I should think not having to worry about re-election would free up Mr. Moderate to take off the kid gloves and do some of the shit he was elected to do. Not convinced that that will happen, but it would be nice.

That's one crazy awesome picture you found there.

Also, although the complexion of this race makes it pretty much impossible for democrats to gain anything this election, I think some of the dumb asses elected on the tea bag ticket might cost the Republicans some seats they might have otherwise taken easily. But who knows, maybe Christine O'Donnell will win in a landslide. I haven't been following the polls.

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:

I should think not having to worry about re-election would free up Mr. Moderate to take off the kid gloves and do some of the shit he was elected to do. Not convinced that that will happen, but it would be nice.
That's one crazy awesome picture you found there.
Also, although the complexion of this race makes it pretty much impossible for democrats to gain anything this election, I think some of the dumb asses elected on the tea bag ticket might cost the Republicans some seats they might have otherwise taken easily. But who knows, maybe Christine O'Donnell will win in a landslide. I haven't been following the polls.


A lot of the loonies look like they're going to win (not O'Donnell) simply because the Democratic candidates are hated that much. This is definitely going to hurt them in two years, though, provided the Democrats don't just run the same assclowns that are about to get kicked out.

18 broken promises out of 500+ isn't bad at all.

Keep the dream alive. Ron Paul/Nader 2014.

There is plenty of debate on the left about what exactly the next move is for left of center politics in America.

One side says Obama and Democrats are doing about as well as we should have expected them to do, and that most of our problems are being caused by Senate filibuster rules, and a coalition of conservative Democrats and the whole Republican party.

The other side says Obama and the Democrats sold us out, that they're co-conspirators with the corporate Republican party, and it's time for us to make our voices heard...by trashing Obama and Democrats as much as possible.

I'm mostly sympathetic with the first group (mockingly referred to as "Obots"), while I'm mostly disgusted with the second (mockingly referred to as "firebaggers").

That said, I do think that while most of our problems can be chalked up to filibuster rules and conservadems, I think progressives as a whole have to reexamine how they practice politics. Democrats by and large refuse to make a full throated argument in favor of liberalism as a philosophy. Instead, they spend an inordinate amount of time trying to couch progressive ideas in conservative frames. For example, Democrats talk a lot about how health care is going to fix the long-term budget, but not so much about how it will help people who were being left for dead by the old system.

Maybe a third party would solve those problems, but I doubt it. The left needs to start getting angry, and demanding that their voices get heard.

>> ^MrFisk:

18 broken promises out of 500+ isn't bad at all.
Keep the dream alive. Ron Paul/Nader 2014.


I hearrrrrrd that!

>> ^NetRunner:
The left needs to start getting angry, and demanding that their voices get heard.


This sums things up the way I look at it. Conservatives have been having a field day lately with the left getting buried under the steamroller that is Fox News. The problem is, there is nothing stopping the left from doing the same in return but the result is always a "meh"

These are the people who will be first to not bother voting come November because they think that its a waste of time doing so. I still think its more important to just vote rather than sit there and 6 months later complain about (elected candidate) because you did not do anything about it!

Democrats/liberals are being (relatively) far too polite lately, and really need to fight back if they want to stop Repbulicans/conservatives from stomping all over them.

I doubt anyone can or should call Democrats left. I think of them as more centrists. But then again the whole left vs right paradigm is arbitrary and makes no sense currently. The terms 'right' and 'left' were created based on where political factions were seated in the Assembly during the French Revolution of the late 18th Century. On the left sat the National Party in favor of the Revolution and on the Right sat the Royalist Democrats in favor of a Constitutional.

Do either of those parties make sense for us today? No. Heck, the Dems started on the right. It's all madness. I say the right vs. left scale should be total government on the left and no government on the right. Republicans and Democrats would be center of that scale. Anarchists and Libertarians more to the right. Communists and Socialists more to the left.

I also think the Dems have showed their teeth just as fervently as the Republicans. I mean, yeah, the tea party takes the cake, but Bill O'Reilly is tame these days next to Maddow and Olbermann. Also, during the Bush Presidency, did we forget all the anti-war protesters storming public meetings and carrying signs and yelling? It's the same really. Both sides feel there side isn't doing enough to "fight back".

>> ^NetRunner:


The other side says Obama and the Democrats sold us out, that they're co-conspirators with the corporate Republican party, and it's time for us to make our voices heard...by trashing Obama and Democrats as much as possible.
I'm mostly sympathetic with the first group (mockingly referred to as "Obots"), while I'm mostly disgusted with the second (mockingly referred to as "firebaggers").
That said, I do think that while most of our problems can be chalked up to filibuster rules and conservadems, I think progressives as a whole have to reexamine how they practice politics. Instead, they spend an inordinate amount of time trying to couch progressive ideas in conservative frames. For example, Democrats talk a lot about how health care is going to fix the long-term budget, but not so much about how it will help people who were being left for dead by the old system.

I believe that the way to practice politics is to be as objective as you can muster. Here's my stab:

You're spot on about the health care bill argument. The real conservative vs. progressive discussion would have focused on our privatized system vs. single-payer health care. Re: the political direction however I would say the following:

Quite a few people who think the Democrats sold the majority of American people out to the corporations don't fault the Obama administration or the Democrats specifically for anything. While there can be a some well-intentioned people in any given political system, the majority are spineless rubber stamps for corporate money. This majority is spread nearly identically on a per capita basis across all current representative parties. This effect impacts the entire spectrum, stifling the overall voice from the depths of poverty all the way to up the middle class.


Only without this influence can the people's voices be freed. To your final point, I think this is the only thing that would allow for the left to actually stand up for populist ideals.

... on top of that it would be nice to see any party represent legitimate, non-corporate welfare business ideals as well.

I'm teabagging in Halo for jesus. If only people would turn the other cheek..

>> ^blankfist:

I doubt anyone can or should call Democrats left.

...

Also, during the Bush Presidency, did we forget all the anti-war protesters storming public meetings and carrying signs and yelling? It's the same really. Both sides feel there side isn't doing enough to "fight back".


This is the only part of your comment I agree with. Democrats are only "left" by way of comparison, not because they're actually left of center in any measurable way. Democrats today are to the right of Nixon on many, many issues.

>> ^blankfist:
[T]he whole left vs right paradigm is arbitrary and makes no sense currently. The terms 'right' and 'left' were created based on where political factions were seated in the Assembly during the French Revolution of the late 18th Century. On the left sat the National Party in favor of the Revolution and on the Right sat the Royalist Democrats in favor of a Constitutional.

You left out a word at the end of that sentence. Monarchy. Constitutional Monarchy.

Which is to say, left vs. right was borne out of a division on whose interests should take primacy, those of the nobility and the church, or the commoners?

That's how the parties still divide up today, you just have a lot more propaganda out there trying to muddy the issue.

>> ^blankfist:
I say the right vs. left scale should be total government on the left and no government on the right.

The old left-right struggle was basically a question of whether the landed nobility should get to have total authority (since they owned all the land), or whether authority should flow from rule of law set by an egalitarian democratic process.

The left pretty much won that fight, and ever since the right wants to make the government the enemy, because it gives commoners some sort of power over them.

That's why the royalists want you to believe that they're in a noble struggle against "government" in favor of "meritocracy", because now they need popular support for their cynically self-serving power grab.

It's the modern-day noble lie. The rich deserve all the power because they say they earned it with their own individual industriousness, never mind all the evidence to the contrary. And don't you dare ask questions about whether it's right that any one man should have so much more power than another, it's a sin to question those of noble birth just engaging in class warfare.

The old definition of left & right is still apt, it's just that the right has to pretend it's about something else now.

>> ^blankfist:
I also think the Dems have showed their teeth just as fervently as the Republicans. I mean, yeah, the tea party takes the cake, but Bill O'Reilly is tame these days next to Maddow and Olbermann.

You obviously don't watch any of those shows.

@NetRunner: The old left-right struggle was basically a question of whether the landed nobility should get to have total authority (since they owned all the land), or whether authority should flow from rule of law set by an egalitarian democratic process. The left pretty much won that fight, and ever since the right wants to make the government the enemy, because it gives commoners some sort of power over them.

I don't think we have the same federal government. Last time I checked my government embolden corporatist interests. In fact, even my local government in Los Angeles seems to want to keep the people poor. I work from home and forgot to move my car during street cleaning yesterday - that's one day out of the past six years. Well, I got a $65 ticket. Is that a fair price? I ran a red light by accident five years ago, got caught by one of those red light cameras and received a $400 ticket. I won that in court, but they never paid me back (yes, you have to pay before you're found guilty). I actually made a long trip the courthouse months later to get my money back, but the line for the court teller was so long it wrapped around the outside of the building. True story. I didn't have the time to waste an entire day waiting for repayment on something they should've never taken in the first place.

Funny thing is a lot of the times the street cleaners never come (yes, I've actually watched). But the parking enforcement during that 3 hour window of no parking are out like swarms of mosquitoes. California is about as egalitarian a state as any in the union. Seems to me they aren't trying to hard to help us out with their "total authority" flowing from the "rule of law set by egalitarian democratic process".

I've noticed Democrats seem to love it when government takes our money. Car registration used to cost nearly $400 here in LA before the Governator came in and changed that. Now it's still over a hundred. Parking on my street costs me an annual fee, and I have to purchase annual parking passes for guests. We have meters everywhere, and they're not cheap. Some meters cost a couple dollars per hour.

You claim the Libertarians want a toll road society, which makes me laugh, because we already have that in the Democratic state of California.

@blankfist, so what are you asking your local government to do about it? Are you wanting them to raise local income or sales tax, and use the money to lower the fines on traffic violations?

Do you want them to raise your taxes so they can sweep the streets more often?

Do you want them to raise your taxes so they can hire more court tellers?

Do you think that they should raise your taxes, so they can make it cheaper to operate a car in a highly-congested area?

Do you want them to lease the roads to a private company?

They're doing that last here in Ohio. Granted, we're talking about a turnpike, not city streets, so I actually expect it to work out fine.

@NetRunner. Gasoline tax was designed to pay for the roads, so that pretty much negates everything you said. Even if we believe fines are necessary to keep drivers from parking inappropriately, do they have to be so steep? And shouldn't the registration costs really only cover the cost of processing and the sticker?

Courts should be paid for by court costs. Seems fair. It's not like the local government of Los Angeles isn't raking in billions from the tax payers.

Also, apparently the DMV was privatized in either SC or NC, and I hear the wait times are minutes. How's the DMV in Ohio? It sucks ass out here.

Not sure what you mean by "make it cheaper to operate a car in a highly-congested area".

@blankfist well, would you support raising the gasoline tax to cover any of those things, then?

The "make it cheaper to operate a car in a highly-congested area" was about the $400 registration fee. It's that high, because there are more people who want to drive in LA than the roads can handle. Market forces indicate that when demand exceeds supply, price should increase, but since people are usually opposed to congestion charges, it shows up as a high registration fee in metro areas. It's $40 for me in Franklin county, but compared to LA we're practically rural.

The DMV here is, for no good reason, the BMV. BMV's across the city vary -- the one closest to OSU campus is pretty god awful, but the one where I live these days is quick, efficient, and friendly. Mostly though, I don't even go in there because I can order new tags online (https://www.oplates.com/) or by mail, and I usually do that.

As for court costs, I'm not so sure raising those to meet the demand so no one waits is a good idea. It creates a civil liberties issue in line with poll taxes. You're ultimately discouraging poor people from being able to get their day in court.

@NetRunner, personally I think roads should be privatized for the most part, but that's a whole other conversation. When I say privatized people think toll roads, but I'm talking about people and businesses who live on those roads paying for their upkeep. If a Bed Bath & Beyond wants people to come to their stores, they'll be sure the roads are good. But that's a tangent.

The $400 registration fee shouldn't be that much. They even charge a lot for people who plan on storing their cars and not driving them, so it's obviously not meant to pay for the roads. It's revenue generation.

Besides, gasoline tax was put there specifically to pay for the roads. They don't need to increase it, because it increases itself the more people use it. The more you drive, the more gas you consume, therefore the more you pay the state to maintain the roads. It's like a hidden toll road system to be honest. Electric vehicles will soon mess that up, but there you go.

Second, we can order most things online too, but last time I did that I was without a valid license for a month after mine expired. And I submitted everything on time. And we sure as hell don't have polite people in any of the government buildings here in LA. At least I've never seen them.

Lastly, we already charge a court cost. The city of LA isn't poor. It spends too much and therefore claims to be broke, but it takes in a lot.

>> ^blankfist:

The $400 registration fee shouldn't be that much. They even charge a lot for people who plan on storing their cars and not driving them, so it's obviously not meant to pay for the roads. It's revenue generation.

Okay, two things on this. How do you know what the optimal market price of driving on roads would be? Second, what's wrong with revenue generation? Are you willing to make up for the shortfall with a tax on something else?

>> ^blankfist:
Besides, gasoline tax was put there specifically to pay for the roads. They don't need to increase it, because it increases itself the more people use it. The more you drive, the more gas you consume, therefore the more you pay the state to maintain the roads.

Wait, so you think that the price should be fixed, and never change? What if the costs of maintaining the roads goes up? Hell, what if cars get more efficient? What if the wear and tear on the road isn't proportional to the amount of gas purchased in the state?

You also act as if this is some incontrovertible law of nature that binds gasoline taxes to roads. There's no Constitutional amendment that dictates that gasoline tax must completely, and solely pay for roads. I would go so far as to say that while it's common that all gas tax revenue goes to roads, there probably isn't a single place in America where that revenue is sufficient to pay for all road maintenance.

>> ^blankfist:
Second, we can order most things online too, but last time I did that I was without a valid license for a month after mine expired. And I submitted everything on time. And we sure as hell don't have polite people in any of the government buildings here in LA. At least I've never seen them.

Lastly, we already charge a court cost. The city of LA isn't poor. It spends too much and therefore claims to be broke, but it takes in a lot.


Demand better then. Just be prepared to be asked for more money to pay for improved services. If you have some suggestion on how to improve service without increasing cost, tell your representative. Hell, tell everyone, and try to build up an advocacy group.

First, I don't know the optimal market cost for driving on roads. No one does except the government because they run the monopoly on roads. And what do monopolies do? They increase prices.

Second, who said anything about an "incontrovertible law of nature that binds gasoline taxes to roads"? When the gasoline tax was proposed that's what it was said to be for. Of course government changed its mind and dumped all that money into a general fund, but that's what it was designed for: to pay for roads.

Imagine how many people drive on the roads every day. Do the numbers. That's a helluva lotta revenue. Surely that could cover costs of laying asphalt. That aside, the roads out here are crap by and large. Potholes everywhere. It must be that the billions the government receives isn't enough. Go figure.

Ever occurred to you that maybe, just maybe, some of that money is being siphoned off or spent inefficiently or spent on inflated costs or used to pay inflated salaries or any number of other things than efficiently on the maintenance of roads?

Lastly, I don't think I should have to start an advocacy group to lessen the tax or fines levied against me. And these are hardly services. Services indicate something I voluntarily signed up for and can quit at any time. This is compulsory. It's like complaining to the mob that the protection money you're paying them isn't being put to good use.

Though I have complained. Plenty and often about loads of gov't services. Mail for instance. I keep getting torn and smashed mail. If an item is marked "do not bend" it comes bent and stuffed in my mailbox. They have a monopoly on first class mail so I have to use them. I've written my congressmen and local representatives about various things and always get back a cookie cutter response. Nothing is ever done. And my only recourse is voting? Bah.

You can't trust the two party system. Even when you think you have a winner, you really have more of the same.

Rubbish. There are very real and dramatic changes with each shift of power. Carter versus Reagan. Coolidge versus FDR. Over a trillion dollars in wealth---assets for investing and job creation---is waiting out these clueless obamateurs. Where you're correct about 'more of the same' is the bureaucracy, which never changes.

Sad to see you've joined the libmedia assassins scared sh;tless of Palin. While she hasn't done everything expected of someone seeking higher office, she's not hiding who she is or what she stands for. Then again, she doesn't have 80 million czars and a compliant Pro-Statist media to hide behind.

This time around, Republicans may not deserve to win, but taxocrats sure as hell deserve to lose, and lose big.

One day @blankfist and @NetRunner are gonna fuck, and then they'll look back on all this and laugh.
I'm laughing already.

Don't get it twisted. I'm the top.

>> ^blankfist:

First, I don't know the optimal market cost for driving on roads. No one does except the government

Then why are you questioning it? My point is, how do you know it's "too much"? Yeah, there's only one end-user provider, but private companies do all the actual work of building and maintaining roads.

Why not go ask some of them how much it costs to maintain a road?

California publishes how much they spend on it, if the two costs are wildly different, you've got the makings of a huge story to go to the press with.

>> ^blankfist:
When the gasoline tax was proposed that's what it was said to be for. Of course government changed its mind and dumped all that money into a general fund, but that's what it was designed for: to pay for roads.

Actually, in googling I saw that California is still playing by your rules on this one. Sure, if they pass a law they can waive the earmarking of those funds, but like I said, it's not a Constitutional thing that keeps the firewall in place.

If it falls short of what the cost is to maintain the roads, would you support a tax increase to close the budget gap?

>> ^blankfist:
Imagine how many people drive on the roads every day. Do the numbers. That's a helluva lotta revenue. Surely that could cover costs of laying asphalt. That aside, the roads out here are crap by and large. Potholes everywhere. It must be that the billions the government receives isn't enough. Go figure.
Ever occurred to you that maybe, just maybe, some of that money is being siphoned off or spent inefficiently or spent on inflated costs or used to pay inflated salaries or any number of other things than efficiently on the maintenance of roads?

How many miles of roadways are there in California? How many square feet of surface that the DOT has responsibility for? Have you ever considered that maybe you're getting an awesome deal?

And of course, it's quite likely that someone, somewhere in the government is stealing from it. But the same is true of any organization.

If you have some universal fix for purging all corruption from humanity, please, enlighten us.

>> ^blankfist:
Lastly, I don't think I should have to start an advocacy group to lessen the tax or fines levied against me.

Of course you don't, it's the same story with you every time. You think everything government does should be perfect and free, and you shouldn't have to lift a finger -- even to complain -- to fix it when it fails to live up to your impossible expectations.

It's your government. If you don't want to participate in making it better, don't expect the rest of society to cry for you because your mail gets bent.