I get all my news needs from John Stewart, and Steven Cobert...

Yes that is very true. But that would be too much for one thread:P

Also why, in theory, it's in everyone's best interest to vote on that basis rather than blindly follow a party.
Also why you don't want one side in power for too long. The longer you are in, the more corrupt you will become.
:P

Peanut- Yes, I'm very aware of the social issue conservatism of most faiths. But I'm also equally familiar with their lobbying for raising the minimum wage, supporting instate tuition for illegal immigrants, supporting amnesty for that matter for illegal immigrants, anti-death penalty and so forth. They're not as easily pidgeon-holed into one poli-philosophical viewpoint as folks would like to make it out. Don't believe me? Look at the Catholic Conferences lobbying efforts.

TOM-That's a little simplified. Do you hear Democrats knocking each other down to reform social security or medicare by trying new approaches--privatazation, medicare as a policy supplement, welfare-to-work? Republicans proffer up new ideas--we just tend to believe those ideas should be tried in the states (and local governments) as they are the laboratories of our nation's democracy. And none of this is to say some Democrats don't do the same. Shoot, Obama did the same with Race to the Top (which I thought was an interesting idea--albeit I wouldn't have used new funds and would've simply appropriated funds from some DoED program that wasn't producing results).

It's not odd it's become a discussion of American politics given the plurality (dare I say majority) of posters are probably Americans. You view the world through the prism in which you understand it.

As for discussing 'liberals', what should conservatives offer their defense in comparison to? I mean debating philosophies in a vacuum is a nice mental ejaculatory exercise, but that's about it. Discuss what defines "moral" without saying how you determine what's immoral. The value in spectrum debates is being able to offer a comparative analysis.

the majority of the posters are definitely americans so I guess that's fair enough. One can discuss the underlying philosophy of a political ideology without debating the merits of individual politicians I suppose.

"As for discussing 'liberals', what should conservatives offer their defense in comparison to?"
Anarchy!!

Seriously, ideology should be about building something and hence arguments should stand on their own merits rather than simply being against something or simply saying "we are better than X".
Are u about building a certain vision of society/way of running a country? Are you trying to build a nation based on some kind of ideal? or are you simply trying to destroy something.

For example: The old conservative party of Canada (in the 1980s) was elected based on the merit of their ideas, not because they were trying to destroy something. Regardless of if you agree: they were for liberalization of trade, privatization of industry and a version constitutional reform and defended themselves mostly based on their ideas/vision for the country.

Simply saying that "we are better than X" or attacking groups of society/regions is cheap politics and nothing more.

"The value in spectrum debates is being able to offer a comparative analysis."
Only if you are unable to think outside the box.
"Discuss what defines "moral" without saying how you determine what's immoral."
Very easily.

Trumper: The problem is Tea Partiers have some valid economic points which are very easily lost in the bevy of psychotic and outright stupid things that they say. Re: Michelle Bachman. If the conservative movement would ever get someone who could hammer economic issues without sounding like they also belong on a militia outpost in Montana with a tinfoil hat on their heads they would be the second coming of Reagan. Unfortunately none of the current Republican leaders are good orators or know wtf they are talking about to the point that they can speak on subjects on the fly like some politicians used to be able to do. If it's not on their pre-programmed talking points they freeze up and then revert to repeating those talking points instead of answering the effing question. Or like the Arizona governor they just say this interview is over and storm off.

Another major MAJOR problem in both parties is that people never EVER can own up to even minor mistakes and just say yeah I was wrong. Speakers like Kennedy or Reagan would make a flip remark and be self deprecating but NO ONE in today's day and age can do that.

which is what I see from the CPC party at the local and federal levels here.

And I'm picking on them because they are the ones in charge.

what's worse is their hostile attitude towards the press when faced with questions beyond the talking points.

....I want martian as my PM

Romney.

Romeny is turning psycho also trying to pander to libertarians to hate him for "Romney-care". He's like McCain who backtracked on his reasonable well thought out stances to appease the hardliners in his party that wanted him out in the primary because he wasn't crazy enough.

denied.....he hasn't had his shots

poor liberal probably paid a university to brainwash him

Scapegoating universities is another of the batfluff crazy ideas that permeate the tea party movement IMO. It's flabbergasting to be that politically active people are so vehemently against education. And YES I've been to college plenty, no professors did not try to brainwash me. Most of them enjoyed a good debate.

TOM--I wish more folks would say mea culpa. But they don't say it. The reason they don't say it is because the backlash hurts them more than the converse. It's just like folks complaining about negative advertising without realizing that you as the public really determine why folks act or don't act the way they do. Sure you're not responsible for Barack Obama introducing huge spending bills, but you are (you being the representative plural of all of us) responsible for him claiming to offer a debt reduction plan in the coming weeks.

Martian--I think I agree with your point that bring ideas to the table rather than disagreement. But I'm not sure that ideas grow in a vacuum. I guess I come from a legislative standpoint where everything is examiner and re-examined, argued, and hashed out to the point of absurdity. So introspectively I have a harder time saying let's just define a philosophy without defining any of the boundaries around it.

Delve into their budgeting process and you may beg to differ! I'm not against education, but man for the price taxpayers pay, our enlightened youth and professors should have cured cancer by now. I say this only half-joking because I've seen dollar after dollar poured into massive bureaucracies that lack any legislative or executive oversight since they exist in the semi-state gray area known as higher education. That said, I'm fine giving them more money if it actually goes toward building better facilities or increasing course offerings, but it rarely does.

blah, blah, blah

trumper: I'm reffering to the idea that university professors systematically brainwash students. That's just simply a boogey man myth that's further exagerated in the minds of people who havent gone to college.

We cannot seriously address issues much less provide solutions to the problems we face without identifying the root causes.

Is there a serious discontent in the citizenry vis a vis politicians they voted into power? Is there a disconnect between the solutions politicians are bringing to the table and what their constituents want? If so then what is the cause of this disconnect?

If not then the constituents are happy. All these constituents need to do is remain vigilant over those representing them. Politicians would simply need to continue providing solutions matching the mandate provided to them from the people.

Do we even understand what this mandate is? I'm willing to bet it is simple and has a lot of common ground regardless of which party a person claims to be from.

1. Get the economy under control i.e. stop spending more then what is brought in as tax revenue.

2. Bring back good paying jobs, creating new jobs does not mean minimum wage and/or temporary employment without benefits. It means jobs allowing an average worker to save money and achieve their dreams. A good paying job means you can pay your rent or mortgage with a single weeks worth of take home pay <<-- this used to be the banking standard for making a home loans. This standard disappeared in the 70's as banks allowed couples to merge their salaries to meet the one week salary requirement. This devolved to a single 2 week salary covering the mortgage in the 80s and by the 90s this became 2 salaries for 2 weeks covering the mortgage. So instead of making sure salaries kept up with the cost of living they loosened the requirements to make owning a home accessible to those who under older standards would have been locked out. To top it off laws were passed wherein if the equivalent of a months salary was not enough to cover the mortgage then offer adjustable rate mortgages and sell it as a home for all program. We now have major issues but hey who could have possibly known this was going to go sideways.

3. Fix the education system so it is not measured on the ability of a student to memorize facts and figures. make it so students coming out of a k12 school system can actually do their own research and vocalize their own opinions. Analytical thinking skills is more important then the ability to demonstrate rote memorization skills.

4. Health care make it so the general public can buy into medicare or medicaid as an option vs. paying large insurance companies. This not only funds these programs, but provides a competitive atmosphere, which large insurance companies would need to recognize if they wanted to survive. Do the same with social security i.e. allow people to invest in their own accounts in lieu of or in addition to their 401Ks. There could be a minimum amount mandated to insure some form of baseline, but allow people to invest more pre-tax if they wanted to.Like a 401k make it so amounts invested above the minimum can be borrowed against in cases of emergencies. Also make the accounts transferable in the event of death, but can be taxed as a capital gain when transferred.

5. Environment: It is ok to mandate clean air, water, and resource conservation. however open up research and programs to make these initiatives affordable. Provide incentives to companies to meet these standards tax breaks, free land, or even subsidized retrofits. We do not need more companies leaving because the cost of meeting EPA standards make them less competitive in the global marketplace. Raise customs tariffs on goods coming from countries which do not require these types of environmental enhancements in the manufacturing of goods. Use the custom tariffs to level the playing field with countries that allow their populations to be exploited. Use the extra money to pay for the retrofitting of manufacturing plants or in building out a renewable energy grid.

The above are off the cuff ideas but I'm sure much smarter people then myself can hone these into something that is actually workable. What it takes though is some serious brainstorming sessions where ideas are thrown on the table with give and takes being explored for their actual value to our various societies.

for me its just fun to identify problems and think of possible solutions.

Prima, some interesting ideas. I feel the same about getting some ideas on the table and sifting through them. Couple things:

Most of yours end up creating a system where government is depended upon by the people for the service. For example, #4 there has the government involved in the "competitive" market which almost never tends to work out well. I vote to just create an atmosphere where competition can thrive and get out of the way.

Raising tariffs is not a good idea. Check out the Hawley-Smoot Tariff if you want to see what really started the great depression in 1930 in the US. Raising tariffs will only cause retaliation and lower our imports and exports thus slowing our economy.

I think #1 is the starting point for all of this. It's something that everyone should be able to agree upon, yet politicians can never get it done. Newt and Clinton got it done in the 90's(which history shows a republican congress with democrat president does best, probably due to republicans moving right for the term). Other than that, not much this half century.

on #4 I sort of view like the post office vs. Fedex and UPS.

While the post office may not be as efficient as Fedex and UPS it still forces those companies to remain competitive. It also provides for innovation as these companies do what they can to get and keep their share of the market. the gov of course will always be able to provide lower cost, and as it learns from Fedex and UPS can and does become a better service provider.

For #5 I normally shy away from subsidized solutions or penalties being levied for non-conformance to standards we believe should be enacted outside of our own borders. I just can't think of some way to level this playing field against a global economy, where countries allow major environmental damage to occur and/or do not come close to providing a living wage for their workers.

#1 cannot occur without addressing fundamental issues which affect our economy. we either lower our standard of living and shrink the economy or we close down programs which are actually safety nets. An easy solutions could be to lower our own global footprint by shrinking our military involvement globally. This however also means we would need to let go of strategic positions we consider crucial to our national interests. What this actually means is American corporations abroad exploiting resources and labor resources would be left defenseless to face the wrath of some local populations. A huge portion of American involvement abroad is to ensure governments remain friendly to these types of exploitation.

It may sound like the right thing to do especially when considering how our national interests are being represented abroad. however this would translate into much higher prices within the G-8 countries. We also have the SCO currently jostling for global dominance when it comes to trade. So it definitely would not create a vacuum if we were to step aside. It would just give rise to a new power bloc dictating who gets what, and I doubt we would be very high up on this totem pole.

As harsh as it may sound, we may be headed into a repeat of the great depression. Unless we find a way to revitalize our manufacturing sector and this does not necessarily have to be cars or electronics. It can be medicine, green energy, advanced composite materials, whatever it takes as long as it is profitable. Which points to another aspect of the problem wherein vast amounts of R&D expenses paid for by taxes in academia, is not recouped. The R&D results are exported oversees where it is cheaper to commercialize. So in reality other countries are capitalizing on this research at our expense. This has to stop somehow, this R&D is expensive and we are giving away major strategic advantages every-time this research ends up in foreign hands.

Federal R&D Funding by Agency:
http://www.proposalexponent.com/federalprofiles.html

[quote poster=trumper; 8848; 153529
Delve into their budgeting process and you may beg to differ! I'm not against education, but man for the price taxpayers pay, our enlightened youth and professors should have cured cancer by now. I say this only half-joking because I've seen dollar after dollar poured into massive bureaucracies that lack any legislative or executive oversight since they exist in the semi-state gray area known as higher education. That said, I'm fine giving them more money if it actually goes toward building better facilities or increasing course offerings, but it rarely does. [/quote]

Actually I work in a university, and know a lot of the Australian Universities. America (and Australia) have problems with the private colleges/institutions, who tend to do whatever they want and are a bit shady. I've read the Australian auditing reports for these institutions (sometimes its very lol). however auditing is random and only every leap year.

Australian government/state universities have a high standard of auditing and accountability. However there are some issues:
1.) bonuses to key staff
2.) fiscal responsibility (YAY lets invest all over the random place)
3.) Having accounting surpluses that are not real. How can you have surplus if its all allocated else where... good for bonuses though.

However universities (Australia, America, UK) thought it was trendy to have dodgy surpluses to give key staff nice bonuses. The problem is that governments are turning around and saying 'yoink, you have more money than you need, we will take that off your hands' (UK, Australia, America).

UK and America are raiding university fake surpluses directly in various states.

Australia: You have a surplus lets reduce spending and the number of international students. (total reductions 1 billion so far, which is a lot for Australia) with more reductions coming soon unfortunately. The Labor party (ex-communist party, ex-union party, have been beating up on Universities for ages).

Australian universities don't invest in college football as much as American Universities do. Its actually a huge gamble, you pay millions for coaches, training staff and scholarships and you only have a chance to make the money back if you get to the region's bowl because of television rights (though you don't necessarily have to win).

Im America we spend too much money on it lol http://www.nationmaster.com/...education-spending-of-gdp

here is a research report showing what the higher education budget actually looks like.

Trends in College Spending
Where does the money come from? Where does it go?

http://www.deltacostproject.org/...ds_in_spending-report.pdf

and here is an awesome graphical representation of the US Federal Discretionary Budget:)

http://wallstats.com/deathandtaxes/

Prima,

The post office is an interesting point. It does seem to work because of how the market performs for mail. They handle all the small stuff with a stamp and you can pay for the larger stuff. Notice you don't usually send envelopes through anything but USPS. It isn't run like insurance though where you pay a flat cost whether you ship 100 items that month or none at all.

Anyways, those are small things that come to mind. The main gripe I have in comparing them is looking at the deficit USPS ran last year. Something like 8 Billion I think. Imagine if a government run insurance company could run billions in deficit and use taxpayers money to offset the costs, it seems like they could use the program for redistribution of wealth and end up pushing out the competition rather than encouraging it. Now I don't want to have a redistribution of wealth discussion, but you can see where I'm going with that.

Those are interesting reports you put up on spending in that recent post.

Peanut, it is interesting that spending doesn't seem to force results. I found this awhile back and it seems to be a pretty good accounting of results.
http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/54/12/46643496.pdf

just a place holder for later:

http://www.fiscalcommission.gov/...omentofTruth12_1_2010.pdf

There are Liberal Christians,

But, their belief systems aren't threatened by things like,

Evolution, Science, Historical Criticism and Scholarship, or even other faiths.

So they have no need to be noisy and vocal and active.



PS, if you really want to understand the Liberal/Conservative split in our country, I suggest a book by Lackoff called,

Moral Politics.

Both systems Play off of the Family Metaphor,
Conservatives follow the strict father metaphor of family systems theory
Liberal follow the Emapthetic Mother metaphor of family systems theory.

Great book, explains how both parties can often use the same lanague, but have completely different interpretations and meanings.

CKHustler

while the post office does run at a deficit there are some easy ways of fixing this. most of the deficit is related to infrastructure maintenance, which is no longer needed as the business shrank.

the social insurance side however is going to be growing, and is already running at huge deficits, much larger then the 8 billion pegged by the post office. The system itself needs to be revamped, modernized and streamlined. There is a tremendous amount of red tape and paperwork which is manually handled. One of the big pluses in allowing businesses to purchase their health insurance or retirement insurance from the gov is the innovation they would bring with them. Currently the social insurances are at a individual level, which is costly. Business would introduce group level policies and more importantly system consolidation and integration. To give an example of a company doing good providing supplemental insurance I will simply point to AFLAC.

The fiscal commission report above though pointed out something that shocked me:

there is 1.1 trillion dollars in earmarks embedded in the current tax code. getting rid of these earmarks alone would be a huge step forward. It's larger then the defense budget, personally I would love to have a better understanding of where this money is actually going. That's a lot of skimming occurring, outside of the published budget.

Recipe to restore sanity in American Politics:


Step 1:

Change campaign funding to be NO CORPORATE DONATIONS and maximum personal donations of $1000.


Step 2:

Close loopholes in the revolving door; no congressman/senator/pres should be able to serve on a corporate board or as a lobbyist for 5-10 years after being in


Step 3:

Require a full reading of a bill in the house/senate before it is voted on; this would reduce the complexity of bills; "pass it to find out what's in it" is retarded.


Step 4:

Make all issues regarding science & science education subject to recommendation by the National Academy of Sciences. (think "stem cell veto" and "intelligent design")


Step 5:

Enact some sort of Anti-Too-Big-To-Fail legislation; if a company is too big to fail, then it either needs to be broken up, or nationalized, with ALL of the executives FIRED and FINED (think fines on order of 75% of assets).

Disagree on #4, agree on the rest.

hmm... do you think religious right should be able to do what they will with the sciences?


also, clarification on #5, the fines would be if the company was "to big to fail" and failed... heh

No I don't think the religious right should be in charge of it either. I just think the NAS and scientists in general are not as unbiased about things as they make it out to be. For example abiogensis and punctuated equilibrium are taught in science classes in high school as if they are bona fide fact for expediency's sake under the argument that kids don't understand the complex nature of the issues and/or there isn't time to go in depth into them in a school year and that kids will learn more about these things if they further their education in Biology. Meanwhile the 99.9% of kids who do NOT do that go on thinking life came from goo and giraffes popped out of whale uteri after a mass extinction.

heh i guess

i'd like some protection against the intentional sabotage of science & science education from those who "don't believe in science" or other such things....

Qz,

the religious right would make #4 a target. (they are very good at picking off their targets even when in a minority)

Imagine an orgnaization like #4 that's ran by/contrlled by the religious right.

It'd take time, but they'd develop their type of scientists, get them funded, get them in posistion.

So I think in theory #4 could backfire, it may take a decade or two...

but then again, I don't expect the Relig Right to maintain power for too long, they are mostly made up of conservative white evangelicals, which as a % of our country pop is in rapid decline.

hm interesting points Servant

After reading and considering all of the above I am reminded of a very old saying that Says:
Anything to Extreme is
" EXTREMELY WRONG "