DoYouSeeWhatHappensLarry

Well, Wyoming IS #1 in the country in terms of federal aid per capita receiving almost three times as much per person as the 25th ranked state of North Carolina....I can't imagine that makes effective governance more difficult. Wyo, I'm sure Wyoming is beautiful. However I sincerely doubt that the reason Wyoming has a low population is because "people in this country don't want to work." I'm positive that if the manufacturing industry, which has seen job levels (not productivity levels which are as healthy as ever) plummet in the last 20 years or so, moved all of their operations to "work-friendly" Wyoming, the employees would follow...leaving their former metropolis heavens like Pittsburgh, Cleveland, Buffalo, Rochester, etc. It has absolutely nothing to do with a desire to work (of which I can assure you there is a healthy level of) and everything to do with the fact that Wyoming is (again, no disrespect as im sure its very awesome if youre into that sort of thing) relatively inconspicuous as a state. It's in the "middle of nowhere" with no major attractions or draw points. It likely doesnt offer the same accessibility to travel as most other population centers. These are things that matter to people. EDIT TO ADD: The biggest airport in Wyoming is in Jackson...in 2008 it saw approximately 300k enplanements at the airport. The small airports of Syracuse, Rochester and Albany NY all saw at least 3x that many in the same year. Thats ignoring Buffalo (7+ x as many) or either NY airport (one over 30x as many with the other almost 80x as many) Wyoming is for a very particular group of people. The fact is, there aren't that many of those people that exist. But that doesnt mean that Wyoming holds an "inherent work ethic" that others don't hold.....it means they have a very specific set of interests and values that Wyoming seems to cater to. For others, Silicon Valley is that place. For those, they would rather have starbucks at every corner so they can have a latte as they continue to refine and improve superconductors, helping to dramatically increase the technological capability of civilization. It seems to me to be a "to each his own" type situation....not a "they don't want to work!!!!" situation. I highly doubt that the major population centers of LA, NYC, Chicago were formed exclusively by people saying "we can move there and never work!!!!" especially when you look at cost of living in those areas. There's poverty in those areas because 1) Population outpaces jobs 2) People moved there wishing to take part in the American Dream and ultimately failed 3) The successes of a relatively small population has driven up cost of living to astronomical heights

Framing it as a 2 party problem is a mistake. The two party problem doesnt CREATE the problems, the problems create the two party system. Like it or not, people are going to associate politically. They'll do so on account of any number of factors but ultimately, if you eliminate use of the D/R/I label you're still going to end up with conservatives on one side and liberals on another. It has everything to do with differing values and the tension simply comes from self interest. "My values are better than yours" Do you think if we eliminated political parties that candidates would magically care about effective governance all of a sudden? Of course not....if anything their self-interested motives would become stronger as now they're out there without a net. One could argue that would lead to more thought being put into governance but I don't really think thats the case. Campaign rhetoric would increase, coalitions would form that would look exactly like political parties and we'd be in the same situation that we are now. Ultimately, conservatives and liberals will continue to demonize each other rather than attempt to find common ground. Some do it openly and ignorantly while others do it just as substantively however have the "foresight" to cover it up with a shiny veneer of moral superiority. When people actually realize that GASP other people may have different values/thoughts/ideas we'll possibly move closer toward effective governance.

North Dakota, much like Wyoming and other prosperous states, exists in a world that, IMO, isn't comparable to the states that are facing budget issues. The fact is, these states almost always feature a much higher per capita federal funding rate. The money goes further in those states because it has to do less. IMO, large urban areas necessitate expenditure that puts any given state in a rough spot. It costs much more to maintain a city like New York or Boston than it does to support a state like ND. Hell, ND's population of 680,000 is half the size of the Rochester, NY Metro area...... People, specifically large groups of them, put stress on the world. Stress on resources and stress on systems. Thats why you see states like that in the black....they're basically tending an 8x8 garden and comparing it to acres and acres of vital farmland.

The problem with libertarianism (and it isnt a big problem) is that I think it short changes systemic problems and presupposes a "fairness" (for lack of a better term) that doesnt exist. Its wholly possible to construct a society where there is government intervention that results in MORE liberty, not less. Furthermore, the entire philosophical backbone of the United States (and its constitution) is what justifies attempts to create a better system. I'm not saying that the government always achieves its goals (of course it doesnt) but that doesnt necessarily entail a scope too broad but, instead, implies a failure of performance.

You should check out the Doc "Collapse" as it discusses Peak Oil as well. It serves more as a chronicle of one man's earnest obsession but its very interesting.

I see what you did there, ageist.

And here the BBMB conservatives thought they were the only ones to hop on the refugee boat.... Turns out ol' Lar and was creeping Max Cady-style while you were drinking your snifters of brandy laughing at the poor and unfortunate. To new people: Hi, I'm Larry. Badger thinks I'm full of ****, Oxie goes back and forth but generally thinks I'm hope less, Koko sometimes gets mad at me but is a good guy, Buffeast (Headwest?) doesn't hate me (I don't think) and B-Large is my moderate friend. I'm a liberal....very much so. But its rare that you'll see me float the idea that all conservatives/teapartiers/white people are racists. I give everyone their chance to speak their mind, I'm just not shy when it comes to disagreeing and arguing for my liberal points. Pleasure to meet you all....this will be fun. Thanks mods for approval.