Magox

So how are the blue dog democrats doing?

I'd simply say that not everyone has a desire to achieve or at least have the desire to put the work into doing what's necessary to achieve. There will always be a decent sized segment of the population that just don't want to do what it takes to reach the next level. You can apply this statement that I just made not just for those that are "poor", but for many in the lower economic "middle class" as well. Too many people are content with where they are. I don't mean "content" so much as that they believe their economic situation is acceptable, but content in the sense that they aren't willing to go the extra mile to do what it takes to climb up the latter. In my experiences, and I'm pretty sure this is the case broadly speaking that many people simply aren't cut out to "achieve" in life. They just don't have it in them or at the very least have developed bad habits that inhibit them from succeeding. In any real attempt to somehow lift them up through wealth distribution is futile. Now I'm not saying that there shouldn't be safety nets for those that who indeed need it. Such as the TRULY disabled, many seniors and those that are in need of short-term assistance to get them up on their feet when **** happens. But the abuse of the safety nets does in my view do the exact opposite of it's intended purpose, which is to help support those in TRUE need. What happens is that when people abuse the system, it becomes a way to sustain their lives, living off the government, with no true desire to do what it takes to get themselves off of government assistance. This is not the way the system was intended to work. Now of course, this is a two pronged issue, one is those trying to climb up from the lower tiers, and those that are already elevated and are in the top 1%. Of course the dramatic separation is primarily coming from the top 1%, their incomes are continuing to rise sharply, whereas many in the middle to lower economic class are remaining stagnant. So what gives? Well for starters Globalization. While Globalization has been a negative for many of those in the "middle class" here in the US that work within many of these industries, it has been a positive for many people in the countries where the jobs have been shipped to. This is just a part of reality, it is evolution. So rather than complain about it, you adapt. How do you adapt? Well it goes back to what I was talking about earlier, having an internal desire to do what it takes to climb higher. Yes, I understand for many, this is all that they knew how to do, so it's easy for me to say to just simply "adapt", but what options do you have? It is what it is, and you do what it takes. Then another culprit for the separation of incomes is investment income ie. stocks. With the printing presses working 24/7 with uber low interest rates, it's been a very conducive time to invest in stocks, not to mention I was reading that many of the homes that are being purchased on the market have been coming from private equity firms. Is there something nefarious about these activities? Again, it's simply just a result of the conditions. Through no fault of those taking advantage of these conditions, that's just the way things are. What about technology? No doubt that robotics and software are decreasing the demand for human physical capital. It's another step of the economic evolutionary process we are in. I'm sure you are well-intentioned with your concerns, but you truly are wasting your time looking for bogeymen. They don't exist, at least in the sense of there being any sort of malign force out there purposely trying to foster these conditions. Rather than focus on the rich birddog, you would be better served in trying to focus on the poor and middle class, and stop looking at them as victims, and look to advocate and search for ways in how they can climb up the socio economic latter.

On a pilgrimage to Ronald Reagan’s presidential library, Rand Paul prodded Republicans Friday to become more inclusive. “When the Republican Party looks like the rest of America, we will win again,” the Kentucky senator told a crowd in Simi Valley, Calif. “When we have people with tattoos and without tattoos, with ties and without ties, with suits and in blue jeans, then we win nationally.” During a question-and-answer session, Paul said the GOP must “adapt, evolve or die.” “If we want to win nationally again, we will have to reach out to a diverse nation and welcome African Americans, Asians, Latinos into our party,” he said. “Latinos will come to the GOP when we treat them with dignity, when we embrace immigrants as hard workers who are an asset to our country.” Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2013/05/rand-paul-reagan-library-speech-92095.html#ixzz2Uygd6LXx Pretty much my feelings.

A few questions. And if you could, if you could expand on your answers more than just observations and conclusions. What is the "system" that you talk about? Keep in mind, that this is a global occurrence. How would you propose to close the gap between the ultra rich and the rest of the world? Would it include some sort of hard cap, a tangible figure where it would get confiscated or taxed at an even higher rate? If so, at about what tax rate and what roughly around where would this cap be? a million, 10, 100? Do you propose a global or domestic wealth distribution sort of scheme? And if so, how so? I'm curious to hear some of these answers or anything else that you would wish to share related to how you believe we could achieve this.

What kinda mickey mouse bull **** was that?

Except you were conflating JA's post with your preconceived thoughts, which didn't jive with what he and I had been saying. His was a synopsis of the TP's woes, yours was an overall wholly separate and differing conclusion that in reality didn't closely relate to what was being said.

That wasn't what JA and I were saying...We said one thing, and then you said this, which is a completely separate thought.

"Minnesota businessman Jim Graves, a top Democratic recruit who had been planning a rematch against Rep. Michele Bachmann next year, abruptly suspended his campaign Friday morning — two days after Bachmann announced she wouldn’t be seeking reelection. Graves, who nearly knocked off Bachmann in November, launched his campaign last month and was in Washington last week to meet with the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. He released a poll showing him with a slight lead over Bachmann in a 2014 rematch. But with the controversial Bachmann out of the race, Graves faced an even tougher path in a conservative suburban Twin Cities district broke for Mitt Romney by nearly 15 percent." Read more: http://www.politico....l#ixzz2Ut6x4gaw

While all this may be true, whatever the case may be, they have an image issue, and it's incumbent upon tea party leadership to improve that image....If they decide to ignore this reality, the tea party for the most part will become a part of the party that wins in only gerrymandered districts and conservative states.

Sorta, their economic message is decent, but they are too obsessed with short-term debt reduction. While deficit reduction is very important, it's not seen nearly as important as economic growth, or one's own personal employment situation. For a lot of people, they know having too much debt is a bad thing, but they really don't understand how. They hear that it's harmful, yet they don't really see the effects of it, whereas economic growth and jobs is something that they tangibly see and feel. Now I'm not making an argument to abandon debt reduction, it's a very important issue and one that if debt gets out of control, will have huge ramifications to it. What I'm saying is that the party should talk about growth and jobs first and foremost, and then communicate it effectively in how that can improve one's personal situation, more so to the lower and middle class, and that it could give you more opportunities in climbing the economic latter. And then Segway that in how pro growth policies, while eliminating wasteful programs and having a clear vision on entitlement reform will help lead this country to long-term economic sustainability. And since we are (or at least I am) talking about brand, the tea party has a big branding issue. Again, right or wrong, public opinion on the tea party has consistently been in the deep red over the past couple years, although they have recently received a bump, I'm guessing because of the IRS deal.

While I appreciate the facetiousness of your post, cosmetic changes to the party aren't what is needed.

I don't have a problem with social conservatives, there is obviously a large constituency who wants to have their voices heard, where I have a problem with some social conservatives is when they begin to say bat schitt crazy loony tune comments that hurt the conservative movement. Let's put it this way, and this is a fact that some of you fail to grasp, which is BRAND MATTERS! There is a huge branding issue with the GOP, young people and non whites generally don't like Republicans. Right or wrong, they think they are the party of non-science, the party that protects the rich and the party that generally speaking doesn't care about the poor and non-whites. That's their view, not mine. So it's important to re brand the party so that they can win state wide and national elections, so that they can implement their economic conservative agenda. Doesn't mean you have to give up your conservative economic principles, at all, just means you have to be politically smarter. For instance, get more in tune with people outside of your main constituency, which primarily consists of mid to older aged whites. Communicate more effectively your economic message, the conservative economic message is a stronger one to make than the liberal one. Don't just talk about debt reduction, talk about growth, a la Jack Kemp. Reforming the tax code, communicating how more economic opportunities can arise so that you can climb up the social economic latter under conservative leadership. Stay away from the social issues. It's a political loser on the national level... The times are changing, and the party that doesn't change with the times, will get left behind. Like it or not, politics matter.

That's ok, we all sometimes make silly mistakes. Well, Pelosi is in a district where she'll never lose and Reid, well.... he went up against Sharon Angle. So there's that. I do keep up with a lot, and I do have that opinion...So..... yeah

Yes I do know of the bridge...Yes, I have paid attention to what she has done, I keep up with all spectrum of politics more so than anyone I know. And the fact that you don't understand why she is rightfully ridiculed, is...... Not surprising.

Yeah, that should go over well with the media. Seriously, these guys suck at damage control.

huh, so since the media and I both use a commonly used term, one that I've been saying for years, that MUST mean that I copied it from them. Got it! And are you suggesting that I ONLY single out tea partiers as "fringe" ? Are you serious? Your unwavering defense of anyone associated with the tea party blinds you. Anyway, here is a good look from Sean Trende, who I would consider one of the best conservative polling analysts in the business, regarding Bachmann. Pretty much what I thought, and I just read this now before I made any of my comments. Read more: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2013/05/29/bachmann_departure_may_aid_gop_in_mn6_118604.html#ixzz2UnLAOmfu

Seriously, you take offense to any criticism lobbed at any tea party member. If someone does, then clearly they must be copying it from the media. Hate to break it to you, but the only copy/paste element here is your standard right-wing defense of tea party members. Why couldn't Alan West win in a district that tilted to the right? Why did Bachmann win by less than .5% in a district she should easily win by 8-10%.... These individuals are divisive and their comments many times are simply outrageous and easily mocked, and they hurt the conservative brand to anyone who votes that isn't a hard core right winger. They aren't palatable candidates.... For once, step outside of your bubble and attempt to rationalize things from a different perspective. Don't get so defensive. In regards to Alan West and Bachmann's not making bombastic comments... Seriously? You don't believe that? Do you really want me to bring up some of their quotes? In regards to Cruz......he's an intelligent guy, communicates extremely well, but takes some positions that I'm completely against, and I'm not too fond of him... If there is anyone in the GOP who will do worse with Latinos than what we saw with Romney, it probably would be Cruz.... But hey who cares? What Latino's think are unimportant to you.

Ron Fornier is a quality journalist.

No doubt, but make no mistake, she's a grade A bafoon.

You don't understand why? Really?

It appears the more bombastic fringe elements of the GOP have lost clout over the past few years. Palin, West and Bachmann are all out. This is a good thing for the Conservative movement, the less you see these folks out as the face of the GOP, the better chances you have to win national races and implement your agenda.

For starters he should have never of followed the kid after he was told not to. Having said that, that still isn't a crime and it appears from the evidence I've seen that he is most likely innocent, specially against 2nd degree murder charges. But let's not pretend that Zimmerman doesn't have Trayvon's blood on his hands.

I sometimes love the smell of "fowl".

Dude, he's a Maverick!

No person in their right mind agrees with you.