OT Greater Idaho

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Users who are viewing this thread

That's not likely to ever change either, because the incentives are built in not to do that. The way the founders established the political system has led to a growing and inevitable divide between certain constituencies and builds in too many "safe" political posts (House seats in bright red or blue districts, for example). The incentives all point towards exciting your base as much as possible, driving up the voter engagement of "your team" and simply making gestures at bipartisanship to appear broadly acceptable. Ronald Reagan and Barack Obama played that game the best, IMO.
Part of the problem imo, is Federal Government is way to large and self serving without enough checks and balancers/accountability. Nowadays with media so engrained/embossed into every soul its easy to rally accusations to opposing parties, thus breeding polarizations more quickly. Take no prisoners, no compromise, no more effective mediation, conciliation and arbitration as there is no acceptance of being wrong or asked to give and take some for a common good.
The doctrine of, your either with us, or against us, has ruined the ability for people of differing views to come together, thats why you are now see a resurgence of segregation in many ways and I think we all know where that can lead.
Teach your children well...
 
Part of the problem imo, is Federal Government is way to large and self serving without enough checks and balancers/accountability.

How so? What are examples of it being too large and self-serving and not having enough accountability?
 
It's also true that the US and China need each other. So we have to get along to some extent. Doesn't mean we don't try to screw each other over at every opportunity.

We have different interests, and that's ok. If the tension gets too great, we can always have a war to settle things down.

barfo

Well, that’s a point of view I guess. Not sure what it has to do with my post, but thanks for sharing.

Just to be clear, I am not in favor of the ”Greater Idaho” proposal. I do understand where the impetus comes from, however. Ignoring people’s frustrations generally leads to problems, whether it’s city people or country people.
 
That's not likely to ever change either, because the incentives are built in not to do that. The way the founders established the political system has led to a growing and inevitable divide between certain constituencies and builds in too many "safe" political posts (House seats in bright red or blue districts, for example). The incentives all point towards exciting your base as much as possible, driving up the voter engagement of "your team" and simply making gestures at bipartisanship to appear broadly acceptable. Ronald Reagan and Barack Obama played that game the best, IMO.

I don’t think that’s entirely true. Hilary ignored the Midwest and it cost her the election. Biden retooled the platform and spent more time there selling his vision for America and now he’s president. It’s not that hard to let people know you give a shit.
 
The notion that the urban areas "pay" for the rural areas is a bit of a myth and misleading.

There was a huge debate about this a few years ago on this very message, and there were a few interesting graphics links that basically debunks this, at least on a per-capita basis.
 
I don’t think that’s entirely true. Hilary ignored the Midwest and it cost her the election.

Hillary was also historically disliked, along with Trump. I really don't think one can draw much of a lesson from her run or that election. I also don't think we can glean much from the 2020 election, since Trump was involved. I think it's a lot more complicated than "ignored the Midwest and lost."

But regardless of that, Presidential elections aren't really the point. Aside from reconciliation, you need 60 senators to pass anything--it's unlikely any party will get that many senators, absent something cataclysmic. You have a ton of "safe seats" in both the House and the Senate--people running for those seats only face competition from their own party, which incentivizes being as extreme as possible. There's no real bipartisanship possible when a large segment of both houses of Congress are pushed in the direction of ideological extremes. And even if could pick off one or two senators of the other party for your bill, that's useless since you need 60 votes--so there's not even an incentive to try and appeal to a few senators.

Not to mention, any bill that passes is seen as a win for the sitting President, which the minority party now refuses to allow to happen. McConnell pioneered this, but Democrats have followed along too.

I see virtually no avenue towards more bipartisanship and only avenues towards more polarization.
 
The notion that the urban areas "pay" for the rural areas is a bit of a myth and misleading.

There was a huge debate about this a few years ago on this very message, and there were a few interesting graphics links that basically debunks this, at least on a per-capita basis.

Feel free to show these debunks. Because I've seen a lot of numbers that show that highly urban areas pay much more in taxes than they get back in terms of services and infrastructure and rural areas get back much more than they pay in.
 
Hillary was also historically disliked, along with Trump. I really don't think one can draw much of a lesson from her run or that election. I also don't think we can glean much from the 2020 election, since Trump was involved. I think it's a lot more complicated than "ignored the Midwest and lost."

But regardless of that, Presidential elections aren't really the point. Aside from reconciliation, you need 60 senators to pass anything--it's unlikely any party will get that many senators, absent something cataclysmic. You have a ton of "safe seats" in both the House and the Senate--people running for those seats only face competition from their own party, which incentivizes being as extreme as possible. There's no real bipartisanship possible when a large segment of both houses of Congress are pushed in the direction of ideological extremes. And even if could pick off one or two senators of the other party for your bill, that's useless since you need 60 votes--so there's not even an incentive to try and appeal to a few senators.

Not to mention, any bill that passes is seen as a win for the sitting President, which the minority party now refuses to allow to happen. McConnell pioneered this, but Democrats have followed along too.

I see virtually no avenue towards more bipartisanship and only avenues towards more polarization.

Well, that's just really depressing.
 
Man, it gets thick around here at times. Urban and rural areas need each other. The idea that urban areas are doing some great service to rural areas out of some sense of altruism is condescending bullshit. Most of the money spent is for roads that get used primarily by urban dwellers heading out to enjoy the great outdoors. I have a mental image of the chaos at the local Freddy's grocery section as people break out their knives and guns scrambling for the last can of beans on the vacant shelves. The electrical power that we're so addicted to gets generated in rural areas. The fuel to run our cars and resources to build everything we manufacture are extracted from rural areas.
And the urban areas would still be paying for that stuff. Just like we do now.
 
That and she's a woman

Nah. That's a copout answer. She won the popular vote, but failed to campaign based on the importance of electoral votes. Her campaign seemed to take the Midwest for granted, which left it ripe for Trump to campaign hard there with his own peculiar brand of BS. It also didn't help that Hillary had the personal warmth and charisma of refrigerated Spam.
 
How so? What are examples of it being too large and self-serving and not having enough accountability?
How so? What are examples of it being too large and self-serving and not having enough accountability?
As a leaning moderate/libertarian and as a RETIRED middle manager from a 100 plus year, fortune 500 company Ive experience many management approaches over the years and believe that centralized Government and Corporations are all about control and cost reduction at the expense of more region expertise and services. Thus I am more for a de-centralized efficient approach that allows for quicker response in addressing cost and competitiveness with people being the recipients of improve service form regional benefits and differences. I favor more State and local Government. The following are few points that I endorse to a degree but Ive always been about balance and efficiency and accountability. These are not written by me but from an article I read several years ago.:

American businesses have become leaner in recent decades, with flatter managements. By contrast, the number of layers of federal management has greatly increased. Overlaying stifles information flow and makes it harder to hold people accountable.

The federal government is not just large in size, it is sprawling in scope. In addition to handling core functions such as national defense, the government, as noted, runs more than 2,300 subsidy and benefit programs. It has spread its tentacles into many state, local and private activities, such as education, energy, welfare, housing and urban transit.

The government is doing too much and doing little well. It is like a conglomerate corporation involved in so many activities that executives are distracted from their core business. Markets force bloated corporations to refocus and shed their low-value activities, but no mechanism forces the federal government to do so.

The more programs the government has, the more likely they will work at cross purposes. Some federal programs keep food prices high, while others subsidize food for people with low incomes. Some programs encourage people to live in risky flood areas, while others try to reduce flood risks. The government promotes breastfeeding, but it also subsidizes baby formula. Many programs subsidize healthcare and infrastructure, but regulations raise the costs of those activities.

The solution is to stop centralizing power in Washington, and to begin shifting activities back to the states. State and local governments suffer failures, but their failures are not thrust onto the whole nation. When policies fail in some states, other states can learn the lessons and pursue different strategies. States compete with each other for people and investment, which creates continuous pressure to reform.

large majorities of people prefer state over federal control of education, housing, transportation, welfare, health insurance and other activities. People think that state and local governments provide more competent service than the federal government. And when asked which level of government gives them the best value for their taxes, two-thirds of people say state and local governments and just one-third say the federal government.

In sum, political and bureaucratic incentives and the huge size of the federal government cause endemic failure. The causes of failure are structural, and they will not be solved by appointing more competent officials or putting a different party in charge. Americans are deeply unhappy with the way that Washington works, and everyone agrees that we need better governance. The only way to achieve it is to greatly cut the federal government's size and scope.

If congress over the years wasn't so tied up in appeasing lobbyist for votes and other spiffs then possibly they could focus more on the job at hand with respect to managing, but they really dont.

Just some thoughts.

Thanks for asking...
 
The notion that the urban areas "pay" for the rural areas is a bit of a myth and misleading.

There was a huge debate about this a few years ago on this very message, and there were a few interesting graphics links that basically debunks this, at least on a per-capita basis.

I remember some discussions, but I certainly don't remember them the way you do. Link?

barfo
 
Man, it gets thick around here at times. Urban and rural areas need each other. The idea that urban areas are doing some great service to rural areas out of some sense of altruism is condescending bullshit. Most of the money spent is for roads that get used primarily by urban dwellers heading out to enjoy the great outdoors. I have a mental image of the chaos at the local Freddy's grocery section as people break out their knives and guns scrambling for the last can of beans on the vacant shelves. The electrical power that we're so addicted to gets generated in rural areas. The fuel to run our cars and resources to build everything we manufacture are extracted from rural areas.
My buddy is in real-estate and he's wowed by how many are wanting and looking for property in the rural and suburban areas as compared to inter city portland. I guess the urge to spread wings more from the covid 19 experience is one reason and cost are other reasons.
 
Last edited:
My buddy is in real-estate and he's wowed by how many are wanting and looking for property in the rule and suburban areas as compared to inter city portland. I guess the urge to spread wings more from the covid 19 experience is one reason and cost are other reasons.

Yeah, that may be one way to achieve the kumbaya that some are looking for - if enough urban dwellers move out, maybe they can begin to turn red areas purple.

barfo
 
My buddy is in real-estate and he's wowed by how many are wanting and looking for property in the rule and suburban areas as compared to inter city portland. I guess the urge to spread wings more from the covid 19 experience is one reason and cost are other reasons.

No, the reason is, it saves a lot of money. Even here in Bellingham, the same dumpy house costs triple what it did 12-15 years ago.
 
My buddy is in real-estate and he's wowed by how many are wanting and looking for property in the rural and suburban areas as compared to inter city portland. I guess the urge to spread wings more from the covid 19 experience is one reason and cost are other reasons.

I’d say cost primarily
 
Man, it gets thick around here at times. Urban and rural areas need each other. The idea that urban areas are doing some great service to rural areas out of some sense of altruism is condescending bullshit. Most of the money spent is for roads that get used primarily by urban dwellers heading out to enjoy the great outdoors. I have a mental image of the chaos at the local Freddy's grocery section as people break out their knives and guns scrambling for the last can of beans on the vacant shelves. The electrical power that we're so addicted to gets generated in rural areas. The fuel to run our cars and resources to build everything we manufacture are extracted from rural areas.
Roads, schools, police, government services such as the Covid-19 shots, forest fire fighters, etc.
 
My buddy is in real-estate and he's wowed by how many are wanting and looking for property in the rural and suburban areas as compared to inter city portland. I guess the urge to spread wings more from the covid 19 experience is one reason and cost are other reasons.
People use to love the city and the woods were for the poor. All that changed probably 40 or more years ago.
We use to live right on the border with Tryon Creek wilderness now Tryon Creek state park.Our property back then was where the poor people lived. Now everyone wants to live either on the lake or on the border with Tryon Creek state park with property going for in ecess of one Million dollars. Of course, Lake Oswego is a suburb or Portland that is not far away.
 
People want to be considered period. "We're the Majority" so we know whats best for you is BS.
Excellent point. but what is complicating the issue is that we have been under minority rule for a very large chunk of the past 40 years. The majority makes a lot of noise but it’s been the minority who have been making most of the rules. And I personally have yet to see pretty much anyone in government who knows what’s best for me......
 
Interestingly, in 1975 there was a book called Ecotopia, where NoCal, Oregon, and Washington break from the U.S. and form their own country.

Let's see Greater Idaho declare war on us! We will rain tofu down on them like there's no tomorrow.
 
My buddy is in real-estate and he's wowed by how many are wanting and looking for property in the rural and suburban areas as compared to inter city portland. I guess the urge to spread wings more from the covid 19 experience is one reason and cost are other reasons.

I have several friends that have moved out of Portland and into wine country and other rural areas over the past several months. Most of them moved not because of the cost, but because the COVID experience has changed their office/workplace dynamics. People are feeling more free to live where they play, rather than where they work. Same reason we bought a second home (and for investment purposes).

I don’t know what’s happening in the rest of the state outside of Portland metro and wine country, but house prices (obviously) are crazy. Even here in wino country, our real estate agent says we could sell our house for double what we paid for it only five years ago. There’s a 1200 sq foot house that was listed for $340K went pending in 2 days and sold for $80K over asking price.
 
Last edited:
I have several friends that have moved out of Portland and into wine country and other rural areas over the past several months. Most of them moved not because of the cost, but because the COVID experience has changed their office/workplace dynamics. People are feeling more free to live where they play, rather than where they work. Same reason we bought a second home (and for investment purposes).

I don’t know what’s happening in the rest of the state outside of Portland metro and wine country, but house prices (obviously) are crazy. Even here in wino country, our real estate agent says we could sell our house for double what we paid for it only five years ago. There’s a 1200 sq foot house that was listed for $340K went pending in 2 days and sold for $80K.
Yeah, housing cost is really expensive everywhere in this State. My friend mentioned just what you shared too in that people people wanted to have more space because of covid and play close to home, along with working form home.
I see an article somewhere that said Portland/Oregon was one of the highest housing cost as a percent of income.
 
There’s a 1200 sq foot house that was listed for $340K went pending in 2 days and sold for $80K.

Sounds like they should have held out for a better offer. $80k aint much :)

barfo
 
lol.

the addition of “over asking” changes everything.

Indeed, so it does. I was actually assuming you'd left out the first digit, and the house had sold for $380k or $480k.

barfo
 
I bet property taxes in Oregon Rocket way up this year! Look at some of the increase valuations in all areas and its nuts.
 
Back
Top