUS slapping Obama's wee-wee over recess appointments and TrainWreckCare??

Pretty telling, iddn't it.. :D

Michale

At some point in your life you may have heard of the term.

That's why, for example, Obama assured the American people that in spite of the lies Republicans were telling Obamacare did NOT mean Obama was taking over the the healthcare industry and deciding what peoples coverage would be.--Didn't work, of course, because Republicans claimed millions of policies were cancelled because Obama ordered it. Since Obama had taken over healthcare, so the claimed, obviously everything was Obama's fault. And, just as "obviously," Obama "lied" because what Obama actually SAID, what the LAW actually SAID, what actually happened, didn't mean a thing since Conservatives, and the media, chose to continue endorsing Republican lies.

The difference between Obama and Republicans is that, unlike Republicans, Obama does his job instead of just trying to position himself to create political propaganda for the next election.

Republicans, like spoiled two year-olds don't want to allow government to do ANYTHING unless THEY get to run it. So Republicans aren't interested in doing a thing EXCEPT trying to campaign for the next election.

So, yeah, Obama apologizes and accepts responsibility because THAT'S HIS JOB. He even continues to pointlessly try to work with the Republicans.--Because its his job. It does NOT mean that Obama is personally the cause of everything he must apologize for. THAT little fantasy is yet ANOTHER of your usual lies.

Gods know I can't change your mind..

But those beliefs are right up there on the BS scale with "Obama didn't lie" and "No policies were cancelled"...

It's funny... Obama apologized for both those things as well...

But, according to you, they never happened...

Don't tell me, let me guess.

Obama's apology never happened either, right?? :D

Michale

After the IG testified that the IRS targeted Conservatives, and after the IRS and Whitehous apologized based on that testimony, the IG claims to have not had all the information. And Republicans are not only uninterested in how the IG could possibly be so incompetent, they, like you, are still insisting his previous false statements are true. Either he'd credible or not. You can't have it both ways. Claiming he's credible ONLY when he says what YOU want to believe!

They, and you, are even doubling down with the fantasy that Lerner's lost emails must be a conspiracy to cover-up the "targeting" the evidence never happened. You claim you can "infer" there's a conspiracy to cover-up in spite of there being no evidence of targeting TO "cover-up!"

But you see no reason to believe there's a conspiracy when the IG provides false testimony to Congress and the claims that he determined Conservatives were "targeted" WITHOUT ever investigating how Progressive applications were handled?! No evidence of conspiracy when he holds private Republican-only meetings? For all he knew only Conservatives were "targeted" because only Conservatives applied for exemptions! You simply CANNOT come to the conclusion he claims to have held simply because you hadn't received all the data. As HE claims. No competent investigator absent data on anyone else would just assume that there were applications by other groups but that they were handled differently. Without even bothering to test that hypothesis by investigating exactly HOW other applications were processed?

The whole IRS "scandal" stinks all right. But NOT because of the way that the IRS handled applications! It stinks of a set-up, not a cover-up!

Documents that NO ONE has seen and have NOT been verified...

So, on the one hand, we have the FACT that has been WIDELY reported that the IRS did in fact inappropriately and then we have you picking up an obscure reference to some fantasy documents that "prove" that Obama's IRS LIED when it claimed it targeted Conservative groups inappropriately..

Is THAT the story you are running with?? :D

REALLY????

Michale

Forcing GOVERNMENT to impose peoples religious beliefs on employees is EXACTLY what the Constitution outlaws!

Hobby Lobby was neither ordered to provide abortion services nor to consume them. It was ordered to negotiate for coverage from third parties on behalf of its EMPLOYEES. Its the EMPLOYEES money being spent. And its the EMPLOYEES who would receive the services.

This is like the bakery who refused to make a cake for a gay wedding. Hobby Lobby wants to engage in business with the public, but with the right to discriminate against anyone in the public it chooses.

And the Conservatives in SCOTUS, once again ignore the Constitution in order to impose right-wing Christian prejudice, undercut the laws passed by Congress, and impose their views of what the law SHOULD be instead of doing their duty to enforce the laws enacted by the Congress and mandated by the Constitution.--This farcical court will keep right on shredding the Constitution until the biases unethical wingers on it are impeached.

Your IRS lies are based on incomplete, outdated information you conveniently cherry-pick. They are NOT true. The IRS "apology" was based on false information.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2013/07/18/irs-tea-party-hearing/2551339/

The IRS IG testified in July of 2013 that Conservatives were NOT targeted That his May testimony was inaccurate.--So, of course. You cite MAY 2013 pieces citing info proven to be UNTRUE.

I'll grant that your apology claim was a fact. It simply happens to be an UNTRUE fact.--As YOU were well aware. As I've ALREADY informed you REPEATEDLY.

You, however, simply prefer to lie.

That a CH/FO Corporation CAN have a "religion" and cannot be forced to take actions that would violate that religion...

Michale

If Unions demonstrated that THAT was their goal, then I likely wouldn't have a problem with it.

But Unions today exist SOLELY and UNEQUIVOCALLY to further the Union...

Michale

See!??

I *AM* logical!! :D

Michale

The Court says that the government has failed to show that the mandate is the least restrictive means of advancing its interest in guaranteeing cost-free access to birth control.
by Amy Howe 10:17 AM

RFRA applies to regulations that govern the activities of closely held for-profit corporations like Conestoga, HL and Mardel.
by Amy Howe 10:17 AM

Closely held corporations cannot be required to provide contraception coverage.
- See more at: http://live.scotusblog.com/Event/Live_blog_of_opinions__June_30_2014#sthash.m6XdgZW2.dpuf

That makes a lot of sense and is, dare I say, quite logical.

I suppose there is some truth to that.

But, again, it comes down to competent leadership of the unions and taking care of people in a responsible manner.

I can blame the people for electing poor leaders..

But I blame the leaders for being poor leaders...

Michale

A great one..

But their time is past...

Now they are a drain.. A blood-sucking bureaucracy that ONLY exists to serve itself...

Michale

Intellectually, I know that...

But viscerally.....

Well, let's just say that MANY leaders don't deserve to be considered as "people"... :D

Michale