Americans Losing Confidence in All Branches of U.S. Gov't

[Pointedstick]

http://www.gallup.com/poll/171992/ameri ... s-gov.aspx

WASHINGTON, D.C. -- Americans' confidence in all three branches of the U.S. government has fallen, reaching record lows for the Supreme Court (30%) and Congress (7%), and a six-year low for the presidency (29%). The presidency had the largest drop of the three branches this year, down seven percentage points from its previous rating of 36%.

[Jan Van]

How's that two-party thing working out for ya? 

[Benko]

That's hopeful I suppose but the people who know what is best for everyone, don't really care what the people think/want and will continue to do whatever is needed to assure it happens.

[Mountaineer]

That's hopeful I suppose but the people who know what is best for everyone, don't really care what the people think/want and will continue to do whatever is needed to assure it happens.

Benko, I love your avatar; it reminds me of the three branches, particularly the executive but I really do hate to insult penguins. 

... Mountaineer

[Mountaineer]

That's hopeful I suppose but the people who know what is best for everyone, don't really care what the people think/want and will continue to do whatever is needed to assure it happens.

Benko, I love your avatar; it reminds me of the three branches, particularly the executive but I really do hate to insult penguins. 

... Mountaineer

In about 2.5 years, Rand Paul will take over and begin to repair the executive office. 

Or Hillary will take over, and I'll start a PP suicide hotline.

If we even make it for 2.5 years!  Maybe you had better get that hotline ready quickly.  Nevermind, I get the gift of relief every Sunday; it really does help get through the coming week of madness. 

... Mountaineer

[Pointedstick]

Or Hillary will take over, and I'll start a PP suicide hotline.

Well we'd better start it now, then, because I give Hillary a 95% chance of clobbering whoever dares to challenge her. As much as it pains me to admit it, I think this includes Rand Paul. IMHO, she is an unstoppable juggernaut with the forces of years of campaign savvy, a friendly media, and another "first" (first female president) turning out people to vote for her who never otherwise would.

[Pointedstick]

Unfortunately, I don't think turning out the hate vote works very well. That was basically what the GOP tried with Romney, right? "Hate Obama and vote for this east-coast RINO plutocrat uncle moneybags instead!" was their message. And it bombed. It would work better with a better candidate, of course, but with a good enough candidate, you don't need the hate vote because you have the love vote. That's why Obama won; he got naive liberals to jizz their pants over his exciting oratory and darker-than-usual skin color. And Hillary gets women really excited--even some conservative women, I'm convinced. That's more love. Who loves Rand paul? Libertarians? All 15% of the population worth of us? I don't think it's gonna work.

[Libertarian666]

Unfortunately, I don't think turning out the hate vote works very well. That was basically what the GOP tried with Romney, right? "Hate Obama and vote for this east-coast RINO plutocrat uncle moneybags instead!" was their message. And it bombed. It would work better with a better candidate, of course, but with a good enough candidate, you don't need the hate vote because you have the love vote. That's why Obama won; he got naive liberals to jizz their pants over his exciting oratory and darker-than-usual skin color. And Hillary gets women really excited--even some conservative women, I'm convinced. That's more love. Who loves Rand paul? Libertarians? All 15% of the population worth of us? I don't think it's gonna work.

Rand Paul is the only R candidate who can beat Hillary. Here are the segments that he should be able to appeal to:
1. Rs (obviously)
2. Anti-war Democrats
3. Anti-war Independents
4. People who want pot legalized federally
5. Libertarians

I think those add up to a big enough proportion of the population to win.

[clacy]

I think Hillary is far more vulnerable than most.  She has been "anointed" essentially, and I'm not sure that plays well with the American public, especially with Obama fatigue after 8 years of a fellow Dem in office.

[Pointedstick]

Rand Paul is the only R candidate who can beat Hillary. Here are the segments that he should be able to appeal to:
1. Rs (obviously)
2. Anti-war Democrats
3. Anti-war Independents
4. People who want pot legalized federally
5. Libertarians

I think those add up to a big enough proportion of the population to win.

I hope you're right, and I wish I could agree. However, I think he could actually substantially alienate a large part of the Republican base, such as the foreign-policy Republicans. Can you see the neocons voting for Paul? I think they'd stay home in protest. In their mind, there'd be no difference between him and a Democrat anyway (In a similar vein, a lot of gun owners failed to vote for Romney and helped re-elect someone much much worse to their issue).

And maybe I'm overestimating the level of partisan rancor, but I really can't see any Democrats--even anti-war Democrats--possibly voting for Rand Paul. They'd find something else about him to hate and vote for Hillary.

[Benko]

I hope you're right, and I wish I could agree. However, I think he could actually substantially alienate a large part of the Republican base, such as the foreign-policy Republicans. Can you see the neocons voting for Paul? I think they'd stay home in protest. In their mind, there'd be no difference between him and a Democrat anyway (In a similar vein, a lot of gun owners failed to vote for Romney and helped re-elect someone much much worse to their issue).

And maybe I'm overestimating the level of partisan rancor, but I really can't see any Democrats--even anti-war Democrats--possibly voting for Rand Paul. They'd find something else about him to hate and vote for Hillary.

Do you really think there are neocons who care about foreign policy over all else i.e. vs another 4-8 years of progressism?

the neocon public may not care above all else, but the ones in power probably do. That means there is a lot of money and political influence that will be out to kill the reputation and chances of any republican candidate that isn't in the fold. (the neocon public will be convinced/influenced by the powers that be.. to believe that candidate X is dangerous for the country). The establishment vs tea party, progressive republican vs limited government republican battle will probably play out in the primary and get us another McCain, Romney... a "happy to go to war and expand government".. but cant win the general election type candidate..

[clacy]

I think Paul, Christie and Scott Walker would all make it interesting against Hillary.

[Mountaineer]

The elephant in the room is Jeb.  If he runs, it's gonna be really tough for anyone else to win the primary.  Then we'd have Clinton versus Bush, the rematch.  If that happens, I want Mountaineer to just mercifully end it for me with that rifle of his.

Distance?

... Mountaineer

[Mountaineer]

I have this image of you whistling cheerfully as you carefully plan your shot... 

I'm figuring it'll be two shots, right?

And, Desert, I want to hear all about it when he's done.

I don't know, with Mountaineer at the trigger, from a decent vantage point (book depository?), one bullet might just do it...

You all have to read The Third Bullet!  http://www.amazon.com/The-Third-Bullet- ... 1451640226#

And, for what it is worth, I could never do Desert in.  I have few enough compatriots on this board without losing one.   If Desert's candidate scenario comes to reality, maybe I will get him a "I like Ike" pin to proudly wear.

... Mountaineer

[Libertarian666]

Unfortunately, I don't think turning out the hate vote works very well. That was basically what the GOP tried with Romney, right? "Hate Obama and vote for this east-coast RINO plutocrat uncle moneybags instead!" was their message. And it bombed. It would work better with a better candidate, of course, but with a good enough candidate, you don't need the hate vote because you have the love vote. That's why Obama won; he got naive liberals to jizz their pants over his exciting oratory and darker-than-usual skin color. And Hillary gets women really excited--even some conservative women, I'm convinced. That's more love. Who loves Rand paul? Libertarians? All 15% of the population worth of us? I don't think it's gonna work.

Directionally, I agree.  But I'm relying on two views in my belief that Mr. Paul has a good shot:
1.  Hillary is a worse candidate than 2012 Obama
2.  Rand Paul is a much better candidate than Romney

There are a LOT of conservative women who will run to the polls to vote against Mrs. Clinton.  And Rand Paul should capture the Libertarians, Republicans (as long as he makes it out of the primary), and a lot of independents (like me) who are looking for something other than the typical candidate churned out by the two ruling parties. 

But I do think Paul's biggest challenge is winning the Republican primary.

Pretty good analysis. I can't see any significant number of Rs who don't hate Hillary, and there are plenty of independents who don't like her for various reasons. Obviously he would get almost all of the libertarian vote too, which was enough to keep Romney from winning. And don't think that the R establishment doesn't know that: I know for a fact that they do. So if the R establishment wants to win, they won't block Rand's nomination like they did Ron's.

Not that it is a shoo-in anyway. They REALLY don't like the idea of a non-interventionist candidate who is against the drug war as well. But they may hold their noses and not interfere, unless they want to lose again.

[Pointedstick]

Perhaps relatedly: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/10/magaz ... rived.html

Libertarians, who long have relished their role as acerbic sideline critics of American political theater, now find themselves and their movement thrust into the middle of it. For decades their ideas have had serious backing financially (most prominently by the Koch brothers, one of whom, David H., ran as vice president on the 1980 Libertarian Party ticket), intellectually (by way of policy shops like the Cato Institute and C.E.I.) and in the media (through platforms like Reason and, as of last year, “The Independents”?). But today, for perhaps the first time, the libertarian movement appears to have genuine political momentum on its side. An estimated 54 percent of Americans now favor extending marriage rights to gay couples. Decriminalizing marijuana has become a mainstream position, while the drive to reduce sentences for minor drug offenders has led to the wondrous spectacle of Rick Perry — the governor of Texas, where more inmates are executed than in any other state — telling a Washington audience: “You want to talk about real conservative governance? Shut prisons down. Save that money.”? The appetite for foreign intervention is at low ebb, with calls by Republicans to rein in federal profligacy now increasingly extending to the once-sacrosanct military budget.

[moda0306]

Perhaps relatedly: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/10/magaz ... rived.html

Libertarians, who long have relished their role as acerbic sideline critics of American political theater, now find themselves and their movement thrust into the middle of it. For decades their ideas have had serious backing financially (most prominently by the Koch brothers, one of whom, David H., ran as vice president on the 1980 Libertarian Party ticket), intellectually (by way of policy shops like the Cato Institute and C.E.I.) and in the media (through platforms like Reason and, as of last year, “The Independents”?). But today, for perhaps the first time, the libertarian movement appears to have genuine political momentum on its side. An estimated 54 percent of Americans now favor extending marriage rights to gay couples. Decriminalizing marijuana has become a mainstream position, while the drive to reduce sentences for minor drug offenders has led to the wondrous spectacle of Rick Perry — the governor of Texas, where more inmates are executed than in any other state — telling a Washington audience: “You want to talk about real conservative governance? Shut prisons down. Save that money.”? The appetite for foreign intervention is at low ebb, with calls by Republicans to rein in federal profligacy now increasingly extending to the once-sacrosanct military budget.

All of that is social libertarianism.  Not economic.  I'd be curious to see how the economic side is coming. And I mean that with no snark or anything. Genuinely curious what people are thinking about taxes, minimum wage, fed policy, entitlements, and regulation

[Mountaineer]

Perhaps relatedly: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/10/magaz ... rived.html

Libertarians, who long have relished their role as acerbic sideline critics of American political theater, now find themselves and their movement thrust into the middle of it. For decades their ideas have had serious backing financially (most prominently by the Koch brothers, one of whom, David H., ran as vice president on the 1980 Libertarian Party ticket), intellectually (by way of policy shops like the Cato Institute and C.E.I.) and in the media (through platforms like Reason and, as of last year, “The Independents”?). But today, for perhaps the first time, the libertarian movement appears to have genuine political momentum on its side. An estimated 54 percent of Americans now favor extending marriage rights to gay couples. Decriminalizing marijuana has become a mainstream position, while the drive to reduce sentences for minor drug offenders has led to the wondrous spectacle of Rick Perry — the governor of Texas, where more inmates are executed than in any other state — telling a Washington audience: “You want to talk about real conservative governance? Shut prisons down. Save that money.”? The appetite for foreign intervention is at low ebb, with calls by Republicans to rein in federal profligacy now increasingly extending to the once-sacrosanct military budget.

All of that is social libertarianism.  Not economic.  I'd be curious to see how the economic side is coming. And I mean that with no snark or anything. Genuinely curious what people are thinking about taxes, minimum wage, fed policy, entitlements, and regulation

Taxes - 5% flat federal tax for everyone inside our borders - never raise the tax rate no matter what, learn to live within the budget.  If you earn no income, then you have to devote one day per week to public service and be willing to do anything from picking up trash to cleaning public restrooms.

Minimum wage - abolish it

Fed policy - abolish the fed

Entitlements - get rid of all of them including all subsidies

Regulation - IRS - abolish it, pretty much the same for all TLA agencies, start from ground zero; establish policy that every agency, including the military, starts with a zero based budget every year and has to prove the benefits of whatever they wish to do if they want any public funding that will come from the federal tax mentioned above.

Radical enough for you?

... Mountaineer

[Libertarian666]

Perhaps relatedly: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/10/magaz ... rived.html

All of that is social libertarianism.  Not economic.  I'd be curious to see how the economic side is coming. And I mean that with no snark or anything. Genuinely curious what people are thinking about taxes, minimum wage, fed policy, entitlements, and regulation

Taxes - 5% flat federal tax for everyone inside our borders - never raise the tax rate no matter what, learn to live within the budget.  If you earn no income, then you have to devote one day per week to public service and be willing to do anything from picking up trash to cleaning public restrooms.

Minimum wage - abolish it

Fed policy - abolish the fed

Entitlements - get rid of all of them including all subsidies

Regulation - IRS - abolish it, pretty much the same for all TLA agencies, start from ground zero; establish policy that every agency, including the military, starts with a zero based budget every year and has to prove the benefits of whatever they wish to do if they want any public funding that will come from the federal tax mentioned above.

Radical enough for you?

... Mountaineer

A good start, although too timid for my tastes. 

[moda0306]

Perhaps relatedly: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/10/magaz ... rived.html

All of that is social libertarianism.  Not economic.  I'd be curious to see how the economic side is coming. And I mean that with no snark or anything. Genuinely curious what people are thinking about taxes, minimum wage, fed policy, entitlements, and regulation

Taxes - 5% flat federal tax for everyone inside our borders - never raise the tax rate no matter what, learn to live within the budget.  If you earn no income, then you have to devote one day per week to public service and be willing to do anything from picking up trash to cleaning public restrooms.

Minimum wage - abolish it

Fed policy - abolish the fed

Entitlements - get rid of all of them including all subsidies

Regulation - IRS - abolish it, pretty much the same for all TLA agencies, start from ground zero; establish policy that every agency, including the military, starts with a zero based budget every year and has to prove the benefits of whatever they wish to do if they want any public funding that will come from the federal tax mentioned above.

Radical enough for you?

... Mountaineer

Mountaineer,

Re: Taxes; so 5% flat on ALL income?  Including Cap Gains?  Dividends?  Wages?  Inheritence?  Any deductions?

Who is going to manage the agency that forces people to work?  Fired IRS agents?  Sounds quite bureaucratic to me.

Re: Fed; How do we handle all the assets the fed owns (mostly t-bills)... how do we set reserve requirements?... Do we mint new money??  You realize we have a sovereign fiat currency, correct?  It's not gold-based.  We'd probably have a collapse of the banking system and U.S. economy if we just fired everyone on the fed board and nothing else.

Entitlements: So you want no assistance for the disabled, abolish Medicare, abolish Social Security, and no Medicaid for poor families?  It is ok if you say yes... I just want to make sure I understand you... that you want the government (or agents of it) to actively break these promises to people.

Regulation:  So no IRS, even though we have to collect your 5% income tax?  How do we collect the tax?  And how can the defense department do any sort of meaningful planning if they don't know if they will even exist next year?  Isn't there any benefit to some sort of permanence?


Personally, I am not really concerned with whether your government is "radical" or "mainstream."  The question isn't even whether the outcome is "good" or "bad," since those are subjective to our respective priorities.  But from a "what will occur" standpoint, I think "economic collapse" is a pretty accurate term.  Demand way down.  Investment way down.  Potential monetary/banking crisis.  That kind of stuff.

And you thought "dear follower" had a bad economy to be held responsible for.

[Mountaineer]

All of that is social libertarianism.  Not economic.  I'd be curious to see how the economic side is coming. And I mean that with no snark or anything. Genuinely curious what people are thinking about taxes, minimum wage, fed policy, entitlements, and regulation

Taxes - 5% flat federal tax for everyone inside our borders - never raise the tax rate no matter what, learn to live within the budget.  If you earn no income, then you have to devote one day per week to public service and be willing to do anything from picking up trash to cleaning public restrooms.

Minimum wage - abolish it

Fed policy - abolish the fed

Entitlements - get rid of all of them including all subsidies

Regulation - IRS - abolish it, pretty much the same for all TLA agencies, start from ground zero; establish policy that every agency, including the military, starts with a zero based budget every year and has to prove the benefits of whatever they wish to do if they want any public funding that will come from the federal tax mentioned above.

Radical enough for you?

... Mountaineer

Mountaineer,

Re: Taxes; so 5% flat on ALL income?  Including Cap Gains?  Dividends?  Wages?  Inheritence?  Any deductions?

Who is going to manage the agency that forces people to work?  Fired IRS agents?  Sounds quite bureaucratic to me.

Re: Fed; How do we handle all the assets the fed owns (mostly t-bills)... how do we set reserve requirements?... Do we mint new money??  You realize we have a sovereign fiat currency, correct?  It's not gold-based.  We'd probably have a collapse of the banking system and U.S. economy if we just fired everyone on the fed board and nothing else.

Entitlements: So you want no assistance for the disabled, abolish Medicare, abolish Social Security, and no Medicaid for poor families?  It is ok if you say yes... I just want to make sure I understand you... that you want the government (or agents of it) to actively break these promises to people.

Regulation:  So no IRS, even though we have to collect your 5% income tax?  How do we collect the tax?  And how can the defense department do any sort of meaningful planning if they don't know if they will even exist next year?  Isn't there any benefit to some sort of permanence?


Personally, I am not really concerned with whether your government is "radical" or "mainstream."  The question isn't even whether the outcome is "good" or "bad," since those are subjective to our respective priorities.  But from a "what will occur" standpoint, I think "economic collapse" is a pretty accurate term.  Demand way down.  Investment way down.  Potential monetary/banking crisis.  That kind of stuff.

And you thought "dear follower" had a bad economy to be held responsible for.

Details my man, details.  I am just king for a day and signed the Executive Order.  You peons can figure out how to make it happen and then I'll declare "not my fault, I was not aware of what they did", but we need to pass it to see what's in it anyway.  I'm off to my next fund raiser and then my umpteen zillionth vacation (I can't count quite that high so I thought I'd just throw out some more gobble-speak).  Don't bother me for a while.    Want me to give a go at getting us out of Iraqistan?  Shutting down Gitmo?  Investigating Benghazi?  Investigating Fast and Furious?  Sending the Gestapo to St. Louis for my investigation?  Putting out the fires in the west?  Curing intergalactic warming (or is it cooling?  I'm confused)?  Just say the word my good man, just say the word.

... Mountaineer