For JTF's Reading Pleasure: "What is the Tea Party"

[Chico23231]

Originally Posted by GMScud

And that's the way race should be treated across the board. Sadly, it's not that way and probably never will be.

Whats just as sad is the media treatment...they love to fuel the fire. Like that edited tape...didnt anyone analyze it and check the actual facts before reporting it? The media in this country is out of f*ing control. (side note, sadder than this is the fact Obama admin wasnt able to figure it out before firing her)

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

I understand the difference you are pointing out. Yet, I feel like many of the New Deal/Social Support programs were designed specifically to create this same dependency on Government that created the New Roman Aristocracy. We call it the welfare state, but basically this new social structure is founded not on inalienable rights, but on the government's good graces and as it expands it creates more and more users who feel this sense of entitlement, derived not from God, a creator, or some inalienable right, but solely from the government which feeds them.

Well, both the Civil War and the New Deal were serious blows to federalism and the traditional power structure. Of course, that was in part b/c federalism and the traditional power structure allowed for institutionalized slavery and disregard for "the General Welfare".

Unlike the inalienable rights, however, "entitlements" can (not that they will) be rolled back. AND - There is a defense to the claim that anyone is really entitled to them b/c the Bill of Rights specifically says you have certain rights and these payments aren't listed. Unlike Rome (or more recently Britain), these entitlements are not confused as constitutional rights. They are instead privileges granted by the govt.

Not saying this is going to happen anytime soon, but, at some point, I think the reality sets in for the vast majority of people funding the "entitlements" to say - "We have no more money to feed the government that feeds you." The response but "We are entitled" does not suffer from the flaw that created the Roman structure in that priviledges are understood to be revocable - rights are not.

You said it well earlier - the drug of government money is very addictive for society. Some addicts recover, some do not. I honestly don't know which we will be. We have a government structure in place that provides us, I believe, a better chance at recovery than the Romans - but I would absolutely agree that it is not a given.

[Slingin Sammy 33]

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

Those who represent powerful special interests will find a way to sway those who are elected to represent "the people".

This is true. But let's make their job much harder. It's a lot tougher to influence (bribe/pressure) a majority of state legislators from diverse districts in 50 separate states than it is to pump money into an ad campaign or call blitz to the most populous areas of specific target states to influence elections.

It's like the spread offense, forcing the D to defend the whole width and length of the field puts more stress on it. If the D only has to defend a specific palyer or area of the field, that's much easier than having to defend everywhere/everyone.

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by Slingin Sammy 33

This is true. But let's make their job much harder. It's a lot tougher to influence (bribe/pressure) a majority of state legislators from diverse districts in 50 separate states than it is to pump money into an ad campaign or call blitz to the most populous areas of specific target states to influence elections.

It's like the spread offense, forcing the D to defend the whole width and length of the field puts more stress on it. If the D only has to defend a specific palyer or area of the field, that's much easier than having to defend everywhere/everyone.

I agree, the thing is over time those peddlers develop ways to do it, so, if we changed it now, at some point in the future we would need it changed again...

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

Well, both the Civil War and the New Deal were serious blows to federalism and the traditional power structure. Of course, that was in part b/c federalism and the traditional power structure allowed for institutionalized slavery and disregard for "the General Welfare".

Unlike the inalienable rights, however, "entitlements" can (not that they will) be rolled back. AND - There is a defense to the claim that anyone is really entitled to them b/c the Bill of Rights specifically says you have certain rights and these payments aren't listed. Unlike Rome (or more recently Britain), these entitlements are not confused as constitutional rights. They are instead privileges granted by the govt.

Not saying this is going to happen anytime soon, but, at some point, I think the reality sets in for the vast majority of people funding the "entitlements" to say - "We have no more money to feed the government that feeds you." The response but "We are entitled" does not suffer from the flaw that created the Roman structure in that priviledges are understood to be revocable - rights are not.

You said it well earlier - the drug of government money is very addictive for society. Some addicts recover, some do not. I honestly don't know which we will be. We have a government structure in place that provides us, I believe, a better chance at recovery than the Romans - but I would absolutely agree that it is not a given.

Well said.

[GMScud]

On a side note, I'd like to applaud the recent commentary in this thread by CRedskinsrule, SS33, and JoeRedskin. Good stuff guys.

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by GMScud

On a side note, I'd like to applaud the recent commentary in this thread by CRedskinsrule, SS33, and JoeRedskin. Good stuff guys.

Hey what about me?LOL

[saden1]

Are people more involved in local elections than national elections? I know they are more vested in local elections but are they more involved and apprised of the candidates that are running?

[firstdown]

I have a tougher time keeping up with local politics then I do national.

[12thMan]

Good question. Republicans tend to be more involved and apprised in local elections. I think there's an ebb and flow though. It usually boils down to how effective the party apparatus is. You know, the DNC/RNC.

[12thMan]

I guess I'll add one more thing, demographics tend to drive how much people get involved too.

[Slingin Sammy 33]

Originally Posted by saden1

Are people more involved in local elections than national elections? I know they are more vested in local elections but are they more involved and apprised of the candidates that are running?

I believe turnout for local elections is significantly lower than national. This shouldn't be the case, I agree local elections have as much, if not more direct affect, on a person's daily life. I would bet a dollar to a dime if the state legislatures appointed senators you'd see a big jump in voter turn-out for the state level offices.

[Slingin Sammy 33]

Originally Posted by 12thMan

Good question. Republicans tend to be more involved and apprised in local elections. I think there's an ebb and flow though. It usually boils down to how effective the party apparatus is. You know, the DNC/RNC.

Not sure how things are in the major cities (I didn't pay as much attention when I was living up there), but in VB the national DNC/RNC has minimal to zero involvement in local races. The Gov races, yes. State legislature, etc., minimal. Local DNC/RNC chapters do get involved, but unless I'm mistaken their funds are mostly generated locally.

[GMScud]

I've always paid more attention to national elections than local, however I do vote in local elections and follow local issues. The national stuff is what gets all the big media coverage of course, so I'm sure that's a big influence.

[saden1]

Originally Posted by Slingin Sammy 33

I believe turnout for local elections is significantly lower than national. This shouldn't be the case, I agree local elections have as much, if not more direct affect, on a person's daily life. I would bet a dollar to a dime if the state legislatures appointed senators you'd see a big jump in voter turn-out for the state level offices.

You are right, turnout would jump simply because of people's desire to have input as to who their senators are. I wonder, however, how these voters will make their decision as to who their local representative is? Is it based on party or policy? Will local turnout rival that of current federal elections turnout?

Also, are state elected official any different than federally elected officials? Compared to federal politicians are local politicians more likely to be punished by the voters if they don't execute the will of the electorate?