Reasonable NY Times Column

[3rdnlng]

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/10/us/10iht-currents10.html?_r=4&adxnnl=1&adxnnlx=1315569719-RpR5AuX40tZqZl8xOiUg7g

 

A pretty fair and balanced approach.

[erynthered]

It said "Please log in"

 

Nope.

 

 

Would liked to have read it though............

[3rdnlng]

It said "Please log in"

 

Nope.

 

 

Would liked to have read it though............

 

That's odd. I clicked on my own link here and the article popped right up. I have never registered at the NY Times. I found it on the Drudge Report---center column at the top.

[erynthered]

That's odd. I clicked on my own link here and the article popped right up. I have never registered at the NY Times. I found it on the Drudge Report---center column at the top.

 

 

That is weird.

 

I got this from your link:

 

https://myaccount.nytimes.com/auth/login?URI=/2011/09/10/us/10iht-currents10.html&OQ=_rQ3D5Q26adxnnlQ3D1Q26adxnnlxQ3D1315569719-RpR5AuX40tZqZl8xOiUg7g&REFUSE_COOKIE_ERROR=SHOW_ERROR

 

Went to Drudge as you suggested and BOOM, got the article no problem.

 

Nice article.

 

She's right.

 

Term limits would be a good start, though I dont see that happening anytime soon.

[UConn James]

She made three interlocking points. First, that the United States is now governed by a “permanent political class,” drawn from both parties, that is increasingly cut off from the concerns of regular people. Second, that these Republicans and Democrats have allied with big business to mutual advantage to create what she called “corporate crony capitalism.” Third, that the real political divide in the United States may no longer be between friends and foes of Big Government, but between friends and foes of vast, remote, unaccountable institutions (both public and private).

 

These are conclusions that many average Americans could see long ago. And yet, she's among a few who'll actually say this and actually sound like, if it were up to only them, we might have a chance for change vis-a-vis things like term limits, cutting wasteful federal spending, balanced budget amendment, etc.

 

D.C. is there to keep big business and Wall Street running. And that's okay, there's not too much overly wrong with it --- indeed there's a feeling in me that the macrocosm should mostly deal with the macrocosm level of the country. But where the political class fails is in trying to make Main Street businesses think D.C. gives a rat crap about them. They don't, they really don't. They're there to ensure a steady stream of income to the federal govt and small businesses just don't show up on their radar. To a large degree, D.C. believes that governors and states are there for that, and for smoothing out the bumps left in the road by the feds. And again, that's not entirely wrong-headed, states and cities/towns should focus on state business.

 

Where D.C. goes wrong is in trying to mandate outside of their focus. and without a clear sense of what conditions "on the ground" are where they're making these mandates. Case in point is Obamacare. They may try to pass off that the Massachusetts plan was their model. And yet, the Massachusetts plan only has a chance of working in Massachusetts because it was tailored for that state/commonwealth, their demographics (4% uninsured), their medical system infrastructure (extensive and accessible geographically) and within their own means (affluent) such that the changes have a good chance of success and being absorbed. As Romney has said, in the good old "states' rights" way, what the legislature came up with and he tweaked to bring some fiscal sense to for the Mass. plan will not work for the whole country with such different conditions among states.

 

I still think, whether by design or just how she is, she comes across as an unsavvy, tactless moron. And that's not something people usually want to have for the demeanor of the POTUS, given an alternative.

Edited September 9, 2011 by UConn James

[Peace]

I have been against term limits for a long time because we hold the term limit in our hands at every vote. I get swayed every election when 90% of Congress gets reelected, despite almost everyone's agreement that they suck.

 

Good luck getting lifelong politicians to vote for that...unless there's a grandfather clause. I'd never vote myself out of my partnership. Why would they vote themselves off the gravy train?

Edited September 9, 2011 by Peace

[DC Tom]

I have been against term limits for a long time because we hold the term limit in our hands at every vote. I get swayed every election when 90% of Congress gets reelected, despite almost everyone's agreement that they suck.

 

That's because everyone thinks everyone else's rep is the problem, not theirs.

 

Kind-of like how everyone thinks they're a genius on the internet. When really, only I am, and the rest of you are morons.

[3rdnlng]

These are conclusions that many average Americans could see long ago. And yet, she's among a few who'll actually say this and actually sound like, if it were up to only them, we might have a chance for change vis-a-vis things like term limits, cutting wasteful federal spending, balanced budget amendment, etc.

 

D.C. is there to keep big business and Wall Street running. And that's okay, there's not too much overly wrong with it --- indeed there's a feeling in me that the macrocosm should mostly deal with the macrocosm level of the country. But where the political class fails is in trying to make Main Street businesses think D.C. gives a rat crap about them. They don't, they really don't. They're there to ensure a steady stream of income to the federal govt and small businesses just don't show up on their radar. To a large degree, D.C. believes that governors and states are there for that, and for smoothing out the bumps left in the road by the feds. And again, that's not entirely wrong-headed, states and cities/towns should focus on state business.

 

Where D.C. goes wrong is in trying to mandate outside of their focus. and without a clear sense of what conditions "on the ground" are where they're making these mandates. Case in point is Obamacare. They may try to pass off that the Massachusetts plan was their model. And yet, the Massachusetts plan only has a chance of working in Massachusetts because it was tailored for that state/commonwealth, their demographics (4% uninsured), their medical system infrastructure (extensive and accessible geographically) and within their own means (affluent) such that the changes have a good chance of success and being absorbed. As Romney has said, in the good old "states' rights" way, what the legislature came up with and he tweaked to bring some fiscal sense to for the Mass. plan will not work for the whole country with such different conditions among states.

 

I still think, whether by design or just how she is, she comes across as an unsavvy, tactless moron. And that's not something people usually want to have for the demeanor of the POTUS, given an alternative.

 

She's downhome. I think you credit her "plain speaking" as being tactless. She certainly is savvy. She's been able to remain in the public eye and relevant for 3 years now without holding public office (for most of that time). I don't think she is by any means qualified to be the POTUS but given time she might be.

[Dante]

These are conclusions that many average Americans could see long ago. And yet, she's among a few who'll actually say this and actually sound like, if it were up to only them, we might have a chance for change vis-a-vis things like term limits, cutting wasteful federal spending, balanced budget amendment, etc.

 

D.C. is there to keep big business and Wall Street running. And that's okay, there's not too much overly wrong with it --- indeed there's a feeling in me that the macrocosm should mostly deal with the macrocosm level of the country. But where the political class fails is in trying to make Main Street businesses think D.C. gives a rat crap about them. They don't, they really don't. They're there to ensure a steady stream of income to the federal govt and small businesses just don't show up on their radar. To a large degree, D.C. believes that governors and states are there for that, and for smoothing out the bumps left in the road by the feds. And again, that's not entirely wrong-headed, states and cities/towns should focus on state business.

 

Where D.C. goes wrong is in trying to mandate outside of their focus. and without a clear sense of what conditions "on the ground" are where they're making these mandates. Case in point is Obamacare. They may try to pass off that the Massachusetts plan was their model. And yet, the Massachusetts plan only has a chance of working in Massachusetts because it was tailored for that state/commonwealth, their demographics (4% uninsured), their medical system infrastructure (extensive and accessible geographically) and within their own means (affluent) such that the changes have a good chance of success and being absorbed. As Romney has said, in the good old "states' rights" way, what the legislature came up with and he tweaked to bring some fiscal sense to for the Mass. plan will not work for the whole country with such different conditions among states.

 

I still think, whether by design or just how she is, she comes across as an unsavvy, tactless moron. And that's not something people usually want to have for the demeanor of the POTUS, given an alternative.

I would take this any day compared to what we have now. By definition Obama is a true moron because he is a marxist. There is no other reality for him. I would rather have someone like Palin who is in tune with actual reality. She at least realizes whats going on and that's the first step to a cure. Our current guy is the opposite. He's a destroyer.

[Gary M]

I have been against term limits for a long time because we hold the term limit in our hands at every vote. I get swayed every election when 90% of Congress gets reelected, despite almost everyone's agreement that they suck.

 

Good luck getting lifelong politicians to vote for that...unless there's a grandfather clause. I'd never vote myself out of my partnership. Why would they vote themselves off the gravy train?

 

They could make it so that any elected after the bill passed would be subject to term limits and then it would be up to us to vote the bastards out.

[Buftex]

I would take this any day compared to what we have now. By definition Obama is a true moron because he is a marxist. There is no other reality for him. I would rather have someone like Palin who is in tune with actual reality. She at least realizes whats going on and that's the first step to a cure. Our current guy is the opposite. He's a destroyer.

 

 

Whose "actual reality" is she so in touch with? Yours? Hers? How enlightened you continue to be. Would you vote for Palin over West?

 

Palin has been garnering respect from the "liberal media" as of late, because the other Republican/Tea Party affiliates are coming across as more and more frightening to people whose "reality" isn't the same as everyone (or most) on the PPP. Palin isn't running, she has decided to make a career for herself as a political personality...she has no real credibility, so she can give honest answers...

 

I have always given her credit for just answering the question, no matter how misguided her answer may be. She never used the Bachmann style of just repeating the same thing, over and over, whether it applied to the question at hand.

Edited September 11, 2011 by Buftex