Capitol Hill Blue Forums Political Issues Campaign 2016

for those who are flagellating themselves, this makes for an interesting read

The dark rigidity of fundamentalist rural America: a view from the inside

Probably, everything in that article is true. It will be interesting to see how a Republican administration will harm them. Will it get to the point that some will start to realize Republican ideas are poison, especially to them?

Educated, relatively well-off liberals will be much more able to live without government help (do they get any now?). People depending on farm subsidies, food stamps, or welfare checks are going to be hurting.

No, it will get to the point where there isn't much "united" about the United States anymore. The people and entities which stand to gain the most from the current dismantling cannot afford to allow anyone to know the truth.
Well machined distribution of a false narrative which BLAMES liberals and liberalism is central to cementing their lock on power. A CENTURY from now this narrative will be as ingrained as the old Lost Cause folklore that drives memories of the old Civil War.
And it will drive us to a new one.

There's been a concerted effort (by Fox, Breitbart etc) to tell people that it's the fault of the lying politicians and the media (and of course, there is an element of truth in that) and of course, the LIBTARDS - and once they're hooked, those telling them such nonsense fill their heads with total s*** and the vacuum sucks it up.

We have become three separate countries already.
If the move to separate ourselves ever happens, do you think the three separate countries will live side by side in peace?
Oh HELL NO.

A lot of folks living in Dumbfvckistan (the middle) are going to blame the people living on the left and right coasts for all THEIR self inflicted problems, OF COURSE.

Do you remember the Enron Electricity Crisis in California in the late 1990's? You might have heard about it.
That was, in my humble opinion, an actual act of war by Texas against California.
And I see Dumbfvckistan emerging with Texas as the capital, and further moves just like this because re petroleum, Texas is RUSSIA.
An act of war by Enron, SANCTIONED BY the State of Texas.
Expect more of the same.

I used to ridicule Texans for wanting to secede from the United States, but if there isn't anything uniting us anymore, perhaps our only salvation might be splitting into three separate countries.
But the phony narrative will continue to enrage the yokels in the middle, with disastrous consequences for all.

Maybe the Left Coast can convince "Canadia" to adopt us.
But I wonder if they want any part of the attacks from Dumbfvckistan.
Probably not.

How about an ObamaCare replacement plan where Democrats can keep ObamaCare policies and Republicans get a Republican plan? That way they can have medical bankruptcies, no subsidies, no coverage for pre-existing conditions, and death in the ER parking lot if they chose the ultimate Republican plan (no insurance).

Maybe natural selection is the optimal response to people who vote against their own best interests.

I am pretty sure you were being hyperbolic.

There are several Republican/conservative plans none of which address the fundamental issue, which is not providing healthcare to people, but, to reduce the impact of healthcare entitlement costs on the federal budget.

The Democrat argument is a complex mixture of strategic goals all of which meld to allow some people access to healthcare insurance. Note (and I realize we have discussed this previously without consensus) people on insurance was an ancillary bonus.

There has been numerous analysis of Republican plans and all have focused on costs and results relative to numbers of people with access. I think this misses the main point of impacting entitlement costs. The Republicans thin and believe by simply privatizing healthcare insurance it will solve all the federal budgetary problems.

Apparently they can not do the math nor do they understand the problem. Ideological principles do not solve this. Of course they probably have in their minds (for good reason) to ultimately privatize all entitlements, thus reducing all federal spending to the military. Not necessary to rehash all the contrary arguments to their plans as none achieve any real goal except for a few.

This is my prediction. Republicans will be able to defund ACA but will not have a viable replacement plan. They will never understand the "why" of our government.

Here are the 10 States Most Dependent on the Federal Government. There is a direct - and inverse - correlation to the politics and policies of the States and their "taker" status. They choose economic policies which - literally - bankrupt their polity. Yet we, as a nation, bail them out of their stupidity and thick-headed stubborn support of the worst policies possible. And, to top it off, they resent the aid that those of us who live in progressive America provide for their benefit.

So, let's "balance the budget" and cut off all states at $1 per dollar paid. This seems to be a favorite Republican meme. Vast stretches of the countryside will become unlivable and people will move to more populated areas.

In New Mexico, two National Labs and several military bases would have to close, along with all the public lands.

Oh come on people, rational minds understand that some areas of the country HAVE to take more than they feed in. That's the whole point of the liberal side of the argument.
The right thinks we need to run the country "like a business" and meanwhile they dangle shiny things in front of our faces while intoning outrage about "takers" and bemoan the fact that the "makers" aren't rewarded enough, when all the while the loudest voices reside in the regions which take the very most.
It is pure projection.

But most liberals accept the fact that certain states are loss leaders but have value for other reasons. Loss leader subsidization isn't a direct loss at all and never has been, because it attracts other positives, some of which are revenue streams or alternate remuneration, some of which are increased resource security, some of which are positioned as vital assets, the list is endless.

Loss leadership is every bit as important in business as any other sales practice, so why is it that conservatives and libertarians are seemingly deaf to the idea when put into practice in government?

My comment was ironic, since I have almost no respect for "states rights". But still it makes you wonder when some states are getting over three dollars for every dollar they pay if something is not seriously wrong.

Instead of states, you can think of these as "regions". But why are certain regions subsidized so heavily? Are these regions really so un-economical that residents have to be subsidized so much just to stay there? I'm pretty sure it has a lot to do with "good" Senators and Representatives who have been in Congress so long they chair committees that spend taxpayer money as directed.