[Kevin Mahoney]

I got an e-mail from Mark Daytons campaign. Dayton is running for governor of MN and was a one term US Seantor. Here is the quote:

"Unlike other candidates, I have not just talked about creating thousands of new jobs.  As Minnesota's Commissioner of Economic Development and of Energy & Economic Development and as a United States Senator, I've done it.  With your support, I'll do it again"

I am still upset about this message and am afraid this guys really believes what he is saying. A politician or state employee has never created a job in the history of the US. Investors, , entrepreneurs and business people create jobs.  The US taxpayer creates jobs through the politicians. But the politicians and bureaucrats actually believe that they are creating the jobs. It defies logic, but shows how out of touch with reality they all are and how their egos are out of control.

I haven't started any trouble here for a while, I imagine this will do for now.

[oldsalt]

They can afford to be "out of touch with reality", as you put it.  Largely because, in my estimation, our schools and liberal media have, for many years, convinced a very large percentage of the American population that the government is their only salvation and can be looked to for all things.  Like Dayton they slap their jowles about the wonderful things they have done and far too many people believe it without giving it a second thought.  I'm thinking they may have pushed it too far based upon voter's increasing rejection of the current group in wWashington DC. 

[Anon]

Kevin, don't you think that type of thing has been around as long as politicians have been around?  It seems to be a flaw in the breed (politicians, that is).   

Eamon

[Chasfield]

In the old days politicians didn't actually believe that they possessed super powers. They just told us that to increase their ability to lead us around by the nose and empty our pockets.

This situation has changed. These people now actually believe they are saving us and that they can/must fix everything.

They will probably rewrite the King Canute story sometime soon and have it that the waves obeyed the great man's bidding and turned back.

[PhilJ]

I haven't started any trouble here for a while, I imagine this will do for now.

Trouble? I don't think so. As Eamon says, "Politicians", I think that covers both sides of the isle. After all the both get their palms greased by the same folks.

Oldsalt, you mean the "liberal' media owned by the Murdochs of the world? Every time I hear someone say "liberal media'" , I pretty sure they heard something they didn't agree with, so they tagged them.

[ScooterBob]

It defies logic, but shows how out of touch with reality they all are and how their egos are out of control.

No truer words were ever spoken here .... it DOES seem to be an endemic problem ....

[ace.cafe]

Yes, they actually do think that they can create jobs with gov't.

And from certain people's perspectives, they do, because somebody goes to work and gets paid, so it looks like a job to them. And it is,for them.
But the money comes from taxation of other sectors of the economy, via gov't taxation or money-creation(inflation) so it's not a gain to the economy. It's a net drain.

Most people are not interested enough in this stuff to spend any time learning about that, so it's an easy sell to say that "jobs were created".

As for the media, I would say it's all liberal.
Even Murdoch and Fox News.
Why would I think that?
Because with the exception of a small wing of the Republican Party, the rest of the Republican Party has shown themselves to be a very "Big Gov't" oriented group.  Spending increased dramatically under Bush. The gov't was expanded bigger by Bush than ANY Democrat president ever. Taxation didn't increase really, but "deferred taxation" via public debt was sent thru the roof.
So, the Republicans, led by the predominant "NeoCon" faction, have proven themselves to be "big spending, big gov't" proponents, just like the Democrats have been known for.
And Fox News supports and extols the "virtues" of these "NeoCon" politicians who are really little different than Democrats, except they squabble about some social issues now, and that seems to make up the bulk of the "ostensible difference" between Parties now
The advance of Big Gov't, and it's power and control, is not reduced by either Party at this time. Side-issue squabbles predominate, and Big Gov't progress just plows forward like an ocean liner, supported by both sides.

Democrats are "tax and spend" and Republican NeoCons are "borrow and spend".

Anybody watching what's happening in Greece these days?
That's what happens when a gov't can't stop spending.

And that's why I say that Fox News and most of its hosts, except for Judge Andrew Napolitano, are basically liberal in policy support.  They just want a different crew to be in control over who gets the money being spent, but are never against spending it.
Both sides are contributing to the downfall. They might give "lip service" to the concepts of fiscal responsibility when they are out of power, but they forget all about it when they are in power and they spend, spend, spend..

Until there is a real movement to stop spending and reduce the size and scope of gov't, there is no "conservative" Party.

[1 Thump]

Yes, they actually do think that they can create jobs with gov't.

And from certain people's perspectives, they do, because somebody goes to work and gets paid, so it looks like a job to them. And it is,for them.
But the money comes from taxation of other sectors of the economy, via gov't taxation or money-creation(inflation) so it's not a gain to the economy. It's a net drain.

Most people are not interested enough in this stuff to spend any time learning about that, so it's an easy sell to say that "jobs were created".

As for the media, I would say it's all liberal.
Even Murdoch and Fox News.
Why would I think that?
Because with the exception of a small wing of the Republican Party, the rest of the Republican Party has shown themselves to be a very "Big Gov't" oriented group.  Spending increased dramatically under Bush. The gov't was expanded bigger by Bush than ANY Democrat president ever. Taxation didn't increase really, but "deferred taxation" via public debt was sent thru the roof.
So, the Republicans, led by the predominant "NeoCon" faction, have proven themselves to be "big spending, big gov't" proponents, just like the Democrats have been known for.
And Fox News supports and extols the "virtues" of these "NeoCon" politicians who are really little different than Democrats, except they squabble about some social issues now, and that seems to make up the bulk of the "ostensible difference" between Parties now
The advance of Big Gov't, and it's power and control, is not reduced by either Party at this time. Side-issue squabbles predominate, and Big Gov't progress just plows forward like an ocean liner, supported by both sides.

Democrats are "tax and spend" and Republican NeoCons are "borrow and spend".

Anybody watching what's happening in Greece these days?
That's what happens when a gov't can't stop spending.

And that's why I say that Fox News and most of its hosts, except for Judge Andrew Napolitano, are basically liberal in policy support.  They just want a different crew to be in control over who gets the money being spent, but are never against spending it.
Both sides are contributing to the downfall. They might give "lip service" to the concepts of fiscal responsibility when they are out of power, but they forget all about it when they are in power and they spend, spend, spend..

Until there is a real movement to stop spending and reduce the size and scope of gov't, there is no "conservative" Party.

Amen brother Ace !

[Anon]

With the exception of specific hosts, who are mostly cartoonish and not journalists in my mind, I don't generally think of the major media in terms of "conservative" or "liberal."  I find them to mostly reflect the agendas of their corporate owners and sponsors, along with the need to make it "infotainment."

Eamon

[Kevin Mahoney]

Eamon,
I agree that is has  been this way for generations if not from the beginning of time.
Just so it is clear I am an equal opportunity criticiser.( Republican, Democrat, Independent, Green Party etc.) One is as crooked as the next.

What is particularly bothersome is that I think they are actually starting to believe this stuff. At least some politicians know that it is all about the money. Our biggest fundamental mistake was allowing the  to make it a full time gig. now they have to steal, be pompous asses and add more laws and institutions to justify their existence.

I have used this story many time here, but......
My father in law was a State Senator from North Dakota for many years. In Nodak the legislature only meets every other year and for a relatively short period of time. The legislators (Senior Senators included) have no office, no Secretary and no minions. It is just them and the people they serve. It is easy to dismiss Nodak as a small state with not as much business to conduct as others, but nothing could be further form the truth. They have the exact same issues to deal with that any large state does. They just have to cut through the BS to get the job done in the limited time that they have. Oh they also have a large budget surplus as well. Constitutionally  mandated. In their case you can[t be a career politician because you have no office to go to the pay sucks and you only meet for a couple of months every other year. A true These Pepe have to survive in the real world with real jobs. Just as our founding fathers intended.


Take a look at the states with a full time legislature and what a mess that has created. California come to mind.

[Anon]

Hey, I'm with you Kevin.  I would rather see terms be limited, but it is tough to do without it being across the board.  What I find more troubling these days is the revolving door for politicians that ease right into high paying corporate lobbying jobs straight out of their politician gig.  I think stopping that would be a major help.  These jobs are their reward for voting the right way, and they then use more money to influence the next round of politicians.

Eamon

[UncleErnie]

Instead of critisizing politicians, anyone asking how they keep getting elected?
Not by me, for sure.

[Anon]

Instead of critisizing politicians, anyone asking how they keep getting elected?
Not by me, for sure.

I guess all you have to do is follow the money.  It is an across the board problem.  Even if one is a well intentioned person running for office these days, the money necessary becomes a problem (can't get enough money to get elected vs. how to not be beholden to that money if you do).

Eamon
Time now for some waffles and sausages.  Mmm... second breakfast!

[r80rt]

Instead of critisizing politicians, anyone asking how they keep getting elected?
Not by me, for sure.

I never vote for anyone, I always vote against.

[1Blackwolf1]

  Suppose I'll throw in my 2 pesos for measure.  Do you ever notice that if the party that be in power does well everyone voted for him/her.  If they are doing badly nobody voted for them.  Makes you think.

  I vote for whom I hate/despise the least.  So hold no true political affiliation (other than anarchist).  No matter how good anyone is before public office I believe they become jaded quickly (again just my thought).

  Let's back track a little in history to when the Europeans adopted one currency..maybe the countries that adopted it sacrificed way to much to convert from their own currencies.  If it was such a good idea why did England back away from it like the plaque?  Not that that Euro (urinal) dollar didn't make sense, but it just widened the gap in inflation prone countries.  Like Italy/Greece.  Rampant inflation and the Euro certainly can't be helping them out.  Maybe I'm missing something here..but I bet the smaller countries really took a hit when they converted from their monies to the Euro.

  But of course these are my thoughts..