I'll bet Dennis Daugaard wishes this philosophy major would take up welding. Democrat Chris McClure wants to bring his political philosophy and experience to Pierre as District 14 Representative.
McClure emphasizes that he views himself as a moderate. He says he sees no need to raise taxes or impose an income tax. He considers the state's fiscal situation to be pretty good. He supports small business. Harkening to his working-class upbringing (Mom and Dad both worked retail), he believes firmly in personal responsibility. At the same time, he supports social programs that help hard-working families advance.
McClure applies a bothersomely cautious moderation to women's issues, specifically to abortion. He says he's personally pro-life but respects the Constitution. Unfortunately, he also says he would leave South Dakota the way it is, which those of us fighting for women's reproductive autonomy will tell you is mean and misogynistic. McClure says that as a male, it's not his place to comment on whether South Dakota's 72-hour abortion waiting period is appropriate (if we were philosophizing, I'd say he's inconsistently yielding to those males who think it is their place to impose such a waiting period).
We all can understand why McClure and other Democrats in South Dakota may shy away from abortion as a campaign issue: speak up for abortion rights, and it's far too easy for Republicans to mobilize the rabid right and distract us from discussing the shambles GOP policies are making of our schools, roads, and workforce. And as I found with my Catholic socialist neighbor Gerry Lange, we South Dakota Democrats can't afford litmus tests.
But moderation that allows women to be second-class citizens is bad moderation. I'll keep working on McClure.
Now if I got really cranky and exclusive, I could tell McClure to take his moderation to the GOP. McClure says Republicans have indeed tried to recruit him. But he won't bite. "I believe in being the party of reason," says McClure, and that means being a Democrat (yes!). He sees the right wing taking the GOP so far right that Democrats now represent the center. There is no far left in South Dakota, says McClure, among candidates or in the media. McClure says that if he were in Massachusetts, he might be a Mitt Romney Republican... although he carefully points out that he means Governor Mitt Romney, the guy who invented ObamaCare, not 2012 Mitt Romney, the guy who tacked unconvincingly right to get the ultra-conservative donors and votes.
However moderate McClure may be, his main issues mirror those his cross-town counterpart Ellee Spawn puts at the front of her campaign: teacher pay (raise it!), Medicaid expansion (do it!), and minimum wage (boost it and more!).
When I ask if he has a plan to raise teacher pay, he says yes, he does: "Pay teachers more!" There's no complicated socio-economic phenomenon depressing teacher salaries: we pay teacher rock-bottom "because that's what Republicans want to do." McClure calls it "ridiculous" (did someone say moderate?) that South Dakota pays teachers $17,000 to $18,000 less than Wyoming, Minnesota, and the national average.
He says we need to pull more money from the surplus and from economic growth into education, cut other programs, and establish reliably dedicated funds. But voters don't trust Pierre to do that because they have seen that Pierre does not prioritize education, and that's the fundamental problem that we must solve.
McClure says that moderates and conservatives alike should be able to agree that Medicaid expansion roacks from a fiscal perspective. McClure says we're giving up 1,900 jobs and $420 million in federal funding over three years by refusing to expand Medicaid. We'd help workers get health care, which means they'd stay healthy, work more, and boost the economy. Either way, we're paying taxes to cover the expansion, but our recalictrance means we get zilch in return. That, says McClure, is a "very bad financial decision."
McClure says Initiated Measure 18, which will boost the minimum wage to $8.50 an hour, won't create a living wage, but it's closer. He says 70% of South Dakotans support raising the minimum wage and predicts IM 18 will pass. McClure argues that, just like expanding Medicaid, raising the minimum wage makes sense, since lower-income workers are more likely than anyone else to spend their additional dollars and stimulate the economy. Boost the minimum wage, and you boost everybody.
At 32, McClure is the youngest candidate in District 14. Yet his résumé makes a strong case for his ability to legislate. He worked as head attorney for the state's child support enforcement division. He saw children and parents suffering under loopholes in the state's child paternity laws, and he helped the 2012 Child Support Commission revise those laws to establish a clearer process for determining paternity and better protect children's best interests (see 2013 House Bill 1021). McClure is now an associate at Swier Law Firm in Sioux Falls.
Prior to his work in government and law, McClure was student body president at Augustana. He helped start the Big Event concert series, which has brought some pretty big musical names to Sioux Falls. McClure points to that organizing experience as evidence of his ability to defy expectations and get things done.
McClure majored in philosophy at Augustana. Plato said that we'd get the best government when philosophers became kings or when kings started philosophizing. But have no philosophophobia: McClure won't fill you full of abstractions. He'll get a little Socratic, saying that we must recognize that we cannot know everything and thus that our intellect can always err. But he says that knowledge of our fallibility must not stop us from doing our best and acting against injustice. McClure says he'd like to hear more politicians acknowledge their fallibility, admit when they are wrong, and not fear changing their positions for the good of the state.
And that's about as philosophical as McClure gets on the campaign trail. He says the key to winning votes is (his slogan!) "Hard Work and Common Sense." For McClure, hard work means knocking on more doors than the other candidates, who in District 14 include fellow Democrat Valerie Loudenback and Republicans Larry Zikmund and Tom Holmes.
Hard work also means getting people of all political persuasions back to talking to each other. In that spirit, McClure says, "Let's do lunch!" Really! McClure extends an open invitation to any resident of District 14 to join him for lunch between now and November 3 to talk legislative issues. It's first come, first served, so call or Facebook McClure, pick a date, and have lunch with candidate McClure.
I'll remind my new philosopher friend that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue. But McClure will remind his friends and neighbors on the campaign trail that his moderate political philosophy and useful experience can bring good policy for District 14 and South Dakota.
"he believes firmly in personal responsibility. At the same time, he supports social programs that help hard-working families advance."
There is an oxymoron. And that makes him a moderate?
It's only an oxymoron if you are a moron.
as opposed to capitalistic programs that help working corporations advance-GE, hobby lobby. I think 70% of GDP or something is made up by middle class spending. those 70% likely favor moderate, secularly constitutional government.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2014/02/17/the-stimulus-act-was-a-success-and-we-need-another/
Excerpt:
"Many of the things Republicans are saying today about the stimulus bill are predicated on a similar and presumably deliberate misunderstanding: that the legislation was meant to permanently fix the economy.
“Five years later, underemployment is still too high, the number of people that have dropped out of the workforce is astounding, unemployment remains stubbornly high and our economy isn’t growing fast enough — proof that massive government spending, particularly debt spending, is not the solution to our economic growth problems,” said Rubio.
But the stimulus bill was meant to provide a temporary bump to the economy — and it did just that. Here are the facts:
Gross domestic product and total payroll employment were at historic lows when the stimulus passed, and private-sector layoffs were peaking. All three of these very important indicators began to turn around almost exactly the moment the stimulus passed. (The Center for American Progress has some great charts here.)
The Congressional Budget Office concluded that the GDP in the fourth quarter of 2009 was as much as 3.8 percent higher than it would have been without the stimulus.
At the end of 2010, there were approximately 2.5 million more jobs in the country that wouldn’t have existed without the stimulus, according to Mark Zandi of Moody’s Economy.com.
The bill kept nearly 6 million people out of poverty in 2009, according to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP).
Most of the spending measures in the stimulus bill have expired, but the point is that it did what it was supposed to do. For Republicans to simply say “the economy is still bad, so the stimulus was a failure” is a cheap misdirection.
The other main argument against the bill has been that it puts the country too deeply in debt. But critics are wrong again. The stimulus act only exacerbated the long-term budget problem to a very small degree — it added just 3 percent to the budget shortfall through 2050, according to CBPP.
Rubio and his colleagues are, of course, broadly right about the poor fundamentals of the economy, but what the country needs is more of the sort of help the stimulus act provided, not less. Republicans have spent years blocking similar measures, like the American Jobs Act, from becoming law. Each time, they’ve advanced these empty arguments about the efficacy and cost of the stimulus bill. If Democrats want to eventually enact more government help, they’d be wise to push back."
Great post BF
The Blindman
Don't it seem the opposition just moves the goal posts when they start to lose an argument?
Mr. Fleming, Keynesian economics is suppose to bring us to full employment. After 80 years, it has yet to do that. More of Keynesian stimulus will not solve the unemployment problem. Thinking it will is for morons. The result is just more debt that puts weight against economic growth in the long-run.
So far, the only person who has made that claim on this thread is you, Sibson. That gives you two strikes on the moron/oxymoron fastball. Wanna take another swing at it?
Steve,
Keynesian economics is not supposed to bring us to full employment. No such thing as full employment exists. Keynesian economics argues, rather glibly, that when there is a down turn in employment, use the government to create jobs; priming the pump as it were. When times are good, one then needs to reduce the government expansion, to close the deficit created by the bad times. Politicians never perform part two.
Also, Chris is awesome! I was a year ahead of him at Augustana. He's a great guy, and I live in 14; if he hits the sidewalks and knocks on doors, he could win just fine. We like to see our people in 14. Never met Zikmund in my life.
Bill,
"It's only a oxymoron if you're a moron", quote and laugh line of the day. Thanks.
I started asking today of all the political profiles that Cory posts, what legislation or laws would they enact to clean up the state's continued ranking in the top ten of political corruption?
Specific laws need to provide oversight of state government, ethics and transparency have got to be a part of that equation.
What say you Mr. McClure.
Mike, you're right: Chris seems ot have his political poop in a group. I look forward to his victory in November! (Now give him a call, get some flyers, and knock on some doors on your block for him! :-) )
I've known Chris for many years - longer than he has been a lawyer. He's been in the mix of things in Pierre working for DSS. He will be able to hit the ground running when he's elected and start passing bills in his first year. We need more younger candidates like Chris take the plunge, and run to win.
Bill & Mike, just so happens that I read a Keynes vs Hayek book flying back from California last week. Full employment was central to Keynes General Theory:
The central argument of The General Theory is that the level of employment is determined, not by the price of labour as in neoclassical economics, but by the spending of money (aggregate demand). Keynes argues that it is wrong to assume that competitive markets will, in the long run, deliver full employment or that full employment is the natural, self-righting, equilibrium state of a monetary economy. On the contrary, under-employment and under-investment are likely to be the natural state unless active measures are taken. One implication of The General Theory is that an absence of competition is not the main issue regarding unemployment, and that even reducing wages or benefits has no major effect.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_General_Theory_of_Employment,_Interest_and_Money
"Politicians never perform part two."
That can't because full employment has yet to happen. Stimulus reducing the cost of capital. So business buys automation that uses less labor to create more output. In the long-run Keynesian systems creates the very problem it claims to fix. Of course Keynes cared less about the long-run as he argued we are all dead. Sad, but there will be many living when the system he created comes crashing down.
So the next oxymoron will be full employment means some unemployment.
So back to my point regarding Cory's post, how can one be considered personal responsible when using social welfare?
Sibby, if — because good paying jobs are scarce — a person is working two or three part-time jobs at or under minimum wage just to make ends meet and feed the family, and at the same time, takes advantage of the WIC program to extend the family dollar farther, I'll argue that person is being both personally and socially responsible, and further, to fail to do so would be irresponsible both to his/her family and the marketplace.
And that is precisely the context of McClure's/Cory's statement : "he believes firmly in personal responsibility. At the same time, he supports social programs that help hard-working families advance."
Notice that neither of them said jack about Keynsian anything, let alone "full employment."
Strike three, moron.
keynes vs Salma Hayek in mud wresting? My money is on the Mexican wildcat,plus she gets me as a prize after the match.
Bill, the person you are talking about cannot be personally responsible when the person needs the government to take care of fundamental needs. I know people who work and don't pay bills and need government assistance as they drive around in a new Nissan SUV with a V8, has a $600 smart phone and 2 big screens, and their kids don't know what it means to cook because their meals are fast food. But the have the finest designer clothes know to the self-esteem enriched class.
Then I know those who work minimum wage jobs, refuse government assistance, and make due with what they got. That is being personally responsible.
The Keynesian model is one that puts borrowed money into the hands of the personally irresponsible so they can buy big screens, monster sized SUVs, and spend all day poking their $600 smart phones looking for the nearest Taco Johns. The corporatists love it.
"Strike three, moron."
Bill, you forgot about your obviously bad call on strike 2:
Keynes's analysis laid the basis for the field of macroeconomics, which treats the economy as a whole and focuses on government's use of fiscal policy--spending, deficits, and tax. These tools could be used to manage aggregate demand and thus ensure full employment.
http://www.econedlink.org/lessons/index.php?lid=593&type=student
"Then I know those who work minimum wage jobs, refuse government assistance, and make due with what they got. That is being personally responsible."
No it isn't. That person has paid taxes and has a right to assistance if s/he needs it. That's what the social contract is all about. Why should she and her kids have to go hungry just to keep people like you from trying to shame her?
@Cory--Already to him I would, months ago ;)
Steve--if we are cutting and pasting from Wikipedia, let me introduce you to the page on full employment
" Full employment, in macroeconomics, is the level of employment rates where there is no cyclical or deficient-demand unemployment.[1] It is defined by the majority of mainstream economists as being an acceptable level of unemployment somewhere above 0%. The discrepancy from 0% arises due to non-cyclical types of unemployment. Unemployment above 0% is seen as necessary to control inflation in capitalist economies, to keep inflation from accelerating, i.e., from rising from year to year. This view is based on a theory centering on the concept of the Non-Accelerating Inflation Rate of Unemployment (NAIRU); in the current era, the majority of mainstream economists mean NAIRU when speaking of "full" employment. The NAIRU has also been described by Milton Friedman, among others, as the "natural" rate of unemployment. Having many names, it has also been called the structural unemployment rate."
Steve, you're obsessive nitpicking on what is and what isn't Keynesian is just another rathole for you to pound sand down. It doesn't speak to the main point being made here at all.
And your "welfare queen" bogyman is insulting to the hard-working people who are trying to better both themselves and their society while making it through rough times.
http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2013/12/this-chart-blows-up-the-myth-of-the-welfare-queen/282452/
Excerpt:
"This month, the Bureau of Labor Statistics compared yearly spending between families that use public assistance programs, such as food stamps and Medicaid, and families that don't. And surprise, surprise, households that rely on the safety net lead some pretty frugal lifestyles. On average, they spend $30,582 in a year, compared to $66,525 for families not on public assistance. Meanwhile, they spend a third less on food, half as much on housing, and 60 percent less on entertainment."
Mike, yes I already predicted the deceivers would provide the oxymoron that full employment includes unemployment.
Bill, how high must we raise minimum wage so that those on welfare can work and afford to spend $30,582? And what impact on unemployment would that level of minimum wage have? Now you should understand the Keynesian requirement of social welfare in order to reach full employment. Too bad that the Keynesian corporate welfare is used to automate production and reduce the need for labor.
So now answer my question: how is it personally responsible for people to take money from the government? It appears to me that so-called moderates like McClure are just playing both sides of the government intervention into both the supply side and the demand side of the Keynesian model. We never reach full employment, but we do reach the federal debt ceiling on a frequent basis.
Has anyone reported the people (by name) who are receiving public assistance while driving a 2014 brand new vehicle, wear brand new designer clothing, and etc, to the appropriate authorities?
If not, does that mean that the not reporting them is a form of enabling?
JeniW- they exist basically as a right wing talking point to stir up the wingnut base. Every discussion of foodstamps brings out the "I know people on welfare that drive brand new suvs,talk on Obama phones while waiting in line at the grocery store with a cart full of steaks and lobsters and energy drinks." It never ceases.
That's a goofy question, Sibby. You pay in, you get back. Why would it NOT be responsible to receive money or services from government? It's like asking if it would be personally responsible to file an insurance claim. Of course it would if it's a legitimate claim. It would be irresponsible not to.
JeniW, have you seen this?
http://m.wikihow.com/Report-Welfare-Fraud
Steve asks and rightly so, "So now answer my question: how is it personally for people to money from the government?"
If Sibson want this to be a legitimate question, he must acknowledge the excessive amounts of government that goes to corporate welfare, tax breaks, subsidizes to big oil and the agricultural industry.
Is it more or less responsible for our labor force to accept help from the government because an employer doesn't pay them a living wage, or is more or less responsible for socialized businesses, that have multiple forms of resources, to take government handouts? And which of these two situations costs the government the most?
Sibson continues, "Too bad that Kensyan corporate welfare is used to automate production and reduce the need for labor". We don't that those tax breaks, subsidizes, etc. are used to automate production. I would suggest that this government welfare is used to strengthen the profit or corporations and enhance the living style of the upper tier management and owners. It's really pretty basic Sibson, it's called good old fashioned American greed.
Oops! I should have stated in the first sentence "personal responsibility". My bad.
Cory--Argh!! I sounded like Yoda in my last comment. I already spoke to Chris a few months ago at a YPN meeting, and told him I would do exactly what you suggested :)
Sibby- we reach our federal debt limit every year because we have set a limit. Only reason why. And if I may be so bold, who are the "decievers" you speak of in response to my comment
McClure in 2014!!!!
"Bill, how high must we raise minimum wage so that those on welfare can work and afford to spend $30,582?"
If both parents had full time jobs and they each earned $8.50 an hour, that would cover it. Can you raise a couple of kids on that Sibby?
Bill, thank you for the link.
Reporting seems to be rather easy for people who "know people" who drive a brand new 2014 vehicle, have two big screen TVs, and etc, since they "know" the people well enough to have been inside their home to see that there are large screen TVs, and hear someone bragging about their new vehicle.
LOL :)
If against raising minimum wage how about working toward lowering prices for food, eliminate the sales tax on food, reduce the cost of renting or buying shelter, convince Goodwill, Y's Buys, and Savers to give away all the clothing that are donated, reduce the cost of medicines and medical care, reducing or eliminating the cost of all the basic necessities, such as power, heat, water, garbage removal?
If do all of that, then there would not need to be a raise in minimum wage.
Best ever!
"It's only a oxymoron if you're a moron".
Hahahahahahahaha!!!!!!! Priceless. Thanks Bill.
"Why would it NOT be responsible to receive money or services from government?"
Why would it NOT be "personally" responsible to receive money or services from government?
So Bill and Deb answer the question without a personal attack.
"And if I may be so bold, who are the "decievers" you speak of in response to my comment"
Bill & Deb for starters.
There is no law or legislation that will bring our state back as quickly as a two party operation in Pierre would. Morons, oxymorons and politicos don't stand a chance if the puppeteers can keep us dancing. Wouldn't it be nice if all we had to deal with was social program issues and this crony government corruption by both parties was non existent?
There is no "both parties" in the corruption issue, 90. It takes power minus any meaningful oversight for corruption to flourish. SD Democrats have no power at this time, and plenty of oversight.
JeniW, I love your description of what it would take to eliminate the need for a decent minimum wage. Excellent.
90 Schilling
Please provide us with any facts you may have that make South Dakota Democrats corrupt. And is the corruption you are talking about as wide spread as EB-5?
I love JeniW's very crafty suggestion to Sibby. I'm sure it went right over his head. P.s. Sibby, answer your own question about the deceivers. If you don't know what you meant, how would we know?
Okay, I'm done. I've spent to much time actually getting a degree, and reading primary source material to argue about 101 crap. The only "deceivers" that I know in Econ are the ones who insist they are correct ;)
Chris, I will give you a call soon. Give me some lit I can pass around. Many thanks
OMFG. Seriously people. So let me get this straight.... If you lose your job, G*d forbid, and have to go on public assistance, you are going to a) sell your car that you worked your a$$ off to purchase so you can look poor (and not have transportation for a new job), b) sell all of your good clothing so you can look poor enough (and not have decent clothing to interview in), c) get rid of all of the creature comforts that you worked your a$$ off to purchase (so again, you can look poor enough to please people who have more opinions than sense) and d) sell your house - again, that you worked your a$$ off to buy and maintain - to get an apartment that's dirt cheap (and not a good investment) just so you can again, look poor enough to please self righteous asshole people who have the brazen audacity to look down their nose at you because you have the unmitigated gall to have some nice things that you worked hard for before you lost your job? Get a grip already and realize that unless you're in another person's particular situation, you really don't have the slightest clue where they stand financially or otherwise. Spend a little less time being so g*dd*mn judgmental and a little more time giving a d&mn about your fellow human being.
" I've spent to much time actually getting a degree"
Mike,
And in the area of economics it was near 100% Keynes and near 0% Austrian School. Your degree does not give your credibility. I have learned far more since I received by masters degree than what I learned getting it.
JeniW, and the reason things cost more than they should is directly the result of Keynesian use of debt to inflate the money supply. I agree with your point.
"Please provide us with any facts you may have that make South Dakota Democrats corrupt."
Roger, the system of legal corruption has been created with the two faces of Keynes. The Democrats provide the demand side argument and the Republicans provide the supply side argument. It is what I have been saying for weeks. The Neo-Marxists and the Neo-Fascist work hand in hand in order for the system of legal corruption to operate as it is.
South Dakota is a moocher state because of Sibby's political party.
Ken Santema said the nutcase wing of the GOP likes Kristi Noem's ability to bring home the bacon without looking like a pig.
12, good point about stereotyping people on public assistance. As you might guess, my position would be "If you need it, go get it. You paid for it."
Sibby on the other hand would probably give you a lecture on Austrian economic theory and coveting, then blame your circumstance on the Neo-unicorns and tell you to just suck it up.
Bill, 12's comment is off topic. McClure is talking about the working class supplementing their income with government assistance. McClure is considered a moderate by Cory. The real definition that the deceivers will not explain is that McClure is willing to play both sides of the Keynesian coin. That means the current problems will continue, and most likely get worse, as they did in 2008 and the 1930's.
For those who want the truth about unemployment instead of believing the deceivers:
http://www.cnbc.com/id/101810685#.
"South Dakota is a moocher state because of Sibby's political party."
Larry, you must not understand what I mean by both political parties playing both sides of the Keynesian coin. The establishments of both parties are wrong. They are among the deceivers.
Steve, after we kill off your political party i'll be among the first lobbyists to help split mine.
Oh, and here I thought what you meant were that "the deceivers" were the people Mike Q. mentioned who wrote the common sense definition of "full employment."
Thanks for clearing that up, Sibby. What you're really saying is that everyone is a deceiver except you.
Delusional as usual.
Bill, I am saying the political establishments and many of their activists, such as you, are deceivers. Then you can add false Christians to the mix. Then you got those deceivers in the media and in the education system. I am not saying everyone. That is just another one of your tricks of deception. People like McClure claiming to be a "moderate" is the deception that this thread is built on.
Sibby, when did you become a prophet? I really wish you would have told the priests to stop messing with you.
Not off topic at all, Mr. Sibson. You said yourself,
"Steve Sibson
2014.08.25 AT 16:17
Bill, the person you are talking about cannot be personally responsible when the person needs the government to take care of fundamental needs. I know people who work and don't pay bills and need government assistance as they drive around in a new Nissan SUV with a V8, has a $600 smart phone and 2 big screens, and their kids don't know what it means to cook because their meals are fast food. But the have the finest designer clothes know to the self-esteem enriched class.
Then I know those who work minimum wage jobs, refuse government assistance, and make due with what they got. That is being personally responsible."
That statement alone makes it VERY MUCH SO on topic.
McClure a catholic? Why Sibby is trashing him.
Oh, okay. So everyone is a deceiver except for Biblical Christians then? Would that be those who believe in talking snakes, that the universe is 6,000 years old, and that human beings rode dinosaurs?
This post and the subsequent discussion shines a bright light on how the political field has moved to the right. Not that long ago, McClure would have been considered a heart of the party Republican. But no more. Because he does not oppose Democratic action as a knee jerk response, he is defined as the opposition to the ruling party of SD. It seems like too many political definitions are based on opposition.
Republicans, take a look at this candidate and take a look at his "opponents" and detractors (even in the above discussion), and see what has happened to the reason in your party.
"If you lose your job"
12, that is not the same as "he supports social programs that help hard-working families advance". And you quoted me saying:
" I know people who work and don't pay bills "
If you lose your job, you are not working. I hope that clarifies my position. Thanks.
Chris McClure IS a moderate, Mr. Sibson. I'm starting to feel like that word doesn't mean what you *think* it means. I'm a card carrying liberal and I'm totally cool with it. Chris and I have had dozens of conversations where I feel like a total far left wing nut compared to his reasonable, middle of the road positions. (Don't get me wrong... I'm NOT a far left wing nut.... just left of center.) So, to be sure, you're speaking out of turn about a person you don't begin to know the first thing about aside from what's written in Cory's blog here. Before you start trashing a very promising and extremely intelligent and qualified candidate, I would suggest that you take some time to get to know who he is and what he actually stands for before flapping your fingers so crazily at the keyboard.
"If you lose your job, you are not working." Baloney. People who lose their job and are desperately looking for another one are typically working their asses off. They're just not getting paid for it.
The only thing you're clearing up here, Sibby is how completely out-to-lunch you are.
It's nice to know the Dems are not corrupt because they don't have the power to be such, DG. I am not suggesting the SD Dems are as corrupt as the SD GOP, RC. I believe lack of action can be detrimental and protecting the citizens requires action or it is not an honest effort for either party affiliation in our state government.
12, I am sorry. I did not intend my position to be a personal attack on Mr. McClure. In general I have a problem with "moderates". They are created with "bipartisan" compromises that are nothing else but a full implementation of the Keynesian collectivist agenda, both social welfare and corporate welfare. We are deceived into thinking that they are the heroes. They are usually unprincipled. as they demote principles for the cause of pragmatism. And these so-called moderates are included in both parties. The result is concentration of wealth and power into the hands of the ruling elite (the so-called 1%), and the rest of us become enslaved. It is the road to serfdom, if I may use Hayek's book title.
Again, the party fighting is a show. Both parties are controlled by the 1%ers. And also again, the Democrats promote the demand side of Keynesianism, while the Republicans promote the supply side. Both use government money to interfere with a normal free market. That is why we have an out of control federal debt situation, as does many individuals.
My suggestion is that we stop fighting and come together with the understanding as to what is really going. The good people of both parties should find discernment, see through the deceptions, and come together and develop a plan that stops the current insanity. Perhaps Mr. McClure would be receptive to that, but that means he can't be a moderate playing both sides of the same collectivist agenda.
"He says he's personally pro-life but respects the Constitution." I'm personally pro-choice, but all that matters is that he respects the constitution.
Have we considered remembering our Common Law principle of stare decisis and remembering out that that pesky article 3 in our constitution vests power in the US supreme court rather states or individuals to determine what the constitution means? The constitution gives the US Supreme Court that authority and I respect that. If McClure does too, he has my vote, whether we are on the same page about how we might personally think about abortion or not.
Unless you're on the Supreme Court, I don't think it really matters much what you personally think constitutes an undue burden to a woman's right to have a doctor perform an abortion prior to the point of viability. The Supreme Court doesn't vest that power in you to decide.
As a member of the state house, I would think your principle impact on abortion issues would be in decreasing the number of women and families who find themselves with an unwanted pregnancy. I can't think of a more straight forward way to do that than to increase contraception coverage access and improving education. McClure is for expanding health care and improving education. In my view, he's got the very best answer anyone--whether they are pro-choice or pro-life--could possibly want.
Steve's comment on full employment with a quote does not indicate that Keynes claimed full employment from his economics, but rather that red in tooth and claw capitalist claims of full employment resulting from competitive markets were false.
Blessed are the peacemakers for they will be fitted with concrete galoshes and flung headlong into a rising ocean.
Douglas, Keynes advocated public works in order to increase aggregate demand in order to reach full employment. Yes, he argued the free market would not reach that state of equilibrium. Now we know his idea doesn't work neither. So now what? Since neither system creates full employment, do we go back to a free market where we are all on an equal playing field, or do we stay with the Keynesian crony capitalist agenda?
Sibby have you considered going over to the other blog and discussing Keynesian economics with your Republican kin? You and Troy could have a fascinating in depth discussion about economic policy.
My apologies Troy :)
Sibby, very briefly, what you are doing is making "the perfect the enemy of the good."
The CNBC link you shared shows unemployment going down either way you look at it and regardless what you think the %ages are.
I shudder to think of what condition we would be in had our government just let everything go completely to hell in a hand basket (aka "free market.").
If this is what you're talking about: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-capitalism the one word answer is : Somalia
Mr. Sibson, now you have me a bit baffled. You state that both parties should "come together and develop a plan that stops the current insanity" yet you say that a moderate cannot make that happen? It would seem to me that if one is moderate, one should be able to work by reaching across the aisle and putting partisan politics aside for the good of us all. Isn't that exactly what you're implying needs to happen?
' You state that both parties should "come together and develop a plan that stops the current insanity" '
12, thanks for allowing me to clarify. I did not mean "both parties", at the establishment levels. I meant the ordinary every day members. Those, along with independents, need to come together.
Come together and do what, Steve?
What are your suggestions as to how such a diverse group would proceed?
The Occupy Wall Street movement went away, not because people didn't agree with them (because most people did) but rather because they had no leader and no political agenda.
Why would what you are suggesting be any different?
Bill, that is a good point about the Occupy movement, the tea party will eventually suffer the same fate, there doesn't seem to be a real organization or leadership of the party.
Sibson doesn't understand how our democracy works, people with ideas come together all the time, such as on Madville. People with ideas also come together in the form of political parties that nominate and elect our leaders to govern. I don't understand what Sibson wants to happen with this "people coming together" thing. A revolution? Sibson seems to want some type of power and influence outside of our political and governance system.
When people are hungry, unemployed or underemployed, need shelter, have health problems, need shelter, etc., do you think they are worried economic ideologies? I doubt it.
Social problems can be grouped only to a certain degree, al individual situations are different. A friend of mine lost a well paying job a few years back, he had a nice home, a new car, and his family dressed well. He was forced to on unemployment, take advantage of SNAP, etc. He and has wife were tax payers, they deserved to take advantage of the services available to them.
Things got better for him after about six months, he was able to keep his home, but had to downsize his vehicle, his comeback slow and often discouraging, but with the help of the government was able to make it.
How people are able identify those on food stamps, etc. is beyond me, why would anybody want to make another person's tragedy their business.
Assumptions are the damnedest thing, even in South Dakota you hear people complain about "Obama phones" and berate the people that use them. The last I checked South Dakota is one of the few states that doesn't Obama phones.
Sibby, be careful as some of your statements appear to be being false witness against your neighbor. I hope I am wrong, but if not then you might want to reflect before making apparently false statements such as:
"I know people who work and don't pay bills and need government assistance as they drive around in a new Nissan SUV with a V8, has a $600 smart phone and 2 big screens, and their kids don't know what it means to cook because their meals are fast food."
If you contend you are telling the truth, then perhaps you can identify the particular government welfare program your friend or acquaintance is tapping? I have had a great deal of experience in studying various welfare programs offered by the state and federal governments, but I am not aware of any such program that fits your description. Please feel free to educate me, or in the alternative, withdraw this statement and seek forgiveness for bearing false witness against your neighbor.
Roger Obama phones? What are those?
Steve,
My undergrad Econ was not 100% Keynes. My professors tended to dislike him, but he is part of the established curriculum. Along with Adam Smith, David Ricardo, the Neo-classicists, and on.
In regards to Austrian Econ, anything before Von Mises is pretty good. Anything after is crap. Please Steve, explain to me, using Von Mises praxology, the theory of comparative advantage, and the effects on the inflation of goods it may cause.
Yup, Roger, The Tea Party got co-opted and lost it's true "grassrootsness."
Big money saw an opportunity there and jumped all over it. Reporters and politicos call the result "astroturf" and "Tea Party Lite."
The 99% movement on the other hand didn't go there, although there were folks who tried a little to organize them, one of them being Barney Frank.
Cool that they didn't sell out I guess, but perhaps not so cool that as a result not much really got done. Gay rights maybe? Some states legalizing marijuana? Good causes, but there's still so much more to do. Environment, immigration, women's rights, police and prison reform, war policy, capital punishment, campaign finance, and on and on...
The main point I think was that the people realized that not only do they have some power, they ARE THE power. Now, what to do with it? And how?
That in a nutshell is hopefully what our friend Rick Weiland is trying to figure out, right here in good old South Dakota.
And yeah, okay, maybe Sibby too. :-)
So 90, you are saying SD Democrats are corrupt based on what they do not do? What would you have them do that they are not doing? What would you have them do with the means they actually have?
I'm not sure corruption can accrue to a group that has no power to act. Anyway, I'll wait for your answer to my questions.
Exactly Bill, citizen action groups have got to have a clear agenda and stick to it. I'll wait to hear from Sibson on what he is proposing
Lynn, what is called the Obama phone is actually a program called Life Lock that was started by George Bush to provide landlines to those that qualified for other government programs. President Obama expanded that program to include cell phones with limited service to that same group. Republicans and teapublicans use the Obama expansion as another meme that government is taking care of poor people at their expense.
Like I said, South Dakota is one of the few states that doesn't offer the phones.
BCB, to add to your list, JeniW above seemed to be hinting that if Sibby really did know people who were abusing the system and failed to report them (I provided an easy to follow checklist on how to do it), he was in essence being an irresponsible enabler citizen. Or, conversely (and heaven forbid) maybe he was just lying?
Roger they are called comod phones on the res because you ca sign up for them when you sign up for commodities. They will call anywhere on that system but wont make a long distance call. The tribe made an agreement with the owners of the cell towers for just that purpose.
The Blindman
SD Dems are doing something DG. Pre election. Not a year ago as one or two attempted with little support from that party. Tell me what means, the Dems don't have other than legislating corruption out which will never happen anywhere as the Dem party has proven in Ill. A two party rule includes policing the system regardless of the political consequences most Dems and GOP fear as noted by Charlie Hoffman.
Bill, JeniW does make an excellent point. As for me, since I enjoy the option of being willing to change my opinions or views based on new information, I would like to have Sibby identify the government welfare program he references his friends or acquaintances accessing despite an apparent steady source of income from employment that enables them to purchase the goods he describes. I know it is probably not social security since Sibby says the kids eat at fast food places. Most SSA recipients kids have grown and left the nest. So I have to ask him what program he references is it that treats his friends with such generosity.
My experience is that most welfare programs have income and resource restrictions that would preclude providing assistance to the people that Sibby describes. Thus, it does appear that he has bore false witness against his neighbors. And since I believe that Sibby's desire to perfectly follow the ten commandments to the letter is genuine, I am hoping he can identify such a welfare program. Maybe I can qualify!
What do you call a police officer who turns his head from criminal activities, DG? We all know there was/is corruption in EB5. Should not all legislators who've sat quietly, take some blame for any cover up?
90, I don't know what you're talking about "not a year ago." Please give me a little more information.
SD does not have two party rule. Republicans hold all constitutional positions, executive positions, and overwhelming, filibuster-proof majorities in the legislature. That is One Party Rule.
I asked you 2 questions about Democratic actions. Please tell me what you have in mind for them to do.
I don't know what a police officer has to do with this.
What would you have the Democrats do about EB5?
I'm not going to read you the newspaper, DG. I asked earlier about no reporting here on current Dem actions on eb5. Filibuster proof does nothing to halt the press or subpoena action/attempts that are viewed with more horsepower even when brought by a Dem minority. A year ago Kathy Tyler started a one woman battle to unveil eb5 with little to no public/political support from her party.
Corruption is corruption. Public officials turning a blind eye are committing fraud against the system, no less than a sin of omission.
Bill D.
Now I recall the comod phone on the reservation. I don't know if it still true, but the first phones had 308 (Nebraska) because South Dakota didn't have Life Lock. That may have changed, I don't know.
Lynn-http://www.freegovernmentcellphones.net/faq/obama-phone
This program Obama gets blamed for started clear back in 1996. Please read the whole article to get the entire picture.
Deb,
Great job on describing South Dakota corruption. I asked 90 sometime back to specifically describe state Democratic corruption and he hasn't provided an answer.
What happen if you called a cop to report Joop Bollen stealing millions of dollars in Chinese investment dollars?
http://www.obamaphone.com/
Lynn,try this link.
Mike, Roger it is like going back 20-30 years moving back here to South Dakota. It's so frustrating especially thinking of what options my elderly mother has here vs moving to another state.
I get a kick out of all the crying over there being no "two party rule" in South Dakota. As if two party rule is some fundamental human right. Guess what folks, two party rule has to be earned. A party doesn't get to become incompetent and impotent and then whine "hey that's not fair!"
The good news: The Libertarians are marching and well on their way to making this a two party state again.
I still don't know what you're talking about regarding cops or newspapers, so I think I'll just skip that part.
So the media is not reporting on the EB5 scandal as they should? Agreed. That is the Democrats fault because . . . ?
I believe a legislative committee can issue subpoenas. Democrats hold no majorities on any committees so subpoena power lies entirely with Republicans.
Kathy Tyler did her best to raise a stink about EB5. I think that's a good thing. Are you saying that you want other Democrats to be more vocal about it? I'm pretty sure some have, but the press you are so angry with hasn't paid a lot of attention.
Geez 90, it seems like you talk in riddles rather than making direct statements. I'm getting tired of trying to figure out what you want to say.
The whole "attack Democrats for EB5" seems waaaay off base. It's simply not their deal. I wish they could and would do more too. The fact that SD Democrats have little to no recourse is not a reason to climb on them. When SD Democrats hold some political strength in SD, and when they screw up, as they will, pile on them for corruption. I'll be there too. For now, it makes no sense.
Oh Grudz, Grudz, Grudz. You silly boy.
Of course political parties must earn the voters' support. That's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about corruption. I can't think of any time it's a good thing. Bringing shady deals made in the dark, to bright daylight is a good thing.
SD does have 1 party rule, contrary to what 90 seems to think. I'm saying that's not a good idea.
BTW, if you keep talking like this, our engagement is definitely OVER!
Ms. Geelsdottir, you know darned well that I'm far too old for you. However, could you explain about the fillibusterproof majority in the legislatures and how fillibustering would work for Messrs. Hunhoof and Fredricks?
http://interested-party.blogspot.com/2014/08/south-dakota-descent-no-accident.html
Mr. Sibson.... you remain baffling with this post:
"12, thanks for allowing me to clarify. I did not mean "both parties", at the establishment levels. I meant the ordinary every day members. Those, along with independents, need to come together."
Folks don't get much more ordinary and every day than Chris McClure, other than a couple of other first time candidates from Sioux Falls that I can think of off hand.... So tell me... how is this not "coming together" by electing folks such as this? I'd love to know when you start to make sense and stop contradicting yourself.
My understanding is that it's not possible for Hunhoff or Fredricks to filibuster anything because Democrats don't hold enough seats. If it's like Congress, a filibuster requires enough votes to block a 60% majority. Neither house is 41% Democratic.
Other Madizens might have more information particular to SD. I hope they will jump in here.
Grudz, age is just a number! You're as old as you feel!
http://www.openleft.com/diary/17831/36-state-senates-preclude-the-possibility-of-filibuster
WTH,Deb? A month or so ago I thought you had feelings(besides repulsion) for me,then I find you flirtating with gravy tater Grudz. What am I? Chopped taters?
Hunhoff has a magazine to sell that's more important to him. Really, Deb, if dems were a minority in St Paul with a corrupt republican majority, I just don't really see them sitting silent like this bunch in Pierre does, do you? They would jump on it.
DFL leaders would be rallying the base and doing it loudly. Thousands of Minnesotans would be rallying the capital demanding answers if this EB5 scandal was going on in their state. MPR would have big segments dedicated to it like they do the Catholic sex scandal.
Minnesotans rally all the time for causes they believe in and a corrupt governorship wouldn't sit well with MN voters. :)
Jenny, are those libbie Farmer Labor leaders building themselfs a new office building right at this very moment under a corrupt power play?
Jenny, grud is just another pp pocket puppet performing plays.
You are right Jenny. Public and media scrutiny are high here. People are used to being active in government. MN nearly always leads the nation in voter participation in presidential elections. There is an entirely different attitude toward government by MN voters.
I think it's the populism thing. ND used to be the same. Engaged voters, fiery candidates, active press. I think the fraudulent "corporations are people" SCOTUS crap is playing an important role in diminishing democracy wherever possible. The smaller and less educated states are especially vulnerable.
" I have had a great deal of experience in studying various welfare programs offered by the state and federal governments, but I am not aware of any such program that fits your description."
BCB, do you really think entitlement minded coveters really care about the details behind government programs? You have no basis to accuse me of lying.
Steve Sibson is a white supremacist, an earth hater and a Republican.
"SD does not have two party rule. Republicans hold all constitutional positions, executive positions, and overwhelming, filibuster-proof majorities in the legislature. That is One Party Rule."
That is because the Democrats were allowed to join during the Janklow era. And they are still rolling in. Nothing more effective than a system of legal corruption put together by a team of Neo-Fascists and Neo-Marxists, or what the deceivers call moderates.
"The smaller and less educated states are especially vulnerable."
So Deb, are you calling the people of South Dakota stupid?
Yes, Steve: the white, aged, Republicans of South Dakota are stupid,
Is our fearless leader off on an excused absence? He has been missing most of the day. Did some nefarious other-universe inhabiting blogger kidnap him? How about the grifter society? Inquiring iowan wants to know.
That's exactly what the MN Republicans would like every Minnesotan to think.
The capital building is undergoing massive restoration work. It began early this year and will conclude by 2016 or 17. I don't recall exactly. Beginning in less than a year, the chambers of each house and all offices will not be habitable.
Even without the work on the building, there is not enough room for all the legislators to have offices in it. The majority party has offices in the capital. The other party uses a nearby building. Not optimum, of course.
So there are good reasons for a new building. My choice would be to put the legislators in a temporary space during the remodeling. As part of that work, I wish they'd find enough storage spaces and unused rooms to create enough office space for all legislators in the capital. I don't know if there is enough space to repurpose.
So it's reasonable to build, though not a choice I like. The Republicans are working hard to make it an election issue and a symbol of Democratic excess. They are going to have a tough row to hoe however.
Economically, MN is really rolling. That's With Tax Increases For Business And The Top 10%, and a Raise In Minimum Wage!
Poor conservative economists.
Hahahahahahahaha!!!!!! Hahahahahahahaha!!!!!
Whaddayathinkathat - Grudz Wudzy?!
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Grudz, here is a funny article about MN's ineffective Republicans trying to campaign on the office building you asked me about:
http://blogs.mprnews.org/capitol-view/2014/08/gop-mocks-senate-building-with-butter-sculpture/
Deb, grudz is a phony. Remember that he is the guy that was too damn cheap to spend $9 to meet you and thought he was entitled to free beer at Rickstock.
I still don't understand how Sibson knows so much about other peoples finances. What do they do, walk up to him and say, "Steve, you like my brand new SUV? Oh, by the way I get food stamps and am on Medicaid". When I go to the store, I have no idea who is on food stamps or if someone with a new vehicle is getting some government benefit. How does Sibson know these things.
Sibson's word of the week is "deceiver", he's used coveter previously, and fails to acknowledge the Republican deceivers that are the recipients of corporate welfare, oil and agricultural subsidizes, and tax breaks. Why is it Republicans don't like to discuss those entitlements?
And Sibson, South Dakota is a one party rule, how can you possibly deny that, all you do is try to explain it with a mass of contradictory comments.
Touchy touchy, DG. Do you know what the Dems are doing about EB5, currently? Does anyone..? I hear no one speaking of the Dems currently pushing subpoena on Joop a Dope(in the newspaper DG) and actually accomplishing something. Why not build a party that will raise some Hell over the crap that is going on? If it we're not for CH and some upset Republicans such as a Mercer and others who've turned against their own party, EB5 would have been long gone under the rug. Hunhoff has had a year to do what he is finally starting to do with momentum generated by few in our state gov of either color. Filibuster Joop? What are you smoking?
90 Schilling,
Do you have newspapers or internet access where you live?
For the past two weeks Susan Wismer, Rick Weiland, the South Dakota Democratic Party, and other Democratic leaders have been hammering the Republicans on EB-5.
And yes, Cory has been consistent on his reporting since Benda's mysterious death and the Northern Beef shutdown and bankruptcy.
Kathy Tyler and other Democratic legislators have made several attempts to make the South Dakota Republican politburo responsible for EB-5 corruption only to be unheard by those in charge of the scam.
Now, the Democrats are being heard, and being heard a crucial point in the campaign
Democrats will keep charging on EB-5 until election day, buy a newspaper, turn on the tv, and read Madville Times for complete coverage.
What I'm getting from you now is that you are upset that SD Democrats are ineffective. Agreed. That's hardly corruption.
Trying to diminish me with your snarky comment, "Touchy, touchy DG," shows your own inability to mount an effective argument for your position. As usual, I can't figure out what, particularly, you are talking about. Sigh.
Speaking of politics, here is an article by the University of Minnesota that that gives excellent odds that each of the 24 states which have denied their citizens better health care via expanded Medicare, will do so soon. I learned in this article that it took 17 years before all states adopted the original Medicare. The writers say this time full adoption will be completed sooner. It's interesting.
http://www.minnpost.com/eric-black-ink/2014/08/u-m-panel-predicts-all-states-will-eventually-join-medicaid-expansion
Uuuuh, RC, was it me who asked what I meant about newspapers? Now I'm getting analyzed. Ineffective legislators are just that. Those who turn their back on corruption are hardly just ineffective however you wish to spin that coin, DG.
Deb and Roger, have you noticed that this flat beer dude is kind of like the kid next door you catch stealing gas, all he can do is say the dog made him do it while holding the siphon hose. It must be getting late 90 shilling, and school starts early tomorrow, get some sleep.
Well put Jerry. The Schilling has mastered the Bill O'Reilly school of spin. He seems intent on blaming Democrat legislators for catching the Daugaard and Rounds administrations with their hand in the cookie jar. The first one blame are the Democrats that put the cookie in the jar in the first place.
Daugaard, Rounds, and Jackely have to this point effectively stonewalled, covered up, and lied about EB-5 and Schilling expects Democrats to have all the information hearing, investigations, and prosecution.
Now, I have heard a lot of nonsense, but this one is a winner.
Agreed Roger and Jerry. He's making a circular, ineffective, argument. I'd describe it as Sibsonesque.
Good luck 90.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shill
...not sayin' ...just sayin ;-)
All I'm going to say on the Keynes discussion is that in District 14 and every other legislative district in South Dakota, you will find two people who give a darn. Everyone else will focus on asking, "What will Chris McClure (Ellee Spawn, Scott Parsley, Betty Olson...) do for South Dakota?" Steve's hobbyhorse-hijacking will have zero impact on election outcomes and Pierre policymaking.
And again, Grudz just comes to provoke. The Libertarian Party will make zero difference in this election or in upsetting one-party rule. Chris McClure is a Democrat. Ellee Spawn is a Democrat. Democrats are running for Legislature. Democrats are leading the charge on the corruption revealed in Northern Beef Packers and EB-5. Democrats are the loyal opposition.
Well said, Cory. Where's the 'like button'?
Need a Boo! button too.
Bill Fleming hijacked the thread by going down the Keynesian rabbit hole:
https://madvilletimes.com/2014/08/lets-do-lunch-moderate-mcclure-seeks-district-14-house-seat/#comment-352069
South Dakota Homeland Security Conference in Rapid City focused on domestic terrorists, Sovereign Citizens.
http://www.blackhillsfox.com/home/headlines/Speaker-at-Homeland-Security-Conference-discusses-Americas-biggest-threats-272793091.html
"fails to acknowledge the Republican deceivers that are the recipients of corporate welfare, oil and agricultural subsidizes, and tax breaks."
False charge Roger. I pointed out several times that the Republicans are the supply side Keynesians.
And Cory, you Democrats are the demand side Keynesians. The RINO SDGOP Establishment's latest successes was the money Obama sent them (read Fleming's stimulus comment if you want to understand deception, the GOP wants to pander to their base will they suck in the feds money). Bernie Hunhoff and the Democratic legislators caved in by voting for Brown's crony capitalist economic development bill a couple of sessions ago. But you are right, the indies have no chance of changing the current system of legal corruption in South Dakota. So you intelligent folks carry on, since you fools think you know more than everyone else.
Larry, did you miss this quote from your link:
Paudert says not all Sovereign Citizens are bad and says, in fact, he agrees with some things they believe in, such as taxes being too high and the federal government being too involved in our business, but he says he just wants law enforcement to be able to identify the extreme ones and know how to deal with them.
"For example, using his New York Times’ column, Professor Paul Krugman frequently lashes out at the Obama administration for ignoring the Keynesian policies of economic expansion and job creation."
http://www.counterpunch.org/2014/08/26/keynes-is-dead-long-live-marx/
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/08/22/core-success/?_php=true&_type=blogs&_r=0
Well Sibby, that nails it. Since you apparently cannot describe any government welfare program that your friends and acquaintances allegedly qualify for, this seems to confirm that you indeed were bearing false witness about them in your earlier post attacking and denigrating them for being well off employed people who didn't pay their bills and qualified for welfare.
BCB, your assumption is wrong, and allows you to not see reality...the Neo-Marxist policies you promote do not work. Instead of holding those with unpaid student loans personally accountable, Obama and his fellow Neo-Marxists want them forgiven. Tell me those who don't pay their bills, including government backed or issued loans, should first give up their monster-styled SUVs, $600 cell phones, and learn how to shop for groceries that are on sale and cook themselves. That means time doing dishes instead of time spent pursuing their hedonistic lifestyle. The corporatists of the entertainment industries won't like that, right.
Trying to unpack Sibby's BS is like pushing a strand of cooked spaghetti uphill with a nail.
Bill, You are right. When caught bearing false witness about his neighbors Sibby consistently tries to change the subject to avoid having to admit that he cannot identify any government welfare program that his working neighbors, who drove expensive SUVs etc could qualify for because they did not pay their bills.
Sibby, your efforts to change the subject do not help you avoid personal responsibility for making the false statements denigrating other people. Indeed, your "student loan forgiveness" comment seems to be another false statement. Here are two links to information about when a student loan may be forgiven. Neither supports any implicit claim by you that the working people who don't pay their bills you claim to know would qualify to have a student loan forgiven.
http://www2.ed.gov/fund/grants-college.html
https://studentaid.ed.gov/repay-loans/forgiveness-cancellation
Trying to support one false statement with another only digs you a deeper hole.
Steve S., if you have not reported, by name, to the appropriate authorities the people that you know who have outstanding student loans, but able to buy a 2014 SUV and other things, and have not reported people you know who have a brand new vehicle, large screen TVs and receiving public assistance. You are being an enabler.
JeniW, if I reported all of the abuses, I would have to quit my job and go on welfare.
BCB, Obama wanted to reduce the loan payments based on one's income. So that means a working person will get out of paying back the entire loan. That was Obama's argument, not a false argument by me. I disagree with his position, do you?
"Trying to unpack Sibby's BS is like pushing a strand of cooked spaghetti uphill with a nail."
Bill, perhaps things would be easier if you stopped making false assumptions that lead to false allegations. And goes also to you BCB.
And Mr. McClure should stop calling his liberal positions "moderate", just because the RINOs agree with him..
Sorry Cory, I took the sibby bait.
Sibby, you are making yet another false statement. Reducing payments based on income only means it will take longer to pay off the debt. It doesn't mean "a working person will get out of paying back the entire loan." Please try to stick with the truth. This is the third false statement you have made on this thread.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2011/10/26/how-president-obama-helping-lower-monthly-student-loan-payments
Why would you have to quit your job?
It is not all that hard to make reports to the appropriate authorities.
The decision is yours, to be an enabler or not. If you choose to be an enabler you are really no different than the people you claim to know as being abusers.
Good grief, Steve. Give it up. Do you realize how incomprehensible and irrelevant this discussion sounds to anyone who come shere looking for more information about Chris McClure and the District 14 race? Everyone else, drop this crap. Imagine saying this crap at a candidate forum. Everyone in the audience would stare in stone-cold silence, and the smart candidates would say, "I have no idea what you're talking about; next question." Can we show that good sense here?
Cory, as your content becomes more and more essential to SD voters, I see the content of the comment section becoming less and less relevant. I'm thinking specifically of sites like Nate Silver's "FiveThirtyEight,com."
I read Nate's pagess frequently, but hardly ever even look at the comment section. And the few times I have, I've noticed that some of the followers there have even dumber conversations than the ones we sometimes have here.
In the old "Mt. Blogmore days, the posts were written in such a way as to actually invite feedback, debate and discussion, and many of us read it as much to follow what some of our favorite commenters had to say as we did to find out what the blog authors perspective was.
Your site doesn't have to be that way, and more and more it isn't. You're doing us an invaluable valuable service by being diligent and meticulous about your own personal reporting and arguments.... one of the best blog writers I've ever read.
Keep that up, and before long, very few of your readers will be even the slightest bit interested in what the rest of us in the "peanut gallery" have to say. And personally, that would be just fine with me.
p.s. as always, please feel free to delete anything I write from your site that you don't want there. It's your brand, brother, and I sincerely respect your desire to protect, define, and police it. :-)
" Imagine saying this crap at a candidate forum."
Cory, this is not a candidate forum. This is a blog where you reported that McClure claims to be a "moderate". I am challenging that position. Yes, I am sorry that I got pulled off topic, but I tried to bring my comments back onto McClure a couple of times.
"It doesn't mean "a working person will get out of paying back the entire loan."'
[Sorry Cory, but BCB keeps pulling me off topic with false allegations.]
Time to apologize BCB:
President Obama is in the process of expanding a student loan forgiveness program through his executive power (the infamous pen).
Under the latest version of President Obama’s giveaway to former college students, people with student loans that meet certain income eligibility standards will only need to pay 10 percent of their discretionary income for a maximum of 20 years. Discretionary income is the amount you earn above the poverty line for your family size. If a borrower works for a government or in a job defined as public service, they only have to pay for 10 years. After that, the remaining balance is forgiven.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffreydorfman/2014/06/19/here-comes-the-student-loan-forgiveness/
You heard what Cory said, Sibby! Back off and stay on topic, gee, how rude!
Sibby, you are right - I owe Cory an apology. Sorry about the drift Cory.
"Sibby, you are right"
Good first step, now admit you were wrong.
sorry, the donut made me do it. philosophy explained:
http://thecrookedmouth.com/a-brief-guide-to-donuts/
larry, - sweet!