Remember: if you don't like HFCS, the reason we have it in a lot of foods these days is because government-subsidized price supports make sugar too expensive for large-volume food producers to use. There is no inherent reason why sugur should be more expensive to use than corn syrup.

"Unfortunately, I'm starting to think this country will have to go into a total fiscal collapse before the "Duh!" light pops on in people's heads and they start refusing to elect the addicts."

Sigh... My observation is that once a large, self-identified group of people get used to being subsidized, it is impossible to ever change their minds. See: South America in the 1970s. A generation there grew up being comfortably subsidized, and even thought it all collapsed in the early '80s, reform was impossible until that generation started to die off. Even now the transformation has been incomplete and uneven, witness Venezuela. My fear in the U.S. is that the entitlement classes may have achieved an absolute majority. If that's the case, the rest of us will have two choiced: ride it out, or leave.

This is the same crowd that spend like drunken sailors during the Bush years, and lost their majorities as a reward. Why don't they learn from the error of their past?

Which errors would that be? yes, we the people turned them out and put in Democrat majorities in both houses.

How'd that work out for fiscal restraint?

What was that lesson, again? it's ok to spend like drunken sailors if you spend it on the right things? we're almost to the tipping point of the voters learning that they can vote themselves other people's money. Once that happens, it's over.

Peter Venetoklis - This is the same crowd that spend like drunken sailors during the Bush years, and lost their majorities as a reward. Why don't they learn from the error of their past?

I just had this convo with someone on face book

. . . the 107th congress-first 2 yrs under Bush, had a democratic controlled senate 50 dems, 49 reps, 1 independent who left the republican party sided with dems, and the house only had 12 more republicans than democrats. Figure in the independents and the republicans only had a nine man lead in the house.

This is the congress the green lit Iraq, it never would have happened without democratic support

The 108th congress, Bush yrs 3&4, elected after the Iraq invasion, the senate shifted one whole seat from the dems to the reps 49 dems 50 reps, and the house shifted seven. Meaning the house had 20 more republicans than democrats. In a crowd of 435 that is only a difference of 4.5%. Again hardly enough for majority large enough to do anything with out bilateral support.

The 109th congress, Bush years 5&6, saw a marginally larger shift 45/55 dems/reps. The house picked up another 5 or so giving us 232/201 rep/dems.

Meaning the house still needed democratic support to get anything done, but the senate not so much. Two guesses on to which house of congress is responsible for the budget.

The 110th congress, the last two years of Bush ad a 49/49/2 dems/reps/independents senate, and the house had an almost symmetrical flip to 202/229 reps and dems.

So you see, neither side had a clear enough majority in either house to do anything without the consent of the other party.

For the two years there was a marginally large difference in the senate, well, even Bush along with everyone else called that the do nothing congress.

For the entirety of Bush’s term in office neither side had a clear majority.

Compare that with Obama
The 111th Senate had 59 dems over 41 reps, that’s twice the lead Bush had in the first half of his second term. Every other congress under Bush was basically 50/50 +/-1

The 111th House had 256/178 dem/reps. The largest imbalance in over a decade

The 112th Senate dropped back to an almost even split with dems in a narrow majority, and the House only shifted one seat back to reps giving us a 255/179

So under Bush
1-2 Senate: 50/50 D/R House: 211/221 D/R = 51%R
3-4 Senate: 49/52 D/R House: 205/229 D/R = 53%R
5-6 Senate: 45/55 D/R House: 202/232 D/R = 53%R
7-8 Senate: 49/49 D/R House: 233/202 D/R = 46%R

Under Obama
1-2 Senate: 59/41 D/R House: 256/178 D/R = 41%R
3-4 Senate: 51/47 D/R House: 193/242 D/R = 56%R

The runaway spending "under Bush" was a product of both parties, not just reps, and aside from Bush yrs 5&6 and Obama yrs 1&2 the party composition in the senate has been roughly static +/-1

People are fucking morons who swallow whatever the media tells them without doing any of their own research or thinking

Luj,

Thanks for the numbers.

The federal government has it's fingers in so many pies that it shouldn't.

The EPA, the USDA, the FDA and the rest of the alphabet soup are not in the Constitution and are 10th amendment issues.

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Some agencies were needed were needed at one point in time. The EPA was needed when the Cuyahoga and other rivers burned on a regular basis. The Department of Labor when Pinkerton was killing strikers on a regular basis. But really a lot of these were state issues.

If you were to go through the alphabet soup and try to tie it to the U.S. Constitution and Federalist papers you would find about 75% is not Constitutional, if not more.

The USDA needs to be disbanded. Crop subsidies should not exist. Death taxes shouldn't exist. Food stamps should not exist or be severely limited.

You'd be suprised how many people refuse to believe me when I tell them that the republicans never had more than 53% of the House even at the "height" of their "power" or that republican were in the minority when the economy tanked "under Bush"