Which party's more corrupt?

Discussion in 'Politics' started by D_Tully Tunnelrat, Aug 7, 2009.

  1. D_Tully Tunnelrat

    D_Tully Tunnelrat New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2004
    Messages:
    1,168
    Likes Received:
    1
    Interesting conversation between NY Times writers Douthat and Collins on which party is more corrupt.

    Are Liberals More Corrupt? - The Conversation Blog - NYTimes.com

    The starting point of the discussion is Dothat's piece in which he thinks that the Republicans, despite being written off for dead, may be very competitive in the liberal Northeast for quite sometime.

    He's got some valid points. Texas, which looks downright means spirited in it's public spending, is in great economic shape while long time liberal strongholds like, NY and CA are economic disasters. CA's case being the worse in part because the Repubs exacerbated the revenue shortfall by attempting to starve government, rather than reform the tax base, but there's also no excusing the Dems profligacy.

    Here's the article called Blue State Blues...

    http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/03/opinion/03douthat.html
     
  2. Flashy

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2007
    Messages:
    8,097
    Likes Received:
    3
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    at home

    indeed, i was very engrossed in these two articles...i read "Blue State Blues" the other day, but was hesitant to post it because of the predictable backlash here by some in place of reasonable discussion

    A For the corruption angle, as far as i am concerned, PJ O' Rourke nailed both parties right, in "Parliament Of Whores" (one of the finest political satire books ever written, if not the finest, IMO)

    on the 1988 election:

    The democrats were for a lot more of something to be named at a later date. The Republicans were for less of whatever it was, except the death penalty. The democrats said "We don't know what's wrong with America, but we can fix it" The Republicans said "There is nothing wrong with America and we can fix that!"

    We had a choice between Democrats who couldn't learn from the past, and republicans who couldn't stop living in it. Between Democrats who wanted to tax us to death and republicans who preferred to have us die in a foreign war. The Democrats planned to fiddle while Rome burned. The Republicans were going to burn Rome, then fiddle.

    When you looked at the Republicans, you saw the scum off the top of big business. When you looked at the Democrats, you saw the scum off the top of big government. Personally, i prefer business. A businessman will steal from you directly instead of getting the IRS do to it for him. And when Republicans ruin the environment, destroy the supply of affordable housing and wreck the industrial infrastructure, at least they make a buck off it. The Democrats just do these things for fun.


    (LOL...that was my favorite description ever of the Republicans and Democrats)
     
  3. sargon20

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2006
    Messages:
    11,377
    Likes Received:
    2,111
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Atlantis
    I think this comment says it all:

    It is interesting to watch conservatives attempt to deconstruct President Obama's ambitious agenda. Mr. Douthat, ever capable acting as the GOP's own Von Ribbentrop (putting a friendly face to a political party that is anything but friendly) is more entertaining than most, and certainly less corrosive than the tea-baggers, birthers and secessionists that currently control the party.

    The bottom line remains. President Obama has a lot of goodwill at hand, mostly because the millions of words offered by the rightwing apparatchik has yet to offer one single new vision for the future.

    Tax cuts, deregulation, and foreign elective wars. Been there, done that. The result was writing a trillion dollar bounced check for an elective war in the world's biggest catbox, replacing science with superstition, while bringing the U.S. economy as well as the world economy to its knees.

    I don't think the party of Rush, Hannity, Beck, Gingrich et al are the guys you call in when the country needs a pick me up. Just ask New Orleans.
     
  4. houtx48

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2006
    Messages:
    7,095
    Likes Received:
    35
    Gender:
    Male
    indeed............
     
  5. mynameisnobody

    mynameisnobody New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2008
    Messages:
    109
    Likes Received:
    0
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    CT, USA
    Pretty silly article. Lines like
    are entirely content-free. The title should have been Clash of the Caricatures.
     
  6. B_Enough_for_Me

    B_Enough_for_Me New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2008
    Messages:
    439
    Likes Received:
    0
    Gender:
    Male
    Agreed. They could have tried a little harder and had a fantastic piece.
     
  7. Elmer Gantry

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2006
    Messages:
    1,503
    Albums:
    2
    Likes Received:
    551
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Melbourne (VIC, AU)
    I think it's a purile question to begin with. Both sides are equally corrupt and anyone who believes that "their" party is above it is a child.

    Our marvelous Western Duocracies are corrupt by their very nature.
     
  8. B_Nick4444

    B_Nick4444 New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2007
    Messages:
    7,002
    Likes Received:
    12
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    San Antonio, TX
    not quite

    all one has to do is compare the preeminent example of the liberal welfare State to the preeminent red State to see how Obama is wrecking America's future (Californicating the Republic?):


    “Thanks to low taxes and light regulation, Texas is booming,” the magazine reports, echoing a point made often by Gov. Rick Perry.
    Texas has absorbed the shock of the economic recession while California has been walloped by it.
    “It is easy to find evidence that California is in a funk,” citing the state’s crushing deficit, dysfunctional political system and soaring unemployment rate.

    statesman.com | California v. Texas: Head-to-head in Economist | Postcards

    see also:

    California v Texas: America's future | The Economist

     
  9. B_VinylBoy

    B_VinylBoy New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2007
    Messages:
    10,516
    Likes Received:
    7
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Boston, MA / New York, NY
    US Census data does not agree with your rhetoric.
    As of the 2007/08 Census, Texas ranked #28 out of #50 when it came to the average household income. California was #8 and New York was #19.

    Household income in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    We'll refrain from using any of your "predictions" as fact for now. Everyone knows that an Obamaphobe has a problem facing reality.
     
  10. B_Nick4444

    B_Nick4444 New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2007
    Messages:
    7,002
    Likes Received:
    12
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    San Antonio, TX
    …Plenty of American states have budget crises; but California’s illustrate two more structural worries about the state. Back in its golden age in the 1950s and 1960s, it offered middle-class people, not just techy high-fliers, a shot at the American dream-complete with superb schools and universities, and an enviable physical infrastructure. These days California’s unemployment rate is running at 11.5%, two points ahead of the national average. In such Californian cities as Fresno, Merced and El Centro, jobless rates are higher than in Detroit. Its roads and schools are crumbling. Every year, over 100,000 more Americans leave the state than enter it.
    The second worry has to do with dysfunctional government. No state has quite so many overlapping systems of accountability or such a gerrymandered legislature. Ballot initiatives, the crack cocaine of democracy, have left only around a quarter of its budget within the power of its representative politicians. (One reason budget cuts are inevitable is that voters rejected tax increases in a package of ballot measures in May.) Not that Californian government comes cheap: it has the second-highest top level of state income tax in America (after Hawaii, of all places). Indeed, high taxes, coupled with intrusive regulation of business and greenery taken to silly extremes, have gradually strangled what was once America’s most dynamic state economy.Chief Executive magazine, to take just one example, has ranked California the very worst state to do business in for each of the past four years.
    By contrast, Texas was the best state in that poll. It has coped well with the recession, with an unemployment rate two points below the national average and one of the lowest rates of housing repossession. In part this is because Texan banks, hard hit in the last property bust, did not overexpand this time. But as our special report this week explains, Texas also clearly offers a different model, based on small government. It has no state capital-gains or income tax, and a business-friendly and immigrant-tolerant attitude. It is home to more Fortune 500 companies than any other state-64 compared with California’s 51 and New York’s 56…
     
    #10 B_Nick4444, Aug 8, 2009
    Last edited: Aug 8, 2009
  11. B_VinylBoy

    B_VinylBoy New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2007
    Messages:
    10,516
    Likes Received:
    7
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Boston, MA / New York, NY
    I repeat... The US Census, which is based on actual research and not biased, historical interpretation & speculation, disagrees.
     
  12. B_Nick4444

    B_Nick4444 New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2007
    Messages:
    7,002
    Likes Received:
    12
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    San Antonio, TX
    what pray tell, does that census information have to do with the lowest credit rating of the fifty States being given to California? its issuance of IOUs? its default on bond payments, salaries, payments, etc.,

    rampant bankruptcies? mortgage defaults?

    its massive exodus of people? neighborhoods that can't be entered without loss of life? race riots? homo riots? etc?
     
  13. B_VinylBoy

    B_VinylBoy New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2007
    Messages:
    10,516
    Likes Received:
    7
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Boston, MA / New York, NY
    All that, and the average household income of California is still higher than Texas. Why? Perhaps all of these scary statistics you're listing (without any numbers) isn't affecting the average household as bad as you claim? You know, just a guess... considering that you've yet to find a credible source that numerically discredits the Census.

    But keep going, you silly Obamaphobe. :rolleyes:
     
    #13 B_VinylBoy, Aug 8, 2009
    Last edited: Aug 8, 2009
  14. Qua

    Qua
    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2007
    Messages:
    1,507
    Albums:
    2
    Likes Received:
    153
    Gender:
    Male
    Because it's BEEN higher for DECADES, which has less to do with governance styles than the appeal and resources of the area. Now, if we, as Nick suggested, were to compare the decrease in household incomes between 2002 and 2009 we would see a different story. Nick was claiming that California was hit harder by the recession. You are saying that California is still richer. That it may be, however, calculus would perhaps prove that Nick's claim is corrent and you've missed the point by not taking the derivative with respect to time.

    EDIT: as for which party is more corrupt....sheesh. Like deciding whether Hitler or Stalin was the more destructive, evil dictator (the correct answer is Stalin)
     
    #14 Qua, Aug 8, 2009
    Last edited: Aug 8, 2009
  15. B_VinylBoy

    B_VinylBoy New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2007
    Messages:
    10,516
    Likes Received:
    7
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Boston, MA / New York, NY
    We can speculate all day as to how the current recession has affected each state, and guess as to which ones will have the stronger economy after it's all said and done. But until we can get some solid evidence that shows this, such as actual statistical data that can discredit the findings of the Census from 2007/08, I'm not going to listen or even debate the rhetoric. Besides, the real reason why Nick666 is posting info regarding Texas and their economy is to try and bring some leverage to his sad "red states are better than blue states" argument... a ridiculous and pathetic argument that has no logical standing beyond his own discriminative, prejudicial, and overly generalizing opinions regarding "libs" and Obama. I will never accept anything that comes out of his blatantly bigoted mouth at face value. Reading his posts is like reading a blog or transcript from Glenn Beck or Rush Limbaugh, albeit through a thesaurus.
     
    #15 B_VinylBoy, Aug 8, 2009
    Last edited: Aug 8, 2009
  16. HazelGod

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2006
    Messages:
    7,531
    Albums:
    1
    Likes Received:
    9
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    The Other Side of the Pillow
    A-fucking-men. I read that when I started high school, and it's always colored my views on politics.
     
  17. Countryguy63

    Verified Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2006
    Messages:
    14,488
    Albums:
    1
    Likes Received:
    1,447
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    near Monterey, Calif.
    Verified:
    Photo
    In this day and age, how anybody can vehemently support and defend either party is beyond me??
     
  18. mynameisnobody

    mynameisnobody New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2008
    Messages:
    109
    Likes Received:
    0
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    CT, USA
    In this and other books, O'Rourke is a trenchant critic and makes some good observations, but in the end he shortchanges his conclusions. I suppose he has to, as his material is sold as humor rather than analysis, and he has to deliver it all as a joke. This has compensations, as the Court Jester is allowed to say things the rest of us aren't. But it means that even when his aim at his target is good, he ends up firing little more than a flag with the word BANG! on it.

    In Parliament of Whores, O'Rourke's grand conclusion is that the way things are done at town meetings in the small New Hampshire town in which he lives makes it the Parliament of his title. Basically, if I recall aright - it's been years since I read this particular book - he was disgusted with the way that a simple majority vote enabled the town, and therefore the voters, to rob anyone they chose. He wasn't too clear about specifics, but I think that rather than outright takings, such as eminent domain cases, he was talking about tax rates. A person with no taxable income or property can vote to appropriate money from those who do have taxable income or property (though in practice towns can only tax property, and in New Hampshire, they certainly do). And there is no force acting to ameliorate such a voter's demands - he is relatively invulnerable to the monster which can rob the person who actually has something taxable, and rob him with abandon.

    Although factually correct, his criticism is misleading in several ways. First, he identifies the wrong culprit. A New England town meeting isn't a Parliament. It is actually the closest approach to a genuine Greek-style demokratia to be found in American politics; so he isn't criticizing our "parliamentarians" so much as the American voting public itself, and the very concept of democracy. His problem with small-town democracy isn't the usual one, that it's fundamentally rule by the mob, but that it is rule by thieves. This is a relatively original and useful criticism. Second, what he has highlighted isn't actually a problem with democracy per se, but with universal suffrage. As demagogues all over the world are well aware, the peasants are always in favor of "land reform," no matter what gross injustices it may involve, nor what economic and social chaos it may cause. Universal suffrage is usually just assumed to be a good thing, but there are solid arguments to be made that it eventually, and probably inevitably, leads to disaster. O'Rourke dances on the edge of making those arguments, but he never quite puts his boot in.
     
  19. D_Tully Tunnelrat

    D_Tully Tunnelrat New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2004
    Messages:
    1,168
    Likes Received:
    1
    Our national body politic has devolved into a Clash of Caricatures, if one can judge by the blood sport rhetoric.

    Funny you brought it up, but too loved O'Rourke's book, but like the article in my original post, thought it fell a bit short of it's searing potential, however the great satire more than made up for it.

    As to the title of thread, it was in fact a bit of demagoguery on my part, as forums are like democracy, unless the pot is stirred, few participate.

    There can be no real answer to the query as both parties engage in the politics of the now, rather later, spending all your money in pursuit of their agenda. They rarely follow principal, as both focus on gauging or raising the temperature of the debate in order to gain power, and once in power begin immediately to abuse it. We have very little national collective forgiveness, as each party's members, or sympathizers, only forgive the sins of their own, as and not those of the other.

    Would America be willing to grant greater powers to the judiciary in order to check either party's wanton profligacy?

    As to whether Texas, or California are better off in the long term, it's a moot point, as neither state offers a true paradigm for the an ideal American future. We know that Texas has less debt, which is a good thing. If CA had not fallen, as all direct democracies do, for the next installment of something for nothing - the rescinding of the 2% car tax - the State would not have not had a deficit, until the economy collapsed last fall. In fact, without Prop. 13, the State would have a record surplus, but I'm sure the Democrats would have somehow, someway found a way to spend it. Texas's budgets and politics I am less familiar with, but with the consistently low wages they pay for teachers, I'd be surprised if the state continues to be an economic powerhouse, as an under educated populous will always be a drain on the treasury. For all the oil money generated there, everyone agrees it's a finite resource. How many of the 64 companies HQed in Texas are in the energy business? And if the Texas model is better why do wages lag blue states like CA, NY and NJ? My guess is the reason housing prices did not fall much in Texas is that they did not rise much during the housing boom, as many were so badly burned by the 80's boom, and decade long bust there.

    As to the thesis in Douthat's article, the possibility of a Republican north east, despite the implied accompanying fiscal conservatism, is distinctly unlikely unless the regional version of the party can divorce itself from the social exclusion practiced all too often on the national level. If the region's Democrats ever learn how to balance their check book, their plurality may prevail, especially with their greater acceptance of social diversity, in that part of the country.
     
  20. mynameisnobody

    mynameisnobody New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2008
    Messages:
    109
    Likes Received:
    0
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    CT, USA
    Anyone reading Justice Stevens's dissent in last year's Heller decision will realize the peril of relying on the courts for anything important.
     
Draft saved Draft deleted