Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Oh, well then obviously they must hate the conservatives if they've ever voted for anything liberal before...

 Frazzled wrote:
Pro-tip if you're wealthy the tax savings is helpful but you have surplus anyway. If you're not the tax savings is much more critical.

Sbuh? So now we measure tax benefits to people by how much they personally benefit from the extra money? So if we gave Buffet a billion dollars it wouldn't matter because he doesn't really need it?

Um, you measure the cost of a thing by what it actually costs, because that's the number that will tell you what other possible spending you're giving up, or what revenue you have to raise from other sources to fund the scheme. If the benefit to the rich person is less because he's already got lots of money... well that's an argument against the scheme, not for it.

Now, that doesn't mean tax allowances for savings schemes are automatically bad, even though a disproportionate part of the benefit goes to the rich. The benefits (like increased savings and increased self-funded retirement) often outweigh the impact on income allocation, but you don't just get to ignore the effect on income distribution.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 whembly wrote:
Also, because it's utter and completely crap.

Elected to make an empty, symbolic effort at removing ACA with no hope of success? Yeah, I guess that is what a lot of the electorate was ultimately voting for.

Make it simple.

Congressional Critters & The President don't get paid unless they've passed actual budgets. (and not the continuing resolutions crap).

That way, they can't kick the can down the road and are forced to make hard decisions.

There's nothing magical about passing a budget that makes you put through more hard choices than would otherwise happen. And as a budgets guy I can tell you that a signed off, approved budget that sucks can be way more harmful than no budget at all.

In my previous job we were all been given a directive to budget for break even that year, and we were meeting to discuss when we'd have our first round budgets ready for presentation. One guy who was working with a faculty that was really struggling said it was going to be another week and there was going to be a loss this year. He was told it needed to be breakeven, and it was needed within a couple of days. He paused for a second, said 'well I can get you a breakeven budget with half an hour, but...'

For a more specific American example, in 2001 the budget forecast the end of the US deficit in 10 years. The Economist actually ran stories worrying about the issues this would cause with financial markets, if the biggest source of risk free bonds disappeared. They were wrong by about $15 trillion dollars.

The point I'm trying to make is that passing a budget that's just a bunch of optimistic forecasts is worse than not passing a budget at all. Setting up a mechanistic system that requires just a budget of any kind will just encourage junk budgets full of wild assumptions.

Proper long term planning, of which the budget is as much an output as a input, requires real intent and commitment that you just can't simulate with a mechanical requirement like making people pass budgets or they don't get paid.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:
While yes, we have places like Detroit or New Orleans, where police are probably constantly on guard, or well aware of the dangerous areas, what I've seen reported on Marseilles, is that there are sections of the city where the French government no longer has jurisdiction... They have ZERO police presence for enforcement/protection, they have no State workers (welfare/CPS equivalents, DMVs, etc.) Which, from where I'm comfortably sitting would have the appearance of being worse than some of our own "worst" areas.

Except the stories of 'no go' zones are fantasy.

The oft-quoted 750 sites are the exact opposite of 'no-go', they've been identified as needing additional resources - there are more police and more social security in those zones and elsewhere. And they aren't difficult regions because of Islam, the areas are simply poor areas, with all kinds of populations.

Thing is, there are problems and issues with multi-culturalism that need to be discussed. But we make that discussion infinitely harder when we allow ridiculous myths like this to continue.

Edit: whoops, wrong political thread!

 sebster wrote:

Make it simple.

Congressional Critters & The President don't get paid unless they've passed actual budgets. (and not the continuing resolutions crap).

That way, they can't kick the can down the road and are forced to make hard decisions.

There's nothing magical about passing a budget that makes you put through more hard choices than would otherwise happen. And as a budgets guy I can tell you that a signed off, approved budget that sucks can be way more harmful than no budget at all.

In my previous job we were all been given a directive to budget for break even that year, and we were meeting to discuss when we'd have our first round budgets ready for presentation. One guy who was working with a faculty that was really struggling said it was going to be another week and there was going to be a loss this year. He was told it needed to be breakeven, and it was needed within a couple of days. He paused for a second, said 'well I can get you a breakeven budget with half an hour, but...'

For a more specific American example, in 2001 the budget forecast the end of the US deficit in 10 years. The Economist actually ran stories worrying about the issues this would cause with financial markets, if the biggest source of risk free bonds disappeared. They were wrong by about $15 trillion dollars.

The point I'm trying to make is that passing a budget that's just a bunch of optimistic forecasts is worse than not passing a budget at all. Setting up a mechanistic system that requires just a budget of any kind will just encourage junk budgets full of wild assumptions.

Proper long term planning, of which the budget is as much an output as a input, requires real intent and commitment that you just can't simulate with a mechanical requirement like making people pass budgets or they don't get paid.

I was trying to come up with something simple.

The point to enforce some sort of accountability. Can you honestly say that's in place NOW?

If you were an omnipotent Emperor for a day, who was tasked to instill greater accountability for our politicians... how would you do it?

We have the perfect system of accountability: the ability to fire every person that doesn't do their job.

The fact that we refuse to utilize that system and continue to elect them doesn't mean the system isn't there.

 d-usa wrote:
We have the perfect system of accountability: the ability to fire every person that doesn't do their job.

The fact that we refuse to utilize that system and continue to elect them doesn't mean the system isn't there.

The mechanism to vote for someone else is NOT the only tool we should have to hold someone accountable imo.

The press used to do that... but, I digress.

If "do your fething job or get fired" doesn't hold them accountable, you really think the guys not doing their job are going to invent some system that fires them automatically?

 d-usa wrote:
If "do your fething job or get fired" doesn't hold them accountable, you really think the guys not doing their job are going to invent some system that fires them automatically?

You're not accounting for bribes, political favors, and other shenanigans...

 d-usa wrote:
If "do your fething job or get fired" doesn't hold them accountable, you really think the guys not doing their job are going to invent some system that fires them automatically?

Uh... I guess you think they're doing a fine job then.

Carry on.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 Stonebeard wrote:

Now, I'm loath to point this out because I will always consider it my hope, but I don't think we, as Americans, really have any business flicking gak at others for having "no-go" areas in major cities when we have cities like New Orleans where huge swaths of the city are essentially death traps.

Not saying you are, Ensis, just in general.

While yes, we have places like Detroit or New Orleans, where police are probably constantly on guard, or well aware of the dangerous areas, what I've seen reported on Marseilles, is that there are sections of the city where the French government no longer has jurisdiction... They have ZERO police presence for enforcement/protection, they have no State workers (welfare/CPS equivalents, DMVs, etc.) Which, from where I'm comfortably sitting would have the appearance of being worse than some of our own "worst" areas.


I'm sure there's plenty of nice places in France as well, just as there are here in the US. Just as there's places on this planet that even their "nice" areas aren't as safe or whatever you want to say as even some of our bad areas (seriously, Somalia?) It just seems, odd, i guess, that there are places in "1st World Countries" where the standing government no longer operates or has "control".

Oh, the government does operate and have control. The trouble is, most of the population in those areas are poor (that's why they live there), and disillusioned with the last few political parties controling the government (UMP and PS - rightly or wrongly, that's not the debate). So the people there elect extreme-right wing (for france, those people sadly are even more extreme in the US apparently :( ) candidates, and riot every few years when something like the Ferguson shooting happens in France like in 2005.

Yes, there are problems of "gang violence" and drive by shootings - 20 people were shot in the entire 2013 year. I know that this might not sound like much to some americans, but that's comppletely scandalous in France where we actually have Gun Control

 whembly wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
If "do your fething job or get fired" doesn't hold them accountable, you really think the guys not doing their job are going to invent some system that fires them automatically?

Uh... I guess you think they're doing a fine job then.

Carry on.

Am I truly completely incapable of actually verbalizing what my thoughts are, or is this a problem with comprehension?

If you can point me to a post that says "they are doing a fine job whembly" then please feel free to quote it, until then maybe you can actually address the actual points raised instead of debating against imaginary arguments.

Let's try to put it in simple terms:

Imaginary scenario: Keep whembly from looking at porn at work.
Accountability system in place: Fire whembly if he looks at porn at work.
The accountability system is there. If whembly's boss is refusing to fire him then that renders the system useless, but it still exists.
Now is whembly going to write a piece of software that automatically alerts HR and instructs them to fire him if he looks at porn since his boss refuses to fire him? Not very likely.

And that is the argument I'm making. There is no higher system of accountability than the ability of voters to fire politicians that don't do their job. There are no systems in place for voters to write their own laws and pass them via ballot measures at the federal level. The only way to put a system in place is for the people that won't do their job to fire themselves. And that will never happen.

But stop pretending that there is no system of accountability just because the voting public refuses to actually use it.

 whembly wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
If "do your fething job or get fired" doesn't hold them accountable, you really think the guys not doing their job are going to invent some system that fires them automatically?

Uh... I guess you think they're doing a fine job then.

Carry on.

I'd love if that actually happened though It'd finally restore my faith in politicians.

 d-usa wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
If "do your fething job or get fired" doesn't hold them accountable, you really think the guys not doing their job are going to invent some system that fires them automatically?

Uh... I guess you think they're doing a fine job then.

Carry on.

Am I truly completely incapable of actually verbalizing what my thoughts are, or is this a problem with comprehension?

If you can point me to a post that says "they are doing a fine job whembly" then please feel free to quote it, until then maybe you can actually address the actual points raised instead of debating against imaginary arguments.

Let's try to put it in simple terms:

Imaginary scenario: Keep whembly from looking at porn at work.
Accountability system in place: Fire whembly if he looks at porn at work.
The accountability system is there. If whembly's boss is refusing to fire him then that renders the system useless, but it still exists.
Now is whembly going to write a piece of software that automatically alerts HR and instructs them to fire him if he looks at porn since his boss refuses to fire him? Not very likely.

And that is the argument I'm making. There is no higher system of accountability than the ability of voters to fire politicians that don't do their job. There are no systems in place for voters to write their own laws and pass them via ballot measures at the federal level. The only way to put a system in place is for the people that won't do their job to fire themselves. And that will never happen.

But stop pretending that there is no system of accountability just because the voting public refuses to actually use it.

I understand d... I'm simply advocating more accountability. Because right now, the only accountability is how well the candidate fares in "retail politicks".

And how will that happen?

How are you going to get politicians to fire themselves for not doing their job?

Are voters going to fire politicians for refusing to fire themselves after the same voters refused to fire them to begin with?

What higher level of accountability is there than "we control your fate, do your job or be gone"?

 d-usa wrote:
And how will that happen?

How are you going to get politicians to fire themselves for not doing their job?

Are voters going to fire politicians for refusing to fire themselves after the same voters refused to fire them to begin with?

What higher level of accountability is there than "we control your fate, do your job or be gone"?

With respect to the PPACA?

I'd been on record in advocating the repeal of the 17th Amendment. So that the Federal critters are beholden to their state's legislatures. Had that been the case prior to the passage of the PPACA, I'd bet substantially that it would've never made it to the President's desk for signature.

 whembly wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
And how will that happen?

How are you going to get politicians to fire themselves for not doing their job?

Are voters going to fire politicians for refusing to fire themselves after the same voters refused to fire them to begin with?

What higher level of accountability is there than "we control your fate, do your job or be gone"?

With respect to the PPACA?

I'd been on record in advocating the repeal of the 17th Amendment. So that the Federal critters are beholden to their state's legislatures. Had that been the case prior to the passage of the PPACA, I'd bet substantially that it would've never made it to the President's desk for signature.

So how are you going to get senators to vote for a law that, as least as far as the law's advocates are concerned, is going to result in them getting fired more easily?

 d-usa wrote:
We have the perfect system of accountability: the ability to fire every person that doesn't do their job.

The fact that we refuse to utilize that system and continue to elect them doesn't mean the system isn't there.

When your choice is between one person who will lie, in a way to appease the left, but will still lie and do their job poorly, vs the exact same thing but with lies that appeal to the right, its not a mechanism for ensuring competent leadership.

Its a mechanism for convincing people we have a working mechanism by giving them the illusion of choice, and the illusion that their elected officials are accountable to them, and have their best interests at heart.

Where is Octavian when we need him?

Unions
I blame it on the Unions that prevent people from getting fired doing piss poor performance in carrying out their responsibilities they were hired for........wait...House and Senate are Unions?

I agree, Police Unions need to go.

Heh.

All public unions.

 whembly wrote:
All public unions.

Why are you anti-capitalist?

 d-usa wrote:

 whembly wrote:
All public unions.

Why are you anti-capitalist?

How does "public unions" really fit anywhere under any definition of capitalism?

I mean public workers should have rights to organize. They are free to associate and lobby government, for better wages and working conditions ... right?

The issue stems from collective bargaining rules and union protectionisms... as there is no one at the bargaining table representing the folks who are actually going to pay whatever is negotiated, ie TAX PAYERS.

 whembly wrote:
All public unions.

That'd definitely fix the issue of politicians not doing their jobs! What would the new name of the country be though?

 whembly wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

 whembly wrote:
All public unions.

Why are you anti-capitalist?

How does "public unions" really fit anywhere under any definition of capitalism?

The people selling a service banding together to form a corporation is OK, but a Union isn't? Why do you hate freedom, you communist?

 whembly wrote:
I understand d... I'm simply advocating more accountability. Because right now, the only accountability is how well the candidate fares in "retail politicks".

I think there’s a big factor in this discussion that people are missing – that it is kind of pointless to hold the individual accountable for the dysfunction of the group.

Consider if you were put on a jury, you’re one of 12 people. You debate and discuss for a day, and it’s pretty friendly but ultimately the jury is split between innocent and guilty. You tell the judge you need another day. Another day passes, and the debate gets more heated but ultimately the two sides can’t come to terms on whether the guy is guilty or not. The judge is getting pretty frustrated, and he tells you he’s going to keep you locked up in your hotel, unable to see you family until you do come to a conclusion. And he’s going to turn the air-con off.

So you go back to the table, full of endeavour to get this thing done. You go through your arguments again, sure that this time you’ve made your point so well that you’ll sway the other side. But the other side is thinking exactly the same thing.

So what do you do? Failing to reach an agreement is a failure of your duty as jury, but giving up on your own belief just to reach a consensus is giving up on your own duty as a juror. Having some other party tell you they’re going to punish you for being stuck in that predicament really, really doesn’t help.

In politics, the answer, I think, is to understand that unlike the jury politics isn’t a binary state of guilt or innocence. That there is plenty of scope to give up ground in one place in order to get something somewhere else. But US politics and the electorate is refusing to believe that in ever increasing intensity – we’re now at the point where a Republican who says he’s willing to trade a tax increase for welfare reform won’t just be labelled a RINO, he’ll probably be called a traitor. And Democrats are now beginning to act from the same playbook. That’s the problem.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 whembly wrote:
The issue stems from collective bargaining rules and union protectionisms... as there is no one at the bargaining table representing the folks who are actually going to pay whatever is negotiated, ie TAX PAYERS.

You don't think the politicians have an incentive to negotiate a lower rate of pay? Afterall, their job will be on the line if they pay too much and their budget blows out.

 sebster wrote:

In politics, the answer, I think, is to understand that unlike the jury politics isn’t a binary state of guilt or innocence. That there is plenty of scope to give up ground in one place in order to get something somewhere else. But US politics and the electorate is refusing to believe that in ever increasing intensity – we’re now at the point where a Republican who says he’s willing to trade a tax increase for welfare reform won’t just be labelled a RINO, he’ll probably be called a traitor. And Democrats are now beginning to act from the same playbook. That’s the problem.

Agreed... There used to be a breed of politician in the US called a Statesman. People like Mark O. Hatfield (he's from my home state, so he kind of sticks out to me) he had a set of personal beliefs, as well as a set of beliefs that he felt would better the people of his constituency: Oregon. He was quite well known for voting across party lines (though, pre-internet, those lines were much more hazy than they are today) on issues, IF he felt that his people/his state would benefit or be hindered from his vote... Ie. voting for a democrat led bill because it helped more people than it hurt, while voting against a republican led bill because he felt it hurt them far more than it helped.


With the advent of 24 hour "news", I quite simply feel that the days of the Statesman are left in "the good ol' days"


edit for fixing quotes

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:
Agreed... There used to be a breed of politician in the US called a Statesman. People like Mark O. Hatfield (he's from my home state, so he kind of sticks out to me) he had a set of personal beliefs, as well as a set of beliefs that he felt would better the people of his constituency: Oregon. He was quite well known for voting across party lines (though, pre-internet, those lines were much more hazy than they are today) on issues, IF he felt that his people/his state would benefit or be hindered from his vote... Ie. voting for a democrat led bill because it helped more people than it hurt, while voting against a republican led bill because he felt it hurt them far more than it helped.


With the advent of 24 hour "news", I quite simply feel that the days of the Statesman are left in "the good ol' days"

I agree that right now US politics is driven by an insistence on the party line, and that people willing to cross the floor are a rare breed. I'm not sure it's due to 24 hour news, though. I mean, I think the partisan hacks have certainly played a part, but I think it goes deeper than that. For a lot of reasons identity politics has crept in in a huge way, where people identify very strongly with being a D or an R, and hate people who don't identify similarly. It's a very silly kind of tribalism, basically.

 sebster wrote:

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:
Agreed... There used to be a breed of politician in the US called a Statesman. People like Mark O. Hatfield (he's from my home state, so he kind of sticks out to me) he had a set of personal beliefs, as well as a set of beliefs that he felt would better the people of his constituency: Oregon. He was quite well known for voting across party lines (though, pre-internet, those lines were much more hazy than they are today) on issues, IF he felt that his people/his state would benefit or be hindered from his vote... Ie. voting for a democrat led bill because it helped more people than it hurt, while voting against a republican led bill because he felt it hurt them far more than it helped.


With the advent of 24 hour "news", I quite simply feel that the days of the Statesman are left in "the good ol' days"

I agree that right now US politics is driven by an insistence on the party line, and that people willing to cross the floor are a rare breed. I'm not sure it's due to 24 hour news, though. I mean, I think the partisan hacks have certainly played a part, but I think it goes deeper than that. For a lot of reasons identity politics has crept in in a huge way, where people identify very strongly with being a D or an R, and hate people who don't identify similarly. It's a very silly kind of tribalism, basically.

I definitely agree with you, it's just that, when I look back at when Hatfield retired, and he blamed the partisanship, it was in a time when the 24 hour news were in their infancy, so I can't really blame them. As they've picked up steam, they certainly don't help anything. I'm sure we all can see some kind of relationship exists, even if it isn't necessarily Cause and Effect. Also, we can look to the rise of the internet. It used to be that Dems from "the South" were quite a bit different from those from the Northeast, the Northwest and even California. The same could be said of Republicans. Each state seemingly had their own stances on issues, and Conservative or Liberal were a label that were applied to an individual, regardless of his/her party affiliation. Now, you almost cant do that, because you have the "Tea Party Republicans", or super conservative; the fiscal conservative types, the "RINO" (I really hate that term) type all within one party, and it's much the same on the other side, where much more rarely you'll hear "DINO", Liberal democrat, etc.



Also, since I end up talking politics with people my age and younger (I am in college ATM afterall), I do think that there is hope... Most of us currently in our 20s are sick and tired of the BS party lines. At least anecdotally, many people around my age group detest all party affiliations because they feel strongly about a wide variety of issues, and the way they feel doesn't line up with ANY party's stance. Of course, this isn't universally true, because I just had to unfriend someone on FB, because he's of this cancerous mindset that if you don't think like he does, you're a liar a cheat, a dirty liberal commie, etc (he's seriously that republican) and I just got tired of his gak.