What are your thoughts and feelings on the question the Washington Post asked....Are Democrats and Republicans talking about the same country?

I do see the divide between the two major parties when discussing important issues and this is a direct result of what is important to the voters on each side. As I have said before, as a nation we can’t even agree on what is a problem let alone what it will take to resolve it. Apples and Oranges. Those independents in the middle have to decide which is more important in their lives.

But. in this particular case I think it is fair to point out, as Peter Wehner said in the article, that what was discussed in the debate was a product of what questions were asked.

Yes, in a way they are talking to different countries. Yet it all centers on willingness to work on real problems, or focus on boogie men to avoid addressing the real problems.

When illegal immigration is not a crushing problem, indeed net immigration over the last few years has been zero, why is it a major focus of the Republicans? Because then they don’t have to deal with long term problems like climate change. Why focus on abortion? Because then they don’t have to focus on equal rights for all.

Why consider ISIS as an imminent threat to the eastern seaboard and midwest, ready to behead everyone by Christmas? Because then the overarmed police don’t have to answer for being executioners of inconvenient people.

Not only are they not talking about the same country, but that country exists in different versions of planet Earth.

I think it comes down to where you want to place the emphasis: on commonality or on difference.

There are two aspects to both this country and the world at large. On one hand, we’re all in this together and our interests are so intricately intertwined that success and well-being only really make sense on a common level. Fundamentally, on the level of basic needs and motivations, it’s not difficult (if we look honestly) to see how similar we are.

On the other hand, differences do exist, both on an individual and a cultural level. These differences can be a source of conflict when competing interests or ideologies clash. This fact can’t be ignored.

If you’re inclined to more readily see commonality, then the world looks like a friendlier place. You don’t assume that your interests are in opposition to those of the people around you; you see them more as partners in the business of living. Hierarchies matter less. Working together looks like a reasonable possibility. Inclusion seems natural.

If you’re more focused on difference, then the world appears more hostile, with everyone in competition and trying to get what you have. You’re inclined to become more defensive and to exclude those less like you. Their interests are their business, not yours. You build walls, both figuratively and literally.

I don’t want to over-generalize, but it seems to me that these two ways of seeing are somewhere in the DNA of our two political factions. The truth, of course, is that you can’t ignore either difference or commonality; they’re both true. If you ignore difference, you’re naive; if you ignore commonality, you’re selfish. Allowing for both is the challenge.

I would like to live in a world that is quicker to see our commonality. I think people are happier that way, and I think that we’ve become unrealistically and dangerously skewed in the other direction. And I think that government (among other social forces) can have some influence in moving perceptions in that direction. This has to be done, however, without losing sight of the reality of difference.

CNN said they were having a debate on Foreign Policy and now your complaining that they talked about Foreign Policy. In fact what CNN really did was to try and create a food fight with Trump. Almost everything asked was to Trump or about Trump. Hell even when Climate Change came up the moderators immediately shut it down. I’m not sure whether CNN was just looking for ratings or whether their design was to make Republicans look bad but it certainly wasn’t designed to discuss issues. CNN had an agenda and that’s what made the whole thing disappointing.

@Jaxk CNN along with any liberal media outlet wouldn’t dare let a Republican chime in on or debate climate change. That is sacred ground reserved for only Liberal Democrats to carp about.

@Cruiser Kinda hard to “debate” something that you vehemently deny even exisits.

@rojo A true debate is where 2 or more parties present and discuss their views on a subject….like climate change and defend their views and tear apart the opposing views. That is why they call it a debate. IMO the Biblical version of God does not exist….does that mean I should not debate and defend my personal views on the matter if and when challenged?

My take; on one side, you have people who see the wealthiest nation on Earth letting a large percentage of it’s population suffer, often enough to violate internationally accepted standards on human rights, while other countries who are less prosperous (both overall and per capita) manage to treat their citizens far better and manage to pay for it at the expense of the elite earning merely 20 times what the average worker does instead of 2,000 times.

On the other hand you have a party that wants government to be less intrusive… so long as you are a white, heterosexual male. You have a uterus? Your medical decisions will be made by your senator and your employer instead of you. Planning to get married? Government will make sure that it’s a type of marriage that they approve of; and “they” being government officials with a warped understanding of Christianity who would excommunicate Pope Francis for being a heretical Liberal if they could.

Closely aligned with the second group are those who want the same things (homosexuality criminalized, abortion banned….) but feel that government is inherently bad and thus favor either “Second Amendment solutions” or merely abolishing government in favor of pure, predatory Nietzschian Capitalism where there are no protections beyond what you make for yourself. Whether they are idealists who have more faith in humanity than anyone who has ever actually read any history, or merely feel that such a world would exalt them to uber-God status varies. The troubling part is that they are not denounced by their less radical brethren, and that complicity implies consent, if not outright endorsement.

Note something missing here? A few decades ago, the first group was balanced by a party that wanted many of the same things but merely differed in the best way to accomplish those goals. I’m talking about the Republicans that @Jaxk remembers and seems to think are still around. They are gone. History. Memory. Gone! Where Republicans of the past would compromise as needed, the current crop is not only against compromise, but will reverse course if they ever agree with Democrats. (Romneycare anyone?) Where Republicans of the past would propose conservatively minor tweaks, modern Republicans wish for sweeping reform. They scream about states rights when the Feds try to legalize same-sex marriage, yet want the feds to crack down on states that pass things that go against their views, such as those states that passed same-sex marriage at the state level years before SCOTUS made it a federal thing. In short, your choices now are Democrat, Batshit Brigade, or disenfranchisement.

What we have now isn’t so much a difference of political ideology, but of irreconcilable societal differences. The two major parties have vastly different priorities, yet our herd mentality forces us to align with one or the other; we all “know” third-party candidates could never win, right? While the average American is somewhere in between, after many years of seeing their votes thrown away as they wind up with politicians who don’t espouse their views, you won’t see too many of them at the voting booths. Sure, the undivided middle is diverse enough that it could make dozens (if not hundreds) of small/minor parties, but we have the two-party system pounded into us, so for purposes of determining election outcomes and what sort of legislation is passed, they are effectively moot.

@Jaxk There is still quite a bit of disbelief that Trump is the frontrunner instead of a governor or senator. While we know the views of career politicians like Sanders and Bush, we don’t have nearly as much knowledge of the outsider/newcomer. Where there are unknowns, there are questions, so I can kind of see why it went dowqn like that.

As for CNN trying to make the Republicans look bad, I think that Trump, Cruz, Palin, Boehner, the Koch brothers, Kim Davis, Kansas, Texas and Arizona do more damage to Republicans just by being themselves than any outside force could do if they tried. Complaining that “Liberal media” makes Republicans look bad is like a 700-pound person blaming their pants for making their ass look fat. Face it; there is no 2015 equivalent of Eisenhower.

For my money, none of the democrats issues matter, if we don’t take care of the republicans problems in this country and world where it concerns our safety. Need I say more?

@CRANKIE Yes, you do need to say more. If you feel that ISIS is a bigger threat than poverty, corruption, equality, and hate crimes that lead to more American deaths per year than Muslim extremists have killed in over a decade, then yes. And if you are worried that some Sunni will take your Jesus from you yet aren’t worried about Christians imposing their will on others through secular legislation, or that multiple divorces and adultery are fine but commited same-sex couples are immoral and should also be illegal then I’m not sure where to even begin addressing that sort of cognitive dissonance.

Or are you claiming that you are a single-issue voter who would gladly live in squalor with no rights whatsoever so long as we keep “others” out by giving whatever money isn’t in the pockets of the 0.01% to defense in order to outgun ever other nation by a wider margin than we already do?

I’m not trying to be difficult; I just want to get you to elaborate beyond a simplistic, xenophobic sound bite that is pretty much why so many people flock to the Democrat’s side simply because they are the only non-Republicans that have a chance at getting elected and thus the only defense against neo-feudal theocracy.

I don’t view ISIS as a threat to us, but the way I see it if we really want to deal with the issue then there’s one effective way to do so, but it’s not something anyone’s really going to ready to go along with (or at least publicly admit to).

A nuclear Iran doesn’t concern me, even if possessing nuclear weapons is their end goal. If they really want nuclear weapons then they’re going to get nuclear weapons one way or another, with or without our consent. With the deal we have in place we at least have the chance to thaw relations with Iran and to possibly make friends (if not allies) with the upcoming generation (who, as a whole, do not share the same values and views as the older generations of Iranians), rather than making a sworn enemy out of another couple of generations at least. Pakistan, on the verge of being a failed state, having nuclear weapons concerns me more, but that ship sailed long ago.

I don’t give a fuck about abortion. As a man I will never be faced with that choice, and I don’t have the right to presume to dictate what someone else can do with their body.

Illegal immigrants don’t worry me, and building a wall is a moronic feel good measure that won’t work anyway. People can always go around, over or even under the wall.

I believe that we need to focus on ensuring the best quality of life, and equality of opportunity for our people. We’re doing a miserable job at that. I believe that we need to focus on repairing, rebuilding and upgrading our nation’s crumbling infrastructure. A nation with a poor and inefficient infrastructure cannot endure. I believe we need to focus on quality of education and on becoming world leaders in science, math and technology again. We live in an increasingly global society and we’re raising generations of children who won’t be able to compete on the global stage. American could be a great nation and could be a shining beacon for the rest of the world, but we’re sabotaging our own potential to be so.

@thorninmud the polarization between the 2 camps is not accidental or the result of mere disparity on random viewpoints, and once more we need merely ask “who is it that benefits from the resulting strife and dissension?” Our problems are indeed systemic, but they’ve been engineered and for the most part deliberately. And little reflection is required to understand that this is NECESSARY if the few are to profit at the expense of the many in a land where everyone is allowed to vote. The global warming issue in particular is a clear cut example of this process at work. Whenever conservatives (pay attention @Jaxk) start bemoaning government meddling, and stifling regulation, it is helpful to remember that what they’re actually complaining about is the collective consensus of all of us. The bottom line on our political impasse is that this is a war of ideas, and while it may well be argued that both sides are busy telling us what to think when it comes to the “truth”, there are striking reasons to suspect that the big hang up for us wading through the morass of misinformation is our own ignorance and suppression of logic. Back to global warming. Has anyone noticed the striking parallels between climate change denial and the controversial issue of cigarettes and disease? There are those today who still maintain that big government brutally punishes smokers, and they may have a point. But it sadly fell to big government to settle the argument confronting the addicted sheep in denial that yes cigarettes will kill you.

@stanleybmanly ” the polarization between the 2 camps is not accidental or the result of mere disparity on random viewpoints”

I’m not suggesting that it’s accidental at all, nor is it a matter of random viewpoints. I’m suggesting that it comes down to a fundamental difference in orientation. There’s a large body of research that correlates political orientation to fundamental personality differences similar to the one I’m proposing. These are so basic that they serve as an organizing principle for an entire worldview.

It is really not too complicated. Whether an individual politician (or even the voter) would realize it or not, we are becoming polarized between compassion and fear:

…defeating Islamic State terrorists, deterring a nuclear Iran, restricting abortion, and debating whether to deport illegal immigrants and construct a wall to keep them out
That sounds like fear to me.

…shrinking the gap between rich and poor; combating climate change; and expanding voting rights, gay rights and workplace equality for women.
That sounds like compassion to me

It reminds me of one of my favorite quotes from Mahatma Gandhi:where you read “love” substitute “compassion” which is a form of love.
“Power is of two kinds. One is obtained by the fear of punishment and the other by acts of love. Power based on love is a thousand times more effective and permanent then the one derived from fear of punishment.”

@Yetanotheruser Quite so. Moreover, those that side with fear tend to actual embrace discrimination. There is a strong tendency towards xenophobia, which manifests as fear of giving anyone besides white, Christian males any more rights than they had centuries ago, and varying degrees of actual hatred towards anyone who is “different”, whether they be of a different race, religion, nationality, gender, sexual orientation or what-have-you. Bigotry is not born out of malice, but out of fear.

Of course, the world as a whole is different from what it was, and all of the changes that happened without their approval have them feeling threatened… and rightly so as I too would feel threatened if the entire world were leaving me behind and becoming something I was mentally incapable of coping with.

Hypocrisy seems to be the word of the day. Liberals base their whole philosophy on fear and hate. When the health care debate was going what did we see? Pictures of showing granny being shoved off a cliff, people dying in the streets for lack of insurance. Anyone with a diffeent view is racist or bigoted. The climate change argument is based on an apocolyptic view of the world. No idea what to do but first let’s make everyone believe the world will end if we don’t do something. Send hate mail and death threats whenevere possible. If you don’t have good arguments, riot and create mayhem along the lines of Ferguson, Occupy Wall Street, and Black lives Matter.

Yes, boys and girls, the Democratic party is based on hate and violence. “The lady doth protest too much methinks”.

@Jaxk: The opposing party doesn’t do the same with Muslims taking over the world, blah blah blah?

And above we have a good example of what @thorninmud was talking about regarding fundamental differences in orientation.
Were the dead grannies from being shoved off a cliff or from death panels deciding? Not a liberal talking point for health care but a conservative one expressing fear of the health care system.
Climate change, no matter how you try to word it, conservatives rephrase it to connote the apocalypse and the end of the world, more use of fear. Liberals see change coming and want to minimize the impact on humans, conservatives are the doom and gloom bunch.
Hate mail, death threats? Which group has the vast majority of the people on talk radio? Why are these same people radio stoking the fires of loathing and hatred of those who are different? Which group is sure they are going to lose their gun rights? Which group are certain we have a foreign black Muslim President that is going to bring the country to its knees? Which group are convinced that the government are building camps to lock up its own citizens after usurping our fourth amendment rights? Which group rails about a war on Christianity that the majority of Americans are evidently blind to? Which group fears the loss of their rights by giving the same rights to others?
Ferguson? Sure, create mayhem by exposing ongoing racial problems and violence in police departments?
Black Lives Matter? Same thing, different approach.
Occupy Wall Street? Again, suppress those who point out problems within the free market system and advocate for change. The thing that conservatives fear most, change. Call out the police and use violence against non-violent protesters. The Occupy movement was not the problem; the violent reaction of those in government and on the payroll of the businesses either directly or indirectly was the problem Give businesses the right to hire police directly and call into question whether this public servant actually works for the public or the bank. As one article put it: “A nontransparent program called “Paid Detail Unit” has been set up so that private corporations are actually employing NYPD officers, who are in uniform and armed. The difference is that when these “public servants” are on the payroll of the banks, they are no longer serving you and the impartial rule of law in your city – despite what their uniform and badge imply.’ Plus, since the banks pay NYPD who in turn pays the officer, NYPD is getting a cut for “administrative fees”. More like the old time payoffs and bribes to look the other way or enforce the laws as the businesses see fit.

@Jaxk As usual, you’re wrong. Not one of those 3 things, Ferguson, Occupy, or Black Lives Matter has anything to do with the moribund and useless democratic party. Now you may posit as a matter for argument that it is the left renowned for hateful mean spirited behavior, but we all know the truth. Exactly which side has the franchise on greed and selfishness? Beat up on the poor, persecute immigrants, never pass up an opportunity to kick the defenseless, champion the death penalty, deny climate change, slander the minimum wage as extravagant and unaffordable, and groan about the burdensome inconveniences of suffering billionaires. Gimme a break!

@Jaxk About that…

Liberals may have extremists, but they don’t become them the way Conservatives do. The Democratic party has remained fairly consistent while the Republicans… well, Trump is the GOP front-runner, which tells you all you really need to know about the Republican base.

Another key difference is attitude towards violence. Liberals aren’t the one’s carrying loaded guns around and screaming that we need “Second amendments solutions”. Maybe a little property crime in extreme circumstances, but not organized paramilitary forces going on about how they can’t wait to shoot a wetback/nigger/fag; in fact, Liberals rarely even use those words since, unlike modern-day Conservatives, Liberals recognize that Mexicans, Blacks and homosexuals are human beings and respect them as such.

You complain that you are not allowed to show your prejudice, but the reason that we don’t allow that is that, historically, allowing prejudice leads to greater problems, often of a magnitude involving large scale loss of lives. It’s partly for your own protection as well as to maintain an orderly society that discrimination is frowned upon. Now, if you want the right to be a religious zealot and/or racist, then you might want to consider the consequences. Specifically, being vastly outnumbered by people who have the power to make your life hell… or short, or both.

Of course, a large enough sense of entitlement will blind one to concepts such as “consequences”, as well as have a callous disregard for society (not that many Conservatives seem to have a grasp on “greater good” either; that fell off the party platform decades ago) so long as they get their way. I mean, if you are right, then everyone either agrees with you or is beneath your contempt. It will also make you complain about persecution when someone disagrees with you, and attempt to martyr yourself when faced with opposition.

However, that sort of ego is a danger, and those that are a danger to society or who refuse to comply with it’s rules will face certain backlash. Many of the things you personally support are things that the majority of Americans don’t. That means that expressing your views has a higher likelihood of drawing negative feedback in most circles, the exceptions being places like where Bill O’Reilly would be considered a Liberal.

And when you try turning those opinions into legislation that goes against both vox populi and the Constitution the way many Conservatives have in recent years, that feedback may take the form of legal issues, whether it be having a law struck down (oddly, far more prevalent in Red states…) or being prosecuted (like Kim Davis violating court orders), or possibly even military action (Waco siege) depending on the extent.

But I guess that in your mind, YOU are the hero, the true patriot, and everyone else is just stupid, immoral and wrong. If that is not the case, then stop being a shining example of why even many former Republicans are flocking towards Democrats in order to put distance between themselves and anything even remotely conservative. Try being a reasonable counterpoint rather than a xenophobic curmudgeon.

Wow, xenophobic curmudgeon, you certainly put me in my place. There’s no comeback for that but I’m sure you meant it in the kindest possible way. I have to give you credit though. Not everyone can claim they are empathetic while bragging about the massacre of women and children in Waco. By the way, since you all are so non-violent should I take your comment that you all can make my life hell or Short, as a threat. Kinda sounds that way.

No You’re OUR undocumented immigrant, lonely, hunted, and victimized by the rabid unfeeling liberal hoardes

@Jaxk I can only comment on what I see, and over the years you have given every indication of fitting the dictionary definitions on both words. It was meant not as an insult, but simply a statement of fact.

As for the Waco siege, that wasn’t bragging. What happened there was a tragedy. But it wasn’t the ATF that doused the compound on Coleman fuel. The whole standoff never needed to happen, and it’s regrettable how it went down. But I think that that won’t matter to you anyways because your running theme in all the years I’ve known you is that Conservatives are always the victims of oppression, and any attempt to get them to conform with laws is tyranny on the part of the Socialist Liberal Muslim sympathizers. If that impression of you is incorrect, then you might want to dial yourself back a few notches. In fact, you’d have to invent a time machine and retract a lot of your words for that impression to change.

”[S]hould I take your comment that you all can make my life hell or Short, as a threat. Kinda sounds that way.”

That really depends on you. Now, this being the internet and you being more of a nuisance than a danger, the worst you’ll face is a few nasty words. You personally are not in any real danger.

But pull back a bit to look at the bigger picture, beyond a few people on the internet to our entire nation, and what you have is a small group of people with views that others find objectionable facing off against the majority who, thanks to our whole electoral process, also hold much of the political power. Is it truly wise to annoy those who make the rules? I think not. And if you have a history of making bad rules much to the detriment of others, odds are that you’ll have a tougher time of things when the balance of power shifts and you are no longer the ones in charge.

Even worse, when you have a history of violence, you increase the odds of response in kind… though it’s far less likely that the average Democrat will get violent compared to the odds of a “God, guns and guts!” guy walking down the street with an AR-15 on his back and a pistol on his hip starting some hostility.

And quite honestly, the radicals on your side of the fence have done quite a few things that mark y’all as a legitimate threat. Which party is it that keeps losing in appellate courts when they try to get a biblical teaching turned into a law? Which party not only supports a public official who explicitly broke a state law in a blatant display of malfeasance but also supports those who would protect that lawbreaker not by any legal means, but by surrounding her with a heavily armed militia in order to avoid facing trial? (Fortunately, Davis’ lawyers saw the potential issues and risk of escalation and asked the Oath Keepers to stay out of it.) Which party is it that changes the definition of “natural born citizen” to declare a person born in Hawaii to a US citizen to be a non-citizen but a person born in Canada to a US citizen to themselves be a citizen?

When all is said and done, there are some deep and irreconcilable differences between us, and we are far from the only ones on our respective sides. And you and I are not the only ones to have such a diametric opposition; we are actually fairly typical Americans in that respect. We see the nation differently; I see no sign of the nation you see. If our relationship is any indication, then Republicans and Democrats don’t even live in the same country, but rather in two different nations that through some N-spatial sci-fi timey wimey stuff just happen to both be in the same physical location. (Well, unless you’re from the South, in which case you simply didn’t get the memo that the country you think you live in disappeared in 1865 with the CSA’s surrender.)

I see you’re obviously upset. Take a step back from the keyboard and take a deep breath before you hurt yourself. Maybe a little soothing music will help. I’m sure you’ll feel safer once they put Kim Davis in jail. And don’t worry, I’m sure they’ll reinstate your unemployment or food stamps or whatever government hand-out it is that has you so upset.

Nothing in @jerv‘s above comment indicated upset. It was, on the contrary, collected, thought out and well written on a level that you, frankly, seem incapable of.

Poor deluded Davis is last week’s news. Fortunately, idiocy is not a criminal offense. The system worked as it should, and no rational person wants to punish the woman for her silly beliefs, until she seeks to inflict them on the rest of us.

Don’t weep for Kim Davis. By the time this is all said and done she’ll have resigned, or have been removed, from her office. Then she’ll get the book deal and go one the speaking circuit and get paid high dollars to tell the rest of the faithful how she was persecuted by those pushing the liberal Muslim atheist Satanic Nazi agenda.

@jerv you do speak very knowledgeably on many of the dynamics and aspect of our political process but you lose me with your points you make when you say…

But pull back a bit to look at the bigger picture, beyond a few people on the internet to our entire nation, and what you have is a small group of people with views that others find objectionable facing off against the majority who, thanks to our whole electoral process, also hold much of the political power.

You make it sound that the liberals own and run our political ideology of our nation when only 38% of the registered voters are Democrats and I will give you that though that is more than the 32% registered Republicans, it in no way gives the Liberal preeminent domain over the direction of our countries policies and if the liberal agenda was so damn swell we would not have 30% of the voters who are sick and fed up with both parties (like me) and sit in the middle as Independents. It gets tiring and very old when you and all the other hard core liberals here who attempt to force feed your arguments like the conservatives and independents don’t exist when together we and the Repubs who together make up 62% of registered voters and who to varying degrees eschew the Liberal agenda.

By continually getting on your soap box and making your messages appear empirical and irrefutable while ignoring that more people than you are letting on to simply do not and will not agree with you. And you should be OK with that

@Cruiser

Why do you assume that liberal must = Democrat? There’s quite a lot of liberals out there (probably most of them) who find the Democrat party these days weak, spineless and contemptible.

@Cruiser Algar’s criticism is right on the money. You and Jaxk both make the mistake of assuming the democratic party to be a tool of the left. This perception is demonstrably inaccurate, and the direct result of the Republican party (an undeniable tool of the right) being coopted by the the “lunatic fringe” that Goldwater warned us about. The truth is that irrational forces have pulled the landscape so far right, that the democratic party is currently somewhere on the spectrum where the REPUBLICAN party stood in the 60s when there were both liberal and moderate conservatives. The democratic party NO LONGER holds the loyalty of the legitimate left-thus the spectacular rise of Sanders. While the same may well be said of Republicans regarding the right, a glance at the characters headlining the 2 revolts should pretty much convince those observing as to which movement stands a chance of being considered rational.

I said what I said within the obvious framework that if you vote Democratic then you are in full (maybe reluctant) support of the Democratic agenda and policies which are 100% liberal and heaven forbid smacks conservative. And anyone who thinks that calling themselves “progressive” to distance themselves from the unwashed far left Liberals won’t fool me for a second. IMO Democrat or Progressive means you are a Liberal and in support of the Liberal policies that shape the Democratic agenda being force fed by the likes of Harry Reid, Pilosy and our President who like the top tiered Republicans are beholden to special interests that have none of our futures in mind.

And this is where we almost always part ways. I am successful not because I am a Republican because I am not and never was. I am successful because I live by very strict Conservative values, ideals and principals. I am my company are thriving and sucessful not because of what the government has done to support my business I am successful because despite very oppressive and regressive government policies and regulations thrown at me and cost me thousands of business dollars I could have otherwise really growb my business and hired 2–3 more people. Despite over 6% increase in Federal and State income tax I am still successful and profitable. Despite my companies healthcare expense doubling now in 5 years I will still be successful. Why because I have not only passed on these costs to you the consumer I have worked my ass off on my own with my God given talents. I work everyday and night when other good folks get to relax and sleep. It took me over 30 years to get to where I am….I was patient…I did not whine and demand that I get ANYTHING for free or that I did not earn. I also did not do what I have done to succeed off the sweat and hard work of my workers with less than living wages at an entry level position plus benefits and bonuses.

Yes success can happen despite an oppressive Liberal Government doing it’s damned best and again how? I adapted and dug in deep and cut spending and sacrificed when I knew I had to and didn’t whine about.

Just imagine if in 2007 while campaigning Obama took the Honest Gil Fulbright approach and said….all you Americans who are sick and tired of this Republican hot mess Bush is leaving behind….then vote for me and my hope and change agenda to provide health care for everyone, open our borders to millions of illegal aliens, bail out the banking and auto industries, ensure the Iran will continue with their Nuclear ambitions and at the same time withdraw from all Middle East conflicts while drawing a few red lines in the sand that will only make matters worse in the Middle East! I have so many great things in store for you with no Federal budget to figure out how you will pay for all this! And in just 7 short years I will double our nations debt to over 20 TRILLION Dollars!!

@Cruiser

This is why it becomes virtually impossible to have anything resembling a productive, meaningful exchange with ether you or @Jaxk. Because of your pigheadedly stubborn refusal to consider any notion that falls outside your myopic, soundbyte infused view of the world around you.

@Darth_Algar Then you don’t really know me and my goals for a better more productive America with more jobs and better pay for more Americans. If the Dems have not succeeded on the front in over 7 years and IMO only made matters worse. That said I have yet to see one attempt by you and your posse to have an open productive discussion of what it will take to make more jobs with better pay. @jaxk and I are full of ideas but it will entail ALL Americans….politicians included to make some very tough choices and sacrifices. There is no other way to do this. You can’t spend you way out of debt….it’s been tried for 7 years and we are twice as deep in the hole.

And the lower and middle class think the only answer is to stick it to the 1%. Again the Libs have tried that with no change in the income gap it has only gotten larger and again our debt only worse. If you or anyone want to have a meaningful discussion on how to tackle the real problems our country faces….lets go. If you are more entertained by ripping on the Republicans and how stupid they all are, have at it…I know I am tired of that diatribe and have to think have to think @Jaxk is too.

Look. we are in agreement on certain issues. My own business is a marginal success because I work my ass off and battle against the same obstacles and regulations as yourself. The difference is that I don’t believe for an instant that the fundamental reason for the increasing difficulties involved with making a decent living are about government regulation and ever climbing taxes. I’m pleading with the 2 of you to just ask WHY the necessity for ever increasing taxes that are never enough? Where does the money we who do work for ALWAYS wind up. It doesn’t matter if it first is filtered through the deadbeats and bungling bureaucrats. WHERE does it wind up? I’m going to stop participating in these discussions of liberal vs. conservative policies, because they only serve to rile us all up (as they are intended to do) to distract us from the central issue. From my point of view, the failure with your point of view is that you believe that you and the 1% share the same interests. As long as you believe this, you will be handed an ever growing share of their bills. And forget about the democrats and republicans, and ALWAYS remember that they are ALL members of the same class. They are a collection of people and the only collection of people allowed to join the 1% THROUGH GOVERNMENT WORK. Once you appreciate this, you MUST realize WHY the democrats are USELESS as a party on the left. The trick is to recognize that the battle is merely about which of the 2 parties is going to be allowed to transfer your money and mine to their masters faster. You and I might fight over government handouts to the undeserving poor or on the pampering of illegal immigrants, but it’s time to recognize that you and I are on the road to joining the undeserving poor as THE RICH GET RICHER. Why is it so difficult to understand that if we are scuffling harder and harder as THE RICH GET RICHER, it might be prudent to ask yourself whether or not the 2 facts are merely coincidences?

@stanleybmanly You are correct in your assumption and assessment of me. I bought this company just over 4 years ago and before buying the company in 2010 when the real estate market was in flames I still signed my life away on the loan because I had a detailed business plan that made me confident I could do this even during the worst recession I have ever lived through.

Right out of the box my taxes go up 6%....there goes my plan to hire someone in year 2. I am a chemical company by definition and use and manufacture DOT hazardous materials. 2012 OSHA decides to rewrite our industries Material Safety Data Sheets to be SDS with all sorts of new pictograms and hazard definitions. My 4 page MSDS went to 8 pages long. Then OSHA also decided how we label our products needed more information and that means redoing each and every label for all 200 plus of my products which each require 3 labels. These new requirements eliminate a system that was working perfectly fine for 30 plus years. The cost in time and money just restricted me from being able to afford a new salesman I desperately need. I do an OK amount of business in China but I could do a ton more if there were fairer and less restrictive and costly barriers to that new business. I am pretty much shut out because I can’t be competitive. I already mentioned the mind blowing health care costs and if this trend continues I will be wondering why I took on this responsibility!

As far as me not wanting to chip away at the real 1% billionaire elite you are pretty wrong in that regard because I personally do not think that is the answer here. IMO the answer is to create jobs. My example though at the very bottom of the scale of things is a real example. At least 2 people could of and should be employed here. Those 2 people in my one company represents a 25% increase in jobs that should have taken place but didn’t because someone thought it be better that the money go to the Government the same Government that thought it would be a good idea to hobble my company and thousands of others like me with unneeded regulation. Then this doubling of my health insurance cost is a very real and painful detriment that has cost another person a job at my company. In 5 short years HC cost went from 13.5% of my profits to 27%!

Going after the rich is NOT the answer. They and little ol me are the job creators and this bloated way to big and far reaching often inept Government is what has gotten in the way of real job growth in our country. We need jobs, better educational opportunities, lower taxes for all and a much much smaller Government that is the key to making this all work. I am not making any of this up as I am and have been living it each and every day and working way much harder than I should have to to make it all work. I would not be so sore about this if I saw others especially the Federal and Illinois State Government make the same sacrifices as I and you and other small businesses have had to. Even big businesses had to make enormous sacrifices. I do business with Coorstek the parent company of the brewery and their corporate office staff went from 65 people cut down to just 12 in 2010. The head of purchasing was having to clean the office and bathrooms because they had to cut the housekeeping staff.

I am waiting for one….just one politician step and present real ideas and policies that will give birth to more jobs while making strides towards reducing the nations debt. I don’t see these solutions coming from the Democrats. Hillary and Biden are just full strength replacements of Obama’s grow the Government and get now where on the jobs front. Sanders is just Obama light with IMO more chance to grow the government and debt even more with the fantasies his is positing.

Most of the Republican candidates are too busy making asses out of themselves by wasting time chasing Trumps shadow.

The person we need as President to get us up and running again will be the person who possess the leadership, will and determination to stand before the American public and be honest with them to tell them just how bad the problems really are and how painful the solutions will be. Then that person will have to have the leadership skills to get both sides of the isle to have the courage to do the same and stand before their constituents and say….look folks you didn’t elect me to lie to you and this is how it really is and this is what the solutions to these problems are. You I and everyone has to do their part….make some short term deep sacrifices so we can build a stronger path to more jobs and better pay.

The problem is that conservatives view the Democratic party as liberal and Republicans as middle of the roaders whereas Liberals view the Democratic party as conservative and the Republicans as far right fascists. and yes, while I know that there are elements of fascism that are an anathema to the conservative mindset, such as big, centralized government, these same folks are the most likely to hold ideologies that feature extreme nationalist, chauvinist, xenophobic, racist, or reactionary views. Perhaps Neo-fascist would be a better term

A liberal voting for a democrat does so because to do so is the lesser of two evils, not because the Democrat is a liberal. They do not have any representation.

@Cruiser you and I suffer from regulation not because someone feels that regulations are a good thing but because some asshat in the past has abused the system. We have the EPA because under the present economic model it is ok to fuck up someone elses air, water or ground as long as you make a buck. We have OSHA because it is ok if a few of your workers die for lack of the proper safety equipment as long as the company is profitable.

But, I do agree with you when you state that government should have to operate under the same laws and regulations that they impose; just like I feel Congress should have to obey the same laws they feel necessary to impart upon the general populace.

@Cruiser If you go by overall political views, then you are correct. However, there are some issues where public opinion doesn’t fall across party lines. For instance, the Republican party is officially against legalizing marijuana, but there are plenty of Conservatives who break ranks and support it. Whether it’s because they consider it something that should be decided on the state level rather than “allowing the federal government to impose laws they lack the constitutional authority to impose”, as a source of revenue that would lower tax rates, or whatever, there are enough people who feel that federal legalization of marijuana is consistent with (if not demanded by) Conservative ideals.

When it comes to the relationship between Church and State, such as how much influence religion should have on secular law, you once again run into a situation where there is a lot of breaking ranks. Should prayer in school be a thing? Well, using taxpayer dollars for anything is something that any fiscally conservative person would scrutinize. As well, those who seek to limit the intrusiveness of government may wish to ban it and have their kids pray at home under parental guidance rather than risk allowing the government to “corrupt” them spiritually. Once again, there are reasons based on Conservative ideals to oppose prayer in school.

Look at public opinion polls and you will see plenty of cases where the number of people supporting or opposing something is totally unrelated to how one self-identifies with regards to political affiliation. When 42% of Republicans agree with 72% of Democrats and 50% of Independents, saying that a particular opinion is held by the the majority of the public is an accurate statement. I pulled those numbers from a poll about jailing Kim Davis so, in context, it is a true statement that the majority of people support jailing Kim Davis.

Now, how insidious is “the Liberal agenda” that it makes even a statistically significant percentage of Conservatives think that a civil servant who abuses her power and breaks a law that was passed with bipartisan manner in the process should be prosecuted?

The simpler solution is to assume that it’s possible for some things to be a majority opinion despite political leanings. When I spoke of @Jaxk holding a minority opinion, I admit I made a few assumptions though. I assumed that he did not speak for all Conservatives; that there are a number of self-identified Republicans who hold a different view. (Not really much of an assumption really; I actually know some.) Likewise, I assumed that he spoke for less than 51% of Independents. You and I can both speak for ourselves, and I feel safe to assume that, despite you and I having differing opinions, he isn’t speaking for either of us all the time. Lastly, I utterly discounted the possibility of many Democrats agreeing with @Jaxk simply because I doubt he would allow himself to agree with Democrats.

If there were no Independents and nobody ever broke rank with their party on anything, then you would be entirely correct. But some people do break ranks, and we have a rather notable number of people who don’t have ranks to break who also have opinions. And as @rojo points out, voting Democrat isn’t always because you’re a Liberal; often it truly is because it’s the lesser of two evils.

Given the current state of the GOP, I would argue that the Democrats uphold traditional Conservative values better than the assortment of Bible-thumpers and self-proclaimed Ubermenschen who would slit their own mother’s throats for a profit that seem to be what the Republicans are all about. The Republican frontrunner is an Oompa Loompa who has crashed his own personal economy four times who thinks that he can get Mexico to pay for building a wall along the border to keep Mexicans out. Compared to that, Vermin Supreme seems more electably sane! Am I a Liberal extremist because I won’t blindly vote for someone just because there is a R next to their name on the ballot?

@Darth_Algar I disagree. I find that @Cruiser is quite easy to have a productive exchange with. Unlike… certain other people, he is a good listener, and is respectful whether he agrees with you or not. He may be a little stubborn insofar as you are unlikely to actually change his opinion, but he’s not nearly as dismissive.

@Cruiser Thing that gets me about your healthcare story is that the Democrats are the ones who have been trying to get employers out of the healthcare business. That burden could have been lifted from you entirely if the Republicans could allow a single payer system to be put in place.

@jerv Your example of Kim Davis IMO may be off the mark a bit of the point I know you were trying to make. By the public outrage over her actions you would have to think she was an outlier when in the bible belt where she resides her religious stance against gay marriage is in the majority of her neighbor bible thumpers. The irony to me is that she is also a Democrat and why I believe the ‘liberal’ media has soft peddled on this story and why I believe she has not yet been voted out of her elected position. But I digress.

Again as a conservative I am almost forced to vote Republican because I am personally opposed to the spend spend spend policies promoted by the Democrats. It is unconscionable to me to see how both our Federal Government and my State Government have put us in such a deep hole debt wise and there has not been one effort made by the Democratic parties to curb this spending melee. I would vote Democratic in a heartbeat if that candidate put forth a firm stance to shrink the deficit and believe an overwhelming majority of my fellow independents would too. A fifth grader could balance a budget yet all those in Congress can’t pull together to get it done why you ask? I think you know why but I will say it because I don’t know of any Liberal or Democrat that would point the finger at Obama but I do.

I know it is possible to put forth a Federal Budget and curb the deficit spending because despite strong opposition from the Dems in my State, Gov Rauner has dug his heels in and not caving to the push back of our State Democratic leaders and is making progress towards a balanced budget but it will come with a heavy painful price all will have to agree on and they will.

I will also say for a business man Republican to get elected Governor of Illinois in a staunch Blue state is very reflective of the state of mind of our countries voters who for the most part are fed up our career politicians and why Trump, Carson and Fiorina have had such early success in the polls.

@Cruiser Actually, the reason she hasn’t been voted out of her elected position is that she can’t be yet, just as President Obama cannot be voted out until next November. As for calling her a Democrat, I think that that just illustrates how the South differs from the US. Seriously, because of the cultural differences, comparing Southern Democrats to non-Southern Democrats is comparing apples to orangutans. Then again, some would argue that former Senator Scott Brown (R-MA) isn’t really a Republican either, yet he managed to get the votes he needed to take Ted Kennedy’s seat.

Those same spending sprees are why I cannot vote Republican most of the time. If spending cuts were a bit more even as opposed to being mostly in programs that help the poor have a standard of living that complies with internationally accepted standards of human rights then maybe. But those are the first things to go whenever a Republican proposes to cut spending to pay for their pet projects, assuming that they even make an attempt at balancing costs.

Of course, since I spend so much time and effort pointing out the flaws of Republicans, I can see how one may think I’m a Democrat. But tell me, how many Democrats are truly to the same extreme as the clown collective that make up most of the GOP Presidential hopefuls? Is wanting us to give a little less to those who already have much in favor of giving some to those who have little really as outlandish as wanting to start a construction project on the same scale as the Great Wall of China and trying to get those that it hurts the most to pay for it?

I generally give the Democrats a pass not because I agree with them, but simply because so long as we cling to the two-party system, they are usually the saner, less costly evil. Democrats denounce their lunatics while Republicans double down on their insanity. Whether that gets people to vote Democrat or become disenfranchised and not vote at all varies, but so long as there is a party that opposes the current crop of Republicans, they will have my support. And if the GOP decides to have a change of heart and disavow the stunts they currently pull, then they’ll get my vote. I’m not a Democrat, or even really an Anti-Republican; I merely oppose bullshit and sociopathy, and vote whichever way I feel will cost us less. (Not whichever is the most fiscally sound, as not all costs are monetary.)

@jerv That is kind of my point I made with her community more on her side than against. This is “her” county not mine or yours where our views (I assume) on this issue are the opposite of hers. So had she pulled this stunt this in mine or your county, I am quite positive my Governor would immediately call a special session and boot her ass out of office.

As for the spending issues @jerv, I have failed to mention my biggest beef with the Feds spending is a lot (or more than there should be) is the programs that really should be in the hands of individual states. That would cut spending big time if the Feds got out of our personal lives and stuck to that which they were originally tasked to do when the Constitution was written.

I also respectfully disagree with your characterization of Republicans defending their wingnuts any more than the Liberals defend theirs. The Liberals enjoy a media bias that seems to feed off of even the smallest of issues the RNC may have and repeatedly spin these moments into headline affairs when the same shit is happening on the left but you will almost never hear about it or it’s page 10 news.

@Cruiser Show me a Democrat as extreme as Trump who has led the polls and I might change my mind. If you say Sanders is that extreme, then you are saying that the entire leadership of the rest of the industrialized world and the population that elected them are extreme. And it’s not like the Democratic party has dozens/hundreds of Bernies either. No, you’re going to have to cite at least a dozen at the federal level that are on par with Vermin Supreme. It’s not “Liberal bias” that puts the faults of the Conservatives front-and-center; it’s the fact that Liberals generally prefer to just deprive the DNC wingnuts of publicity and focus on those that actually have a chance at getting elected.

Those like Palin, Cruz, Huckabee, and Trump pretty much are the Republican party these days. Scott Walker is a shining success story of Conservative economic policy. If they do not represent the will of Conservatives, then it’s time for y’all to either take back the GOP or form your own party that advocates the values of smaller government, fiscal responsibility and doing the whole “support, uphold and defend the Constitution” thing. Which side is it that has a large number of people believing that the First Amendment’s freedom of religion applies only to Christians again? And which party pushes for drug testing those on public assistance as a cost-cutting measure despite the fact that it costs millions more taxpayer dollars than it saves? To be sure, the Democrats do silly/stupid shit too, but rarely on the same scale, and definitely not as consistently.

Lastly, if the Davis saga happened here, it would really depend on what part of the state. In King and Snohomish counties (basically, the Seattle metropolitan area where roughly half of all WA residents live), the governor wouldn’t have time to act before the matter was handled. Between people running around naked in the Solstice Parade and guys running around in lacy blouses during Sea Faire, the Gay Pride parade is the third gayest annual event in Seattle. However, the other 90% of WA state where the other half of WA residents live is basically North Dixie. Basically, in any state-wide vote that has any sort of partisan divide, you can guess a Washingtonian’s vote with ~85% accuracy just by whether they live in/near Seattle or not.

@jerv No thanks. I have no interest in trying to compare Trump today this early in the campaign to any Dem who may have similarly rattled a few cages as I am busy and have more poison ivy to pull. The thing I do find most interesting about the sacred cows Trump attacks applies evenly to both sides of the Isle who for as long as I can remember have pretended to do what is best for the citizens who elected them while their real motivations are owned by the special interests that really got them elected. Our votes matter about as much as the toilet paper we flush every day.

Trump may pretend to be a Republican but we all know his Democratic leanings and why the statements he makes speaks to the shortcomings of Obama and again the entire Congress. People are acknowledging this and from the responses from both the Republicans AND the Democrats neither are none too happy for being exposed to being weak tits the way the Donald has done.

Same country, different ideals. I’m a businessman myself, so making money is the number one priority for me and while I don’t care for most of the democratic party’s ideals, I feel the anti-competitive policies that the democrats support benefits me the most financially. The democratic party’s support for regulations helps destroy my competition since it puts a heavy costs on existing or potential businesses making them unable to afford to implement. Similarly, the democratic party’s support for protectionism such as tariffs and quotas keeps me covered from the competition. Subsidies, etc.

@vertz hey, welcome.
Regulation does not come about at random. Regulation is the end result of some other asshat abusing the system. You, and I suffer because some people can’t play nice.

@rojo, I don’t fully agree. I lobby for regulations all the time. So do larger businesses than mine. I’m not doing it because I care about the environment or the workers. I do it because it puts heavy costs on existing competitor which ends up destroying my competitors. I don’t mind taking a financial hit (suffering as you put it) from regulations because it ultimately ensures that my less wealthy competitors and potential businessmen will be unable to afford to implement. Also, prior to establishing a new regulation, there are invitations for consultation with existing businesses which means new regulations are already going to conform to existing business operations. It will mainly crush less wealthy businessmen and newcomers. A good historical example of this is Nixon’s CPSC regulation. Same thing with Nixon’s EPA regulation. The existing businesses were legally allowed to pollute, so the heavy costs was put on the new businessmen.

The standards you witness today are byproducts of this, which are just as easily achieved under a competitive market without the need of a regulator. The only difference is the regulators benefit me more financially than a more competitive market.

The regulators themselves are corrupted which means in addition to the heavy costs from regulations, the regulators can be used by savvy and wealthier businessmen to get them to turn a blind on the business they’re suppose to regulate. That is partially why the latest financial crisis occurred. The government then covers it up with an excuse like “the regulators weren’t properly enforced”. This is where I love voting for the democrats. When a regulation fails, they push for more regulations which increases the burden on the lower end businesses, destroys the newcomers, and allows more successful ones to take advantage of the corrupt regulators. Sometimes “Rinos” (Republicans in name only) are just as good as the democrats.

The part that I do agree with you is that the public believes the regulations are the result of public demand rather than being seen as an anti-competitive policy pushed by businessmen.

@vertz that’s a very broad brush, and the one dependable argument from every scoundrel in the history of commerce. To state that I should be allowed to pack rats in a can labeled “top quality ham” because ” the market will sort it out” is demonstrably stupid. Regulations arise from perceived need. There is a need to protect us all from the ravaging glories of capitalism.

@Cruiser Regardless of what you label Trump, his popularity implies that there are plenty of like-minded people; if that were not true, then there is no way he could pull the numbers he does. And while he has some support from across the spectrum, for every Liberal or Moderate supporter he has, he has four Conservative supporters, so it’s pretty safe to say which party more closely identifies with him regardless of which party he identifies himself with.

The same is true of Bernie Sanders, who is the most “radical” Liberal that’s still electable. And I put “radical” in quotes as he really isn’t any more extreme than you would find across the Atlantic, so his ideas are only really extremist to those with a contrarian bent who feel we must do things differently in order to prove our individuality. But despite his support among Democrats, he himself is an Independent who simply aligns with the Dems for about the same reasons I do; third-party candidates usually fare poorly in presidential elections. But I digress.

That right there is proof that we have two large demographics with vastly different views of our nation; vast enough that relationships between the two camps are a bit more tenser and less civil than they were in years past. And that doesn’t even cover those that are not firmly in either camp.

So the original question rather simplifies the true situation; that we have multiple (as in “more than two”) visions of our country, that are widely divergent from each other. While those differences are generally aligned along party lines, there are more than two parties amongst the voters even if we narrow it down to only two when it comes time to hit the polls. Why we can’t go for a coalition government is beyond me, but that’s a discussion for another time.

What is missing from this conversation is the proven link between personality type and political leanings. I don’t think I need to say how personality can affect worldview either. At the end of the day, yes, Democrats and Republicans really do see things differently enough to make it seem like they aren’t even talking about the same universe, but it isn’t exactly partisanship; it’s because of the diversity of personalities present in our population.

@stanleybmanly, Absolutely. Those scoundrels use those arguments just so they can compete at the expense of the public. We need much more regulations to protect us from those awful rat packers.

@vertz How to you get around having to conform to the regulations you try to get imposed upon you competitors?

@vertz those regulations are pretty much in place here. There was a time when buying a can of ham here was a risky proposition, as it probably is today in your own country.

@rojo _ I don’t know what @vertz might tell you but I can think of several ways to tailor regulations to your advantage. Make them play to your strength while exposing you competitors weakness. I’ll use your rat example, not because it’s a good one but simply because you’ve already used it. Say that rats are more of a problem in packaging ham than they are in packaging turkey. Maybe rats don’t like turkey as much. If you’re a large company that cans ham, turkey and several other meats, you may want to convince regulators that the standard should be averaged across the product line. That means that you would have a very low rat-parts-per-million for your turkey and that would allow a higher parts-per-million for you ham. If your competitor only cans ham, you have effectively disadvantaged him. Or maybe you push for some grandfather clause that allows you to continue while any new players must meet a higher standard. If your competitor is close to releasing a new product or packaging method, maybe you can create regulation that disallows it or at least delays it until you can catch up.

There are all sorts of games that get played that advantage one company while disadvantaging others. He who has the most lobbyists wins. But if there are no lobbyists, regulators are left to their own devices and everybody loses. Damned if you do and damned if you don’t.

Good answer!

Let’s talk about the regulation prohibiting Medicare & Medicaid from negotiating with pharmaceutical corporations over drug prices. It’s tough to find a more clear illustration of exactly who it is that owns the government.

@Jaxk I don’t see lobbying itself as the problem. The framers of the Constitution evidently thought the lobby action is a good idea, and I agree with them. The problem is the way lobbying is practiced by K Street professionals, and the revolving door that seems to lead from a short career in Congress to a long, lucrative career on K Street.

@Yetanotheruser – Actually I completely agree with that. Lobbyists in theory provide a substantial service in bringing the industry knowledge necessary to the bureaucrats in Washington. Unfortunately, an ex-congressman doesn’t really bring any industry knowledge but does bring a lot of access. It’s not uncommon for a good idea to be destroyed by poor implementation.

@rojo – Only because regulation is my pet peeve, I will give you one more, a more common, example. Say you are making 1 million cans of ham per month/year/whatever. Your competitors is making 100K cans. Regulators want to impose regulation that will cost $1 million to implement. That will raise the cost of your ham by $1 per can. It will cost your competitors $10 per can and effectively put him out of business. Sounds like regulation you would support regardless of the benefit to society. You’ve increased your volume by 100K and decreased your cost per can and as a side benefit, you’ve raised the cost of entry for any new business that may come along. Regulation can be golden if your big enough and/or influential. This is effectively what Dodd-Frank did to the small community banks.

Another good answer, but I strongly disagree with your take on lobbyists. While it might be true that lobbyists do serve a function in educating lawmakers on issues, that function is in reality no longer the principal job of lobbyists and you know it. And once more as you stated on regulation, the advantages go to the big guys. Lobbying is in effect legalized bribery, and everybody knows it. That chamber of commerce smokescreen about educating lawmakers insults the intelligence of all who hear it

@stanleybmanly – I don’t disagree but if regulation typically favors the big guys over the small guys, why are the democrats always pushing for more regulation while screaming about the big guys consuming the market. Regulation almost always raises cost and not only do the large corporations gain a competitive advantage but any overseas corporations gain even more. You all continue to push for the regulation and then complain about the results.

I’ll give you my favorite example (if you’ve heard it before, skip on down). In the 70s when Ralph Nader and his crowd were pushing for 5 mph bumpers, the car companies were fighting the regulation. The issue was that low speed collisions were extraodinarily expensive. The bumpers should be able to protect against a low speed impact with minimal damage. The massive bumpers required would be expensive and increase the weight considerably, reducing gas mileage and so on. The car companies pushed for another solution, Regulation that made the bumper height standard across all vehicles. If the bumpers met, damage would be greatly reduced. You get to the same place but cost and performance are not degraded. They chose to go with Nader’s solution instead of the car companies.

Lobbyists can be good but lawyers don’t bring industry knowledge to the discussion. Ex-congressmen are no more knowledgeable than bureaucrats they’re trying to influence. I’m not sure what the solution is but eliminating all lobbyists doesn’t seem to fit. Remember that unions, environmental groups, consumer advocates all have lobbyists. A free society where no one is allowed to talk to government is not a free society.

I’m not disputing that regulations can be onerous, but the bumper example is one instance where the insurance industry lobbied heavily for its passage. And it’s a mistake putting Nader up as an example of the nuisance of regulation. There is NO individual responsible for preventing traffic deaths and injuries that you will ever hear about that can approach the achievements of Ralph Nader. Even you must accept that automobiles are safer by orders of magnitude do to his efforts to regulate their manufacture.