Universal Studios Hollywood, GE use alternative energy

Jeff said:
We get the government we deserve.

Ultimately, although there are a myriad of other issues, this is the key problem.

Jeff said:

But voters sit there and let it happen. I can only be sympathetic to that in a limited fashion.

The "unpardonable" aspect of that, to me at least, is that voters don't educate themselves, and therefore ARE so susceptible to the slickly-produced advertising. Seriously, Rick Scott?!! What are the retirees in this state DOING with all their free time when they can't figure out the guy who led the thievery (fraud, whatever) of BILLIONS of Medicaid/Medicare dollars probably isn't the one you want in the Governor's Mansion?

Anyhow....I'm a hippie, so of course I <3 green energy! :)

I'm not going to pretend I've read the whole paper, but the first paragraph of this report from a Princeton Professor would seem to disagree with you Jeff.

My analysis includes broad summary measures of senators’ voting behavior as well as specific votes on the minimum wage, civil rights, government spending, and
abortion.

(I did put the entire first paragraph there but for whatever reason, it doesn't post. Just follow the link to read the first paragraph)

rollergator: "One citizen, one vote" has never applied to our Federal Government anyways. Just look at the Senate. And in the current House of Representatives, some of the districts are so gerrymandered that competitive elections never happen. Of course neither of those come close to the mockery that is the Electoral Collage. It may have made sense at the end of the 18th century but it is completely outdated in 2011.

Correlation isn't causation. I didn't read the entire paper either, but if non-affluent voters don't vote, or don't educate themselves and elect these idiots, again, they get what they deserve. That rural, middle to low income areas tend to be largely Republican, and that paper summary suggests Republicans don't listen to them, is especially telling about the inability to make informed choices about who you vote for.

Jeff said:
Sure money influences government. But voters sit there and let it happen. I can only be sympathetic to that in a limited fashion.

I think the voters who actually pay attention do care and do try to do something about it. The problem is, as you said, way too many people are concerned about the trivial things to notice or care about the important stuff, which generally takes more effort to understand.

I remember reading somewhere that "in general" people who know less are more confident about their rightness than people who know more.

You sound pretty sure about that. ;)

Jeff said:
That rural, middle to low income areas tend to be largely Republican, and that paper summary suggests Republicans don't listen to them, is especially telling about the inability to make informed choices about who you vote for.

My instinct (which I sometimes believe more than facts) tells me the Republican/Tea Party politicians "hoodwink" those folks with their conservative social agenda. Fiscal/monetary policies can be pretty confusing, but blaming the "other" (take your pick - immigrant/woman/homosexual/Muslim) plays directly into the hands of those who really are doing excellent work "muddying the issue". With all the new voter laws out there to protect against first-time voting, and the Citzens United decision, and the union-busting activity all over the country, I think it's pretty clear the right is making an all-out assault on the base of the Democratic Party. As usual, the Dems are slow to pick up on the not-so-subtle clues and join the battle.

On the subject of GE - I'm not happy they didn't pay any taxes - but I don't blame them for that. If I could figure out a productive way to manipulate the tax code in my favor - perhaps I'd pat myself on the back...

However - I don't agree with some of their employment practices in the past. I watched them close two plants my dad worked for, and didn't exhibit much corporate welfare on his or fellow workers behalf. That said, it is a common thing with many corporations, but still left a bitter taste in my mouth.

rollergator said:
My instinct (which I sometimes believe more than facts) tells me the Republican/Tea Party politicians "hoodwink" those folks with their conservative social agenda. Fiscal/monetary policies can be pretty confusing, but blaming the "other" (take your pick - immigrant/woman/homosexual/Muslim) plays directly into the hands of those who really are doing excellent work "muddying the issue".

Switch Republican/Right/Conservative and Democrat/Left/Liberal in that paragraph and that's exactly how it looks from the other side too.

(although you'd also have to change "immigrant/woman/homosexual/Muslim" to "corporations/rich/taking your benefits/etc" :) )

^I can follow you for a bit, but then there comes the economics of the situation - clearly "trickle-down" has had a generation plus to achieve its goals, and the "job creation" aspect seems to have fallen just a bit short of the mark... ;)

Trickle-down

(And other assorted graphs)

^Citing Mother Jones - clearly a fringe liberal! LOL... :)

I don't actually consider myself a "liberal" per se. I consider myself to be more pragmatic and open to ideas from any side of the aisle. I don't believe a conservative or liberal ideology is the best way to run a government. There is more than one correct answer to many of the problems that government faces. Different ideas and different minds can come together to create the best one.

Really what the makes me is naive for ever believing Americans could work together.

I don't read Mother Jones either. I came across that while following the Wisconsin union protests. How you want to interpret the graphs is up to you. They reinforce a liberal standpoint because they are on a liberal website, not because they prove the conservative ideology wrong. I personally like the graphic showing that 7 out of the 10 richest members of Congress are actually Democrats. I wonder if that is a trend outside the top ten.

rollergator said:
^I can follow you for a bit, but then there comes the economics of the situation - clearly "trickle-down" has had a generation plus to achieve its goals, and the "job creation" aspect seems to have fallen just a bit short of the mark... ;)

The other side says the same thing about the war on poverty/welfare state and falling short of achieving its goals having had as long or longer to achieve them. From what I have seen, whether you view various statements out there as fact/rhetoric/total lies or distortions depends on where you sit in the spectrum.

I actually consider myself to be conservative on financial issues (that'll shock some of our members, LOL). I do believe that the S&P finding is valid, and that the US credit rating should have been lowered years ago (about ten minutes after getting involved in Iraq without the money to pay for that war). Likewise, I think spending is a problem....just not the "social programs" quite so much - "farm" subsidies and petroleum subsidies are places I'd look to cut...and some of our foreign aid is clearly unnecessary although virtually insignificant in terms of dollars.

Healthcare needs to be addressed - costs are out of control. Turning "the keys to the kingdom" over to private insurers is a sure-fire path to fiscal disaster (just look at admin costs of private insurance vs. that of Medicare/Medicaid).

I'm "liberal" on social issues to the extent that I really DO believe in limited gov't intrusion into our personal lives. I just find it ironic that those who loudly espouse smaller government want to go through individuals' medical records to determine, for instance, if they'd had an abortion. Is that really SMALLER government? If so, then it really is me that's confused.

Back towards the topic at hand...Petroleum addiction is the single biggest threat to our national security - it funds many groups who would do us harm, and it leaves us at the mercy of those who have the oil (at least until ANWAR is really opened up). It leaves our military stretched way too thin, and keeps us in places where the indigenous people would rather not have us. We simply can't afford to continue down the black road of fossil fuels...as always...IMO. ;)

GoBucks89 said:
From what I have seen, whether you view various statements out there as fact/rhetoric/total lies or distortions depends on where you sit in the spectrum.

And that was ultimately what I meant my point to be.

I honestly don't believe a lot of the politicians that I don't agree with are being intentionally deceptive or underhanded or tricky or whatever - I just think their ideas suck and their solutions are wrong.

And that applies to politicians on both sides of the aisle.