Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[MetalSlimeHunt]

Not so sure about the pro-choice bit. Hispanics and the Pope be tight, yo.

Then how do you explain this? Only the inclusion of first-generation Hispanics do you get a pro-life consensus. The generational trend has already moved away fast. This is not the picture of liberal academics, but it certainly is also not the picture of the GOP's salvation.

[RedKing]

Not so sure about the pro-choice bit. Hispanics and the Pope be tight, yo.

Then how do you explain this? Only the inclusion of first-generation Hispanics do you get a pro-life consensus. The generational trend has already moved away fast. This is not the picture of liberal academics, but it certainly is also not the picture of the GOP's salvation.

Yes, but obviously based on the math, the majority of Latinos in the US *are* first-generation. I'm not saying they won't get there in time, but for now it's still a major issue where the GOP could have an advantage, if they didn't shoot themself in the foot on every OTHER issue of importance to Hispanics.

There's also a counter-trend (although weaker) just above that, where 2nd and 3rd generation Latinos are more in favor of "small government". One, because they probably depend less on government services than new arrivals; and two, because most Latinos emigrate from countries which have more prominent governments and public sectors.

You also see a move over successive generations away from Catholicism and towards Protestant and especially evangelical denominations. That corresponds to more conservative political beliefs as well.

I think it will take 10-20 years to see which is stronger, the abortion effect swinging left or the religion/ideology effect swinging right.

[mainiac]

I thought you were talking about millennial latinos, not in general.  Millennial are less likely to be first gen.

[smjjames]

any government payed vocation (includes mailman)

You do realize how large a swath that is? You're excluding people like military people or park rangers (who are government paid) and a huge number of jobs which have no connection to politics.

[Playergamer]

About 20% of the country works for the government, wierd.

[mainiac]

About 20% of the country works for the government, wierd.

Not really.  In a modern economy there are a lot of services where the inefficiencies of any competative market outweigh the inefficiencies of no competition.  If anything I'd say that number is below the efficient number.

[Playergamer]

I took the number of people who say they work for the government, and rounded to the nearest neat number. It's about 17%.

[wierd]

The problem is that people with government jobs are more likely to support initiatives and policies that promote government jobs-- eg, "mission creep".

Government (or at least my own idealized veiw of it) is not a magic giving tree that should supply everyone with every imaginable service they happen to want this decade.  It needs to stay focused on essential services needed for the civilization to function, and follow more of the "unix way", rather than being a bloated piece of shit trying to be and do everything.

Lean, efficient services needed. Things like roadway and bridge construction, policing against criminal activity, putting out fires, international economic policies and securing borders, environmental protection, and things of that nature. 

It's a short road from "I work for the government doing (mundane thing)" to "I work for the government creating policy concerning (mundane thing)".  Mission creep, and making things "easier" for government have enabled more graft in this country than you might care to realize.

Unfortunate truths are unfortunate.  For basically the same reaons a person working for the lottery cannot participate in the lottery, government employees should not qualify for private sector time for the proposed official eligability.

it sucks, but you cant have the cake and eat it too.

[mainiac]

The problem is that people with government jobs are more likely to support initiatives and policies that promote government jobs-- eg, "mission creep".

Yes, just like every other organization in human society, government is an organization and behaves like an organization.  Like most tautologies this is fairly tautilogical.

Comparing organizations like Aetna or Blue Cross Blue Shield to their counterparts in Medicare and Medicaid I would say that for comparable sectors government has a far, far smaller tendency to bloat itself.  Government just fights against human nature while private industry fights against economic law when both try to avoid bloat and economic law crushes human nature like a bug.

[Angle]

Wait, are you defending government? Like some kind of communist?!

 

[mainiac]

Or Nazi for that matter.

[wierd]

The problem is that people with government jobs are more likely to support initiatives and policies that promote government jobs-- eg, "mission creep".

Yes, just like every other organization in human society, government is an organization and behaves like an organization.  Like most tautologies this is fairly tautilogical.

Comparing organizations like Aetna or Blue Cross Blue Shield to their counterparts in Medicare and Medicaid I would say that for comparable sectors government has a far, far smaller tendency to bloat itself.  Government just fights against human nature while private industry fights against economic law when both try to avoid bloat and economic law crushes human nature like a bug.

Whoosh goes the point, apparently--

Pointing out the obvious ("everyone does this, since forever"), does not make the problem suddenly "OK to ignore".

Logically, there is very little difference between the mega-banker creating legislation that makes mega-bankers richer, (corruption and graft, et al) -- and the former govt employee creating legislation that increases benefits and protections for government workers (even when there is no real need or benefit to the society for said increases/entitlements/protections) Both are special interests.

The idea is to eliminate special interest opportunities.  Pointing out that "Hey, we have lots of those people, and you want to shut them out!"  is like saying "Hey, we have all these lobbyists-- you want to keep them out of politics? Don't they have just as much right to be politicians as any other guy?"

As I pointed out, you can't have the cake and eat it too.  There's nothing stopping the mailman from working part time at Micky D's on weekends, JUST to further his goals of one day becoming a politician.  The prohibition was not against those people being allowed to enter politics, it was against the enabling of political careers--- For every year in office, so many years doing qualified private sector work needs to be done.  The prohibition was against what kinds of jobs were eligable for that requirement-- It's to stop quid pro quo from the revolving door. "Yeah, I used to be a senator, and now have a cooshy gig for the MPAA!", a la Mr Dodd. Government employment is a ready reservior for such quid pro quo, in the form of a garanteed income after doing your "service."  That's another reason for its prohibition from candidacy.

If you are a government worker who has no plans to ever run for political office (pretty much all government workers in the rank and file), then such a prohibition will have precisely zero impact on you.

If you are a government worker who has plans to run for political office, then it WOULD impact you.

[penguinofhonor]

.

[Urist McScoopbeard]

You know what? Let's just take some random guy and make him president. Check for any mental disabilities and also a high IQ and make this anon president.

[SirQuiamus]

I'm pretty sure that "Anonymous for President" is already a thing on the *chans.