Draining the Swamp -

by Guest Fri 9 Dec 2016 - 18:50

This idea has merit.

A Liberal and a Libertarian Agree on a Really Good Idea

It’s not every day that I read Glenn Reynolds and Matthew Yglesias and find that they’ve independently come to the same good idea — get large parts of the government out of Washington.

Here’s Reynolds:
So here’s my plan: During the next four years, the Trump Administration — and Congress — should plan to move at least 25% of the federal workforce located in the Washington, D.C. metro area to other locations around the country: Places that are economically suffering (which will have the advantage of making federal workers’ salaries go farther) and that need the business. Should Trump get another four years, he should do it all over again. That would mean that in 8 years, the population of bureaucrats in the Washington, D.C. metro area would be roughly halved. That would make Washington less vibrant, but more affordable — and those bureaucrats working out of offices in the hinterland would be brought closer to the American people. Drain the swamp? Well, it’s a start.

And here’s Yglesias:
America’s major coastal cities are overcrowded. They suffer from endemic housing scarcity, massive traffic congestion, and a profound small-c political conservatism that prevents them from making the kind of regulatory changes that would allow them to build the new housing and infrastructure they need. Excess population that can’t be absorbed by the coasts tends to bounce to the growth-friendly cities of the Sunbelt that need to build anew what Milwaukee, Detroit, and Cleveland already have in terms of infrastructure and amenities. A sensible approach would be for the federal government to take the lead in rebalancing America’s allocation of population and resources by taking a good hard look at whether so much federal activity needs to be concentrated in Washington, DC, and its suburbs. Moving agencies out of the DC area to the Midwest would obviously cause some short-term disruptions. But in the long run, relocated agencies’ employees would enjoy cheaper houses, shorter commutes, and a higher standard of living, while Midwestern communities would see their population and tax base stabilized and gain new opportunities for complementary industries to grow.

Glenn’s plan is extraordinarily ambitious. A fifty percent population drop would be mean a massive worker displacement, and a relocation of that scale is most assuredly outside the capabilities of our bloated bureaucracy. But the basic idea — relocating agencies to struggling heartland cities — is sound. Memphis, for example, could use 20,000 new white-collar jobs. And civil servants would benefit from the lower cost of living and — more importantly — the experience of life outside the DC bubble.

by **Cameron** Fri 9 Dec 2016 - 18:53

I like the idea in principle, but I would worry about the ramifications for the city of DC of reducing the population that much in that short of a time frame.

by Guest Fri 9 Dec 2016 - 18:58

Cameron wrote:I like the idea in principle, but I would worry about the ramifications for the city of DC of reducing the population that much in that short of a time frame.

Agree.

Think of all the old hi rises that need tenants in Cleveland, Detroit, Milwaukee, etc. This would soak up a lot of office space.
How much would Saginaw, Flint, Muskegon be helped by 5-10,000 federal jobs each? Christ it would be future changing.

And with the web, etc they don't need to be in DC.

by **xsanguine** Fri 9 Dec 2016 - 19:01

That's fine, just please don't bring them here.

by **I.B. Fine** Fri 9 Dec 2016 - 19:46

I saw one of these articles earlier. Too good of an idea to every happen.

by **DWags** Fri 9 Dec 2016 - 20:28

Why not? You don't need to physically be anywhere most of the time anymore.

by **Blanch32** Fri 9 Dec 2016 - 23:03

makes way too much sense to ever happen.
.....at least under a republican prez

by **I.B. Fine** Sat 10 Dec 2016 - 15:32

DWags wrote:Why not? You don't need to physically be anywhere most of the time anymore.

We are talking about uprooting and moving the 4th branch of government-mostly union workers that would be up in arms, not to mention the local communities they live in.
They'd have to build a bunch of Walmarts in the DC area to replace all those jobs.
I think we could reduce the need for a lot of these jobs in DC by giving responsibility back to the states for what the federal government has taken over. Education, H&HS, probably Commerce, just off the top of my head.

by **Watch Out Pylon!** Thu 19 Jan 2017 - 18:38

Meet the new swamp, same as the old swamp.

http://www.bbc.com/news/business-38679826

by Guest Thu 19 Jan 2017 - 22:05

Watch Out Pylon! wrote:Meet the new swamp, same as the old swamp.

http://www.bbc.com/news/business-38679826

What's the problem? That he foreclosed on loans?

If that's it, is your position is that people ought to be able to buy homes and never make payments?

by **Turtleneck** Thu 19 Jan 2017 - 22:32

Watch Out Pylon! wrote:Meet the new swamp, same as the old swamp.

http://www.bbc.com/news/business-38679826

Mnuchin is the very kind of person Donald Trump, Jr. was railing against in his convention speech. He said his dad prided himself on not listening to those guys from "Harvard and Wharton locked away in offices away from the real work." Those were the kind of people his dad was going to lock out of government. Well, Mnuchin is from Yale so maybe he does not count.

by **Watch Out Pylon!** Fri 20 Jan 2017 - 10:03

Turtleneck wrote:
Watch Out Pylon! wrote:Meet the new swamp, same as the old swamp.

http://www.bbc.com/news/business-38679826

Mnuchin is the very kind of person Donald Trump, Jr. was railing against in his convention speech. He said his dad prided himself on not listening to those guys from "Harvard and Wharton locked away in offices away from the real work." Those were the kind of people his dad was going to lock out of government. Well, Mnuchin is from Yale so maybe he does not count.

This term's MAGA is last term's "Hope". Nothing ever changes... except for Team Orange's suddenly being ok with Putin.

by Guest Fri 20 Jan 2017 - 13:14

by **Cameron** Fri 20 Jan 2017 - 19:57

LooseGoose wrote:

Great. What does that have to do with this thread?

by Guest Fri 20 Jan 2017 - 20:14

Delete it then.

Or I guess I could send you all my posts 1st so you can post them where you deem they belong.

by **DWags** Fri 20 Jan 2017 - 20:19

LooseGoose wrote:Delete it then.

Or I guess I could send you all my posts 1st so you can post them where you deem they belong.

I think you and Bob should be able to post your narrow minded tunnel vision anywhere. It's the ying to the yang

by **Turtleneck** Fri 20 Jan 2017 - 20:31

DWags wrote:
LooseGoose wrote:Delete it then.

Or I guess I could send you all my posts 1st so you can post them where you deem they belong.

I think you and Bob should be able to post your narrow minded tunnel vision anywhere. It's the ying to the yang

They are both Greenway schticks.

by Guest Fri 20 Jan 2017 - 20:33

DWags wrote:
LooseGoose wrote:Delete it then.

Or I guess I could send you all my posts 1st so you can post them where you deem they belong.

I think you and Bob should be able to post your narrow minded tunnel vision anywhere. It's the ying to the yang

LOL.....OK.....as I watch all the other broad minded people here. Are you so blind to that?

Name me one person here that is anywhere near the "middle"??? Christ Wags you, GRR, Travis, Nigel, TN, OTPT all regularly trash all R's and Trump yet somehow I'm the narrowminded one? Completely laughable.

by **DWags** Fri 20 Jan 2017 - 20:34

Turtleneck wrote:
DWags wrote:

I think you and Bob should be able to post your narrow minded tunnel vision anywhere. It's the ying to the yang

They are both Greenway schticks.

I didn't realize that. I've been cat fished.

by **Watch Out Pylon!** Fri 20 Jan 2017 - 20:39

LooseGoose wrote:
DWags wrote:

I think you and Bob should be able to post your narrow minded tunnel vision anywhere. It's the ying to the yang

LOL.....OK.....as I watch all the other broad minded people here. Are you so blind to that?

Name me one person here that is anywhere near the "middle"??? Christ Wags you, GRR, Travis, Nigel, TN, OTPT all regularly trash all R's and Trump yet somehow I'm the narrowminded one? Completely laughable.

All of those guys might lean left, but they are open to debate. You and Bob will never ever ever see things any way but within your quite narrow viewpoint.

by **DWags** Fri 20 Jan 2017 - 20:42

LooseGoose wrote:
DWags wrote:

I think you and Bob should be able to post your narrow minded tunnel vision anywhere. It's the ying to the yang

LOL.....OK.....as I watch all the other broad minded people here. Are you so blind to that?

Name me one person here that is anywhere near the "middle"??? Christ Wags you, GRR, Travis, Nigel, TN, OTPT all regularly trash all R's and Trump yet somehow I'm the narrowminded one? Completely laughable.

Man you're full of the blind.

Hmmm

Clinton is a criminal
Congressmen who boycotted are assholes
Didn't like Reagan and was fearful, but thought he did a great job.

It if a person doesn't walk lick step with you or Bob you guys can't hear them. You only read the shit you disagreee with.

It's why I think you're both full of shit Goose. I bet neither of you do shit for the causes you espouse.

JMO

by **NigelUno** Fri 20 Jan 2017 - 20:43

LooseGoose wrote:
DWags wrote:

I think you and Bob should be able to post your narrow minded tunnel vision anywhere. It's the ying to the yang

LOL.....OK.....as I watch all the other broad minded people here. Are you so blind to that?

Name me one person here that is anywhere near the "middle"??? Christ Wags you, GRR, Travis, Nigel, TN, OTPT all regularly trash all R's and Trump yet somehow I'm the narrowminded one? Completely laughable.

I regularly trash all Republicans?

Huh. That seems like a narrative that you're trying to push.

by **Turtleneck** Fri 20 Jan 2017 - 20:51

LooseGoose wrote:
DWags wrote:

I think you and Bob should be able to post your narrow minded tunnel vision anywhere. It's the ying to the yang

LOL.....OK.....as I watch all the other broad minded people here. Are you so blind to that?

Name me one person here that is anywhere near the "middle"??? Christ Wags you, GRR, Travis, Nigel, TN, OTPT all regularly trash all R's and Trump yet somehow I'm the narrowminded one? Completely laughable.

1) I regularly trash Trump. I do not regularly trash all Rs.

2) I just bumped my "Campus Echo Chambers" thread, which is critical of liberal voices on college campuses. One of my more recent threads is about the massive surveillance infrastructure built by the Obama administration. Overall, I am here for good conversation. That means rational and logical arguments backed by sound evidence. I am not looking to turn this forum into an academic conference, but we are educated so those are pretty basic expectations. I am sorry you think sound evidence comes from the pages of Infowars and Newsbusters, and reject anything that even remotely challenges your worldview.

3) You repeatedly trashed Trump on this board right up until he won the nomination. Then you decided to kiss the ring. How many fights did you get into with SD231129 about Trump? Then he won the nomination, and you started attacking everybody for stating what you had been stating for months. It's almost like you are getting paid to defend him.

by **DWags** Fri 20 Jan 2017 - 21:02

Turtleneck wrote:
LooseGoose wrote:

LOL.....OK.....as I watch all the other broad minded people here. Are you so blind to that?

Name me one person here that is anywhere near the "middle"??? Christ Wags you, GRR, Travis, Nigel, TN, OTPT all regularly trash all R's and Trump yet somehow I'm the narrowminded one? Completely laughable.

1) I regularly trash Trump. I do not regularly trash all Rs.

2) I just bumped my "Campus Echo Chambers" thread, which is critical of liberal voices on college campuses. One of my more recent threads is about the massive surveillance infrastructure built by the Obama administration. Overall, I am here for good conversation. That means rational and logical arguments backed by sound evidence. I am not looking to turn this forum into an academic conference, but we are educated so those are pretty basic expectations. I am sorry you think sound evidence comes from the pages of Infowars and Newsbusters, and reject anything that even remotely challenges your worldview.

3) You repeatedly trashed Trump on this board right up until he won the nomination. Then you decided to kiss the ring. How many fights did you get into with SD231129 about Trump? Then he won the nomination, and you started attacking everybody for stating what you had been stating for months. It's almost like you are getting paid to defend him.

You aren't against right to choose. You aren't in favor of kids being able to carry guns in school to kill grizzlies. You actually believe that maybe man might have an affect on climate. He can't hear you.
Him and Bob imo are zealots. You're talking to two walls.

by **Turtleneck** Fri 20 Jan 2017 - 21:18

DWags wrote:

You aren't against right to choose.

True. I am mostly pro-choice. However, I did not arrive at this decision lightly. It took serious thought and consideration of the consequences. For the most part, I avoid this debate for reasons I will mention below.

DWags wrote:You aren't in favor of kids being able to carry guns in school to kill grizzlies.

Relative to a lot of my peers, I am more gun rights oriented. I am not sure I think kids in K-12 need to be carrying guns so that might push me out of gun rights and into gun control. I do not know. I also avoid these debates. Like the abortion debate, I have very little to add.

DWags wrote:You actually believe that maybe man might have an affect on climate. He can't hear you.

I also avoid this debate. I am not a climatologist, meteorologist, hydrologist, biologist, oceanographer, you get the idea. This is an incredibly scientific debate. From what I have read, yes, I do believe that man might have an impact on the climate. Yet I do not want my ideological values to interpret what should be objective science. So I am cautious in my position on this issue. It is an issue, more so than the ones you mention above, that requires me to hear from all sides.[/quote]

by **DWags** Fri 20 Jan 2017 - 21:36

Turtleneck wrote:
DWags wrote:

You aren't against right to choose.

True. I am mostly pro-choice. However, I did not arrive at this decision lightly. It took serious thought and consideration of the consequences. For the most part, I avoid this debate for reasons I will mention below.

DWags wrote:You aren't in favor of kids being able to carry guns in school to kill grizzlies.

Relative to a lot of my peers, I am more gun rights oriented. I am not sure I think kids in K-12 need to be carrying guns so that might push me out of gun rights and into gun control. I do not know. I also avoid these debates. Like the abortion debate, I have very little to add.

DWags wrote:You actually believe that maybe man might have an affect on climate. He can't hear you.

I also avoid this debate. I am not a climatologist, meteorologist, hydrologist, biologist, oceanographer, you get the idea. This is an incredibly scientific debate. From what I have read, yes, I do believe that man might have an impact on the climate. Yet I do not want my ideological values to interpret what should be objective science. So I am cautious in my position on this issue. It is an issue, more so than the ones you mention above, that requires me to hear from all sides.

[/quote]

You say that till one day there's a griz that finds his way into a fourth grade recess in your town.

by **Turtleneck** Fri 20 Jan 2017 - 21:44

DWags wrote:
Turtleneck wrote:

True. I am mostly pro-choice. However, I did not arrive at this decision lightly. It took serious thought and consideration of the consequences. For the most part, I avoid this debate for reasons I will mention below.

Relative to a lot of my peers, I am more gun rights oriented. I am not sure I think kids in K-12 need to be carrying guns so that might push me out of gun rights and into gun control. I do not know. I also avoid these debates. Like the abortion debate, I have very little to add.

I also avoid this debate. I am not a climatologist, meteorologist, hydrologist, biologist, oceanographer, you get the idea. This is an incredibly scientific debate. From what I have read, yes, I do believe that man might have an impact on the climate. Yet I do not want my ideological values to interpret what should be objective science. So I am cautious in my position on this issue. It is an issue, more so than the ones you mention above, that requires me to hear from all sides.

DWags wrote:You say that till one day there's a griz that finds his way into a fourth grade recess in your town.

This is why I always carry a jar of honey when I'm around other people. If a bear shows up I can dump the honey on another person and run. You probably should not invite me to your tailgate. Especially if it's at an away game at Wyoming.

by **Cameron** Fri 20 Jan 2017 - 21:56

LooseGoose wrote:Delete it then.

Or I guess I could send you all my posts 1st so you can post them where you deem they belong.

Yes, that would be good, let's do that.

Sorry, didn't mean to come across like a dick, that image is interesting. It just doesn't have anything to do with draining the swamp. It's closer to an inauguration fact, really.

by **DWags** Fri 20 Jan 2017 - 21:57

Two guys are walking through the woods. They see a grizzly bear. One guy bends down and starts tying his shoes. The other says "what are you doing, you can't out run a grizzly". The first guy says, " all I need to do is out run you "

by **Cameron** Fri 20 Jan 2017 - 22:00

LooseGoose wrote:
DWags wrote:

I think you and Bob should be able to post your narrow minded tunnel vision anywhere. It's the ying to the yang

LOL.....OK.....as I watch all the other broad minded people here. Are you so blind to that?

Name me one person here that is anywhere near the "middle"??? Christ Wags you, GRR, Travis, Nigel, TN, OTPT all regularly trash all R's and Trump yet somehow I'm the narrowminded one? Completely laughable.

It's possible to be open minded without being near the middle. But I hope that you can admit (without any specificity) that some posters with whom you disagree are still worth conversing with because they actually respond to substance with substance. And likewise, I'd hope that you'd agree that some posters with whom you agree are an absolute waste of time to converse with because they respond to substance with nonsense and talking points.

by Guest Fri 20 Jan 2017 - 22:00

Watch Out Pylon! wrote:
LooseGoose wrote:

LOL.....OK.....as I watch all the other broad minded people here. Are you so blind to that?

Name me one person here that is anywhere near the "middle"??? Christ Wags you, GRR, Travis, Nigel, TN, OTPT all regularly trash all R's and Trump yet somehow I'm the narrowminded one? Completely laughable.

All of those guys might lean left, but they are open to debate. You and Bob will never ever ever see things any way but within your quite narrow viewpoint.

Point out for me where they've been "open to debate" - where they've altered their positions one bit based on discussion? I'll wait.

by **Floyd Robertson** Fri 20 Jan 2017 - 22:00

Back to the idea of draining the swamp, does anyone even think that's possible without term limits for elected officials all the way down to undersecretaries and a 10-year ban on lobbying except for non-profits?

by **Cameron** Fri 20 Jan 2017 - 22:03

LooseGoose wrote:
Watch Out Pylon! wrote:

All of those guys might lean left, but they are open to debate. You and Bob will never ever ever see things any way but within your quite narrow viewpoint.

Point out for me where they've been "open to debate" - where they've altered their positions one bit based on discussion? I'll wait.

Do you consider yourself open minded, Goose? How many of your own opinions have you changed as a result of message board discussions?

by **Cameron** Fri 20 Jan 2017 - 22:04

Floyd Robertson wrote:Back to the idea of draining the swamp, does anyone even think that's possible without term limits for elected officials all the way down to undersecretaries and a 10-year ban on lobbying except for non-profits?

I'm not sure what to think about term limits. The logic in support of them is obvious, prevent the existence of an entrenched political class. But the logic against them also seems compelling, namely that newly elected officials with no experience are perhaps more susceptible to lobbyists and other outside influences.

by Guest Fri 20 Jan 2017 - 22:09

I'm counted as a "zealot" when a good number of my positions would be absolutely against R party line.

I'm pro legalization of most drugs.
I'm 100% anti civil forfeiture.
I think both Iraq wars, Afghanistan, Libya etc were all mistakes and should have never been into them.
I support "basic income" which is too socialist for even Switzerland and Scandinavia.
I 100% oppose "Homeland Security" - I think it's a huge overreach of federal powers. Congress signed away our 4th amendment rights.
I support free basic health, dental and vision care for all.

I'm sure I could think of more if I took the time but for any of you to state that I "march in lockstep" with R's or "belong to only that tribe" just shows me one of two things - you don't know the tribe or you don't read what I post.

by **Floyd Robertson** Fri 20 Jan 2017 - 22:11

Cameron wrote:
Floyd Robertson wrote:Back to the idea of draining the swamp, does anyone even think that's possible without term limits for elected officials all the way down to undersecretaries and a 10-year ban on lobbying except for non-profits?

I'm not sure what to think about term limits. The logic in support of them is obvious, prevent the existence of an entrenched political class. But the logic against them also seems compelling, namely that newly elected officials with no experience are perhaps more susceptible to lobbyists and other outside influences.

Term limits don't necessarily have to be short. Suppose it's three terms for for the house and two for the senate? At least you avoid having the Pelosis and McConnells around for decades. I would think those term lenghts long enough to be effective and yet still have some stability.

by Guest Fri 20 Jan 2017 - 22:13

Cameron wrote:
LooseGoose wrote:

Point out for me where they've been "open to debate" - where they've altered their positions one bit based on discussion? I'll wait.

Do you consider yourself open minded, Goose? How many of your own opinions have you changed as a result of message board discussions?

It wasn't on this board but until a couple years ago I'd never heard of "basic income" - we had a pretty long thread on it, I'd say 30-40 pages and I became convinced that was a much better way of handling welfare than we have now. Replacing, food stamps, housing vouchers, etc, etc with it makes a world of sense.

This board has been generally incapable of a long discussion for many reasons and I won't claim innocence in that.

by Guest Fri 20 Jan 2017 - 22:14

Cameron wrote:
LooseGoose wrote:

Point out for me where they've been "open to debate" - where they've altered their positions one bit based on discussion? I'll wait.

Do you consider yourself open minded, Goose? How many of your own opinions have you changed as a result of message board discussions?

And again, the question is pointed only at me. Going to bother to ask anyone else?

by **Cameron** Fri 20 Jan 2017 - 22:23

LooseGoose wrote:
Cameron wrote:

Do you consider yourself open minded, Goose? How many of your own opinions have you changed as a result of message board discussions?

And again, the question is pointed only at me. Going to bother to ask anyone else?

Sure. Turtleneck, any opinions of yours changed thanks to message boards?

For my part, I can't think of an opinion that I've changed because of a message board discussion. Some of my opinions certainly have become more informed/sophisticated due to message board discussions, though. There are probably some issues about which I previously had no opinion/position, but formed one in part thanks to message board discussions (though no examples spring to mind).

by **Cameron** Fri 20 Jan 2017 - 22:25

Cameron wrote:There are probably some issues about which I previously had no opinion/position, but formed one in part thanks to message board discussions (though no examples spring to mind).

Actually, come to think of it, my opinion of term limits has evolved thanks to message boards. In the past, I would have tepidly supported them under the guise of disliking career politicians as a general principle. But seeing someone make the point about the potential ease of influencing newcomers has muddled my opinion and resulted in me being closer to undecided than in favor of either side of the issue.

by Sponsored content