Oregonian's Ken Goe ranks the coaches 1-12
- Thread starter Glad Cougar
- Start date
There is a third thing. A lot of alums with money. Even in an anti-athletic culture, there is value in having some deep pocket alumni.
So, what you're saying is you don't vote.
1990 is correct. When "conservatives" achieve political power they hit the pork barrel with the best of them. Both parties are full of more crap than a Thanksgiving turkey.
Trump, for all his faults, has done well on this front.
One of the leading conservative think tanks, The Heritage Foundation, recently rated Trump as more Conservative than Reagan on policy. That is an impressive endorsement and is consistent with my perspective.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.da...ritage-foundation-reveals-which-ryan-saavedra
If I were Trump, I'd eliminate entire federal departments. That is where I have any disappointment with year one with Trump. He needs to push for even more change in out of touch Washington DC. So many scammers living off of our hard-earned tax dollars.
History has shown us very clearly that as government has more power and control (more tax money and regulatory power) they inevitably abuse their citizens.
To the extent Trump stops that, it is best for our future.
Yes. Both parties in Congress love to spend money and to not be required to make very difficult spending decisions (there are a few exceptions among the Republican caucus and zero among the Democrats)...all the while building up their personal wealth by millions of dollars.
I'd like to see Congress be required to balance the budget. That would be a game changer.
Instead, they spend most of their efforts stirring up anger in their base to raise funds for their next election.
DC is indeed a swamp...and could rightly be called a sewer. Starve the beast of tax money is a good start.
The election of Trump was necessary to turn the current swamp dwellers' lives upside down. He needs to be even bolder in pushing for change.
Your posts are kind of naïve and contradictory. You like lower taxes. Me too - my last paycheck went up as a result of the new tax cuts. But there were no corresponding spending cuts - the tax cut just ballooned our deficit to the benefit of wealthier Americans (I'm one of those I guess).
I want a balanced budget too - something that has not happened since Clinton. Reagan, Bush II, Trump have all cut taxes to the benefit of wealthier Americans, without corresponding cuts in spending, and in doing so ballooned the deficit. That is NOT conservatism my friend. That is irresponsibility.
The one thing that I agree with is the need to reduce the federal administration(s). But that is not happening. Certainly the Air Force One expenditure line item has not gone down. It has ballooned due to the almost weekly trips to Florida so Trump can golf and hang out with his wealthy pals who just got richer due to the tax cuts. That is not conservatism.
Finally, you don't need a saint for President. You vote for conservatism. Well Trump ain't either. I don't need a saint, but a President needs to have some sort of moral compass, basic respect for human beings, ethics and honesty, and some measure of fiscal responsibility. Trump has none of those. Wake up.
Well of course. Reagan was not as conservation as most people on the right believe he was. Over the years, I have seen many times that people would say something like they are being like Reagan when they were really far right or even had the opposite position that Reagan had.
Perhaps you will be right. Or not. We shall see. I am not sure that it will turn out to be the cornucopia you think it will. I tend to think it will turn out to be like Kansas under Brownback or Louisiana under Jindal.
The problem with our government right now (and probably for most of the last 100 years) is that political parties expend a lot of energy vilifying one another and making bad decisions just to be different than the other guys. I personally despise Trump as a human being and expect that his presidency will be viewed as the low point of the past century when it comes to evaluating presidents. That said, he is doing some good things as president. Governmental overreach under Obama was common place and many regulations that are in place don't do anything to make our country (or planet) measurably better. A complete review of regulations and requiring the elimination of onerous regulations that harm business should always be looked at.
While I think it's unrealistic to boot out every illegal alien (it would wreck our economy if we did), we did need someone to speak boldly about the topic and discourage the flow of illegal immigrants that was going on. I think DACA should be kept in some form, but should also be reasonably limited. I do think that if someone wants to stay in our country for more than 5 years, they should learn our language.....it's English BTW. I wouldn't move to a foreign country and expect them to change for me.
A drop in corporate taxes was a good thing, but I think we went too far and the insistence on tax cuts that give the most significant benefit to the wealthy is going to cause tremendous problems in the next couple years. That pathetic excuse of an infrastructure plan that Trump is talking about is a disgrace and will be a disaster. I know because Kansas did the exact same bullsh!t in 2012 and our infrastructure funding is still a disaster six years later. Get ready for state and local taxes to rise as federal money goes away.
The core problem that I see is that our two party system creates a giant pendulum that swings to and fro and never stops. There are no viable third parties or third party candidates that are going to change things. I don't see the solution but even though I think Trump is a piece of trash, our country is likely better off at this moment in time with him as president as opposed to Clinton. If she had been elected, the last 12 months would have been the biggest clusterf$#$# in the history of our country. Trump's a terrible president and a complete hypocrite, but as long as he doesn't get us into a war, he's unlikely to cause permanent damage to the lives of most of us. The pendulum will swing the other way soon enough, whether we like it or not.
While I think it's unrealistic to boot out every illegal alien (it would wreck our economy if we did), we did need someone to speak boldly about the topic and discourage the flow of illegal immigrants that was going on. I think DACA should be kept in some form, but should also be reasonably limited. I do think that if someone wants to stay in our country for more than 5 years, they should learn our language.....it's English BTW. I wouldn't move to a foreign country and expect them to change for me.
A drop in corporate taxes was a good thing, but I think we went too far and the insistence on tax cuts that give the most significant benefit to the wealthy is going to cause tremendous problems in the next couple years. That pathetic excuse of an infrastructure plan that Trump is talking about is a disgrace and will be a disaster. I know because Kansas did the exact same bullsh!t in 2012 and our infrastructure funding is still a disaster six years later. Get ready for state and local taxes to rise as federal money goes away.
The core problem that I see is that our two party system creates a giant pendulum that swings to and fro and never stops. There are no viable third parties or third party candidates that are going to change things. I don't see the solution but even though I think Trump is a piece of trash, our country is likely better off at this moment in time with him as president as opposed to Clinton. If she had been elected, the last 12 months would have been the biggest clusterf$#$# in the history of our country. Trump's a terrible president and a complete hypocrite, but as long as he doesn't get us into a war, he's unlikely to cause permanent damage to the lives of most of us. The pendulum will swing the other way soon enough, whether we like it or not.
Damn Flat, that was a really good post. I agree with (almost) all of it. Would hedge a wee bit on eliminating too many regulations, specifically pollution-related ones. Otherwise, yeah. Also, I don't know I Hillary would have been all that bad. One thing about Bill Clinton, he was pretty moderate for a Democrat, and as I notes previously his presidency brought us our first and only balanced budget since what - WWII? Maybe ever. So she may have surprised. But no matter now.
The recent tax "reform" is just so bad on so many levels. Balloon the deficit to line the pockets of the rich. Oh but my paycheck went up, so yay! Sorry grandkids.
I think you and I are pretty close on several things...
On your "local and state taxes will go up"... I'm mixed on this one. Because I don't mind if the majority of our taxes goes to local and State. In my opinion, I'd actually be a strong supporter for that. Part of the reason I HATE the fed's is it's SO inefficient, in every way but specifically financially. Take homeless/HUD dollars. We give the federal government (via taxes) our money. They get a massive "pie" of money that they then disperse it BACK to local areas to help the underprivileged. Wut?! BUT they have to take a slice of that pie because they have to pay their peoples, their bureaucrats, etc. They are basically middle men. Why shouldn't those jobs be local? Most likely the states and locals wouldn't require the same tax dollars to function, at least not at first. They'd certainly be more responsive politicians (at the very least, compared to HUD or any other politician in DC) because they'd be local. State and local can be more agile and responsive because they have their own "boots on the ground" and SHOULD be smaller, thus more responsive.
The problem is... we've already given DC that power (money). So while our state and local taxes may go up, our fed taxes SHOULD go down. States SHOULD start building their own programs that can take care of their own, instead of expecting DC to do it for us. But THAT will never happen. Once you give DC power, you'll never get it back.
One of the strangest dichotomy's to the political landscape is how both parties are this way. Take the Dem's. They LOVE local. They support grass roots movements. etc.etc. But they want their political party to be as national as possible. So freakin' inefficient, so distant to local issues. And the Repub's talk about local business all day long and then do something like the tax plan that benefits the big companies more than the mom and pop's. Schizophrenic.
Now how to dig out of our deficient... while VERY related, a whole other spaghetti mess.
You mention the two party system... the problem with it is this. Both parties have tried to bring in moderates. The Repub's ate themselves up in the primaries. The Dem's haven't done that as much, but there are some. They just don't get the press. "Feel the Bern" starts fights and all the sudden Hillary is a moderate in comparison? The news gin's up the fights. The public buys into them.
Also, the primary turnouts are atrocious. You want more moderate? They are there in the primaries. But the U.S. like dynasties. The Clinton's, the Bush's, the Kennedy's being the modern ones. Can't look at moderates cuz they don't have name recognition. They also don't have the money, the backing, the experience of smiling, kissing the babies, etc.. But basically, we could get more moderate's in there... from both parties. WE choose to be divided, in the extreme by how we vote (or don't vote) in the primaries. That is the golden ticket.
I was at the MLK march in Spokane... BTW, one of my favorite, historical Republicans but I digress. The local Republican Congresswoman got up to talk. She isn't the best speaker in the world but the screaming of racism, of misogamy (the irony actually made me laugh out loud) and just outright vitriol and hatred was so bad, one of the other speakers had to get on the mic to tell people to be tolerant. It was pathetic. I was actually embarrassed to be there. THEN the march organizers recently have decided not to include the Republican Congresswoman's speech online because they didn't like what she said. Don't know if they followed through on that, or not. Haven't checked.
EDIT: Wait... I can't remember if it was the women's march or MLK that the organizers wouldn't put a speakers speech online because they didn't agree with the politics... anyways... Not sure which march that was but it was one or the other. But the intolerance of the Congresswoman was at MLK and it was... incredibly pathetic. This coming from those that champion "tolerance". Democrats have lost me (several, several years ago) Republicans have lost me. I don't fit into any silo. All of them, forked tongues and change with the winds.
Last edited:
man2's comments about the federal government's dispersal of funds for social programs reminded me of something that Barry Goldwater said years ago. He said that liberals wanted a large federal government because the people were too stupid to do the right thing. Conservatives wanted a strong federal government because they believed that the masses were too lazy to do the right thing. A degree of truth in that.
I wouldn't want all of the federal government's involvement to be eliminated in dispensing of social funds because some states are just too poor to assist the needy on their own. Mississippi, for example. Inefficient, yes, as it involves two layers of middlemen. Restrict the HUD to aiding the poorer states and eliminate their involvement where it is not needed.
As far as electing moderates under this two party system? Forget it. In order to get through the primaries a Democrat has to appeal to the left and a Republican to the right. Extreme platforms are winners. The middle is ignored by both parties until the general election.
Again, we need a forum for these political discussions. Obviously, and I like it, we are not all about athletics.
I wouldn't want all of the federal government's involvement to be eliminated in dispensing of social funds because some states are just too poor to assist the needy on their own. Mississippi, for example. Inefficient, yes, as it involves two layers of middlemen. Restrict the HUD to aiding the poorer states and eliminate their involvement where it is not needed.
As far as electing moderates under this two party system? Forget it. In order to get through the primaries a Democrat has to appeal to the left and a Republican to the right. Extreme platforms are winners. The middle is ignored by both parties until the general election.
Again, we need a forum for these political discussions. Obviously, and I like it, we are not all about athletics.
A lot of good points, but it should be said that expanding government hasn't been limited to Obama and the Dems - Bush Jr was guilty as well. Its those kind of exclusions (I don't think it was on purpose) that keep dialogue to a minimum, because someone who wants to argue points with you will say "See! He doesn't know all the facts and is just arguing partisan politics!!"
This board has stayed pretty civil over the past couple years, regarding off topic. I like it, as well. And you're spot on, regarding the extreme platforms winning out. That's my exact problem with so much Nationalism.
I understand what you're saying and know that Goldwater quote. I believed it for quite some time. The thing that draws me to being more about state and local is, as a state or local entity, we get responsive action (or inaction) and reflection of it's own community.
Someone mentioned that our president, our government, needs to have some sort of moral compass. While I agree with that to a certain degree, that smacks of the Republicans of old talking about gays, as an example. To them, it was "moral". And I thought they were so wrong, trying to legislate morality like that. It was their morality, not mine. I don't want that pendulum to swing back to some "moral" thing, but only from the Democrats. And this is starting to grow, it seems. I hear more and more about "morals" from the left. Right to choose, Social issues, even the Budget discussions devolved into Moral crap (throwing grandma over the cliff was a quote, as I recall and the deficit for our grandkids is "immoral') etc. etc. They seem to have hijacked that term much like those old crotchety Republicans back in the day. I don't want government trying to legislate morality. Who gets to choose the moral? Who gets to define it? Do we need some standard for civilization? You Bet! But don't we get to choose that? And I think each state should do so. Don't want to live in a left, liberal state? MOVE!!!!! Don't want to live in Right Wing, Conservativism?! MOVE!!!
And honestly, I don't know why the left doesn't like this concept more, right now. They hate Trump and hate all the things that he is rolling back. Well, what did you expect? He was given that power! When someone gets into office, he'll/she'll wield that much power over all of us. No thanks. And now, when the Democrats get someone in, guess what they'll do!? Again, no thanks. And it seems the Democrats want to give them (more specifically TRUMP) MORE power? With every election cycle it gets more extreme, as we've all outlined in this thread. We can all agree about the extremism that's going on. Then the moves that president/Congress/Senate make are that extreme. And we all suffer. Take that power out of their hands, IMHO. The pendulum is swinging harder and harder and that isn't healthy.
I've grown more and more enchanted with states rights being much higher than what they are now. Our nation is too polarized. We are going to pull ourselves apart with such extremism. State and local. We can all live in what we believe without imposing it on the rest of the nation.
Similar threads
