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.

The point is that we're simply never going to cut spending - or debt - in any significant manner without extremists.

 Seaward wrote:
The point is that we're simply never going to cut spending - or debt - in any significant manner without extremists.

Well, you certainly aren't going to do it with the extremists. You can't make comprehensive reforms when you're in a constant state of crisis and the most the extremists will let you do is make temporary changes to put off the disaster a bit longer. Fixing the problem is going to require good-faith negotiation by both parties in a situation where they can work on long-term planning instead of constantly worrying about whether the economy will crash this week or not.

 Peregrine wrote:
Well, you certainly aren't going to do it with the extremists. You can't make comprehensive reforms when you're in a constant state of crisis and the most the extremists will let you do is make temporary changes to put off the disaster a bit longer. Fixing the problem is going to require good-faith negotiation by both parties in a situation where they can work on long-term planning instead of constantly worrying about whether the economy will crash this week or not.

Because that worked...when? At the end of World War II?

We've got one party that wins elections by promising more spending. The guys on the other side that you actually like, you like because they're pretty okay with more spending themselves.

That's not a recipe for taking some bites out of the debt. That's a recipe for ramping it the feth up to crazynuts levels, which has been going on for a while now. I realize the majority of this board is just now eligible to vote in their first election and whatnot, but seriously, it's not like this hasn't been the status quo for a long time.

 Seaward wrote:
We've got one party that wins elections by promising more spending. The guys on the other side that you actually like, you like because they're pretty okay with more spending themselves.

That's not a recipe for taking some bites out of the debt.

You know, when you put it like that, it sounds like the electorate isn't worried about the debt, and the will of the people is more spending.

Please, tell me more about the tragedy that is the will of the majority of the people being exercised faithfully by their elected representatives, who were elected in free and fair elections.

Didn't debt grow astronomically under the last republican administration?

So why do Democrats get this reputation for being debt addicts? Direct evidence showing republicans like spending too, but they just spend the money on stuff you personally approve of, rather than things you think are not needed.

This drama in the states is interesting, and definitely shows up some hardcore partisans from my perspective. The most interesting part to me is of course how it's going to effect the rest of us. Ireland is just entering a very fragile recovery after a few years of cutting billions out of it's economy every year in austerity budgets. Now would not be a good time for America to cause a global financial upset, but the chips will fall where they will.

 Da Boss wrote:
Direct evidence showing republicans like spending too, but they just spend the money on stuff you personally approve of, rather than things you think are not needed.

But republicans want things that are freedomy, like wars and bombs and aircraft carriers, and democrats want things that are communisty, like healthcare and food for poor people. So, in a way, you are a communist who hates freedom.

Ouze wrote:You know, when you put it like that, it sounds like the electorate isn't worried about the debt, and the will of the people is more spending.

The electorate isn't worried about debt because the electorate's awfully stupid as a general population, and ridiculously easy to bribe.

Or, to put it another way.

Da Boss wrote:Didn't debt grow astronomically under the last republican administration?

So why do Democrats get this reputation for being debt addicts?

They're both spending addicts, which is generally why groups of people who are serious about reducing said spending in some significant way tend to distinguish themselves from standard Republicans.

The "everyone else is stupid argument"...

 Seaward wrote:
The electorate isn't worried about debt because the electorate's awfully stupid as a general population, and ridiculously easy to bribe.

You should run on that platform. "Elect me. It doesn't matter what you want, I won't do it, because you're all stupid!"

And this is why arguing with Seaward on US politics is a fool's errand. This is a guy who freely admits that the basic underpinning of our democracy is fatally flawed by too damn much representation.

That's a fair point, I know you are not really a Republican, Seaward. I just find it interesting that people often claim the Democrats are worse than the GOP in that regard, contrary to evidence.

I think from a European perspective, we often forget that the states is a lot of, um, states working together, and that the federal government is like a much more integrated and effective EU. Ask most people in Europe if they'd rather more money going to the EU rather than state governments and I think you'd find many of the same opinions as we see about the federal government in America.

To be honest, I'd prefer if we were a bit more like you in that regard though. I think the current set up we have is even more prone to paralysis than the US system and it's not even nearly as democratic into the bargain.

 Da Boss wrote:
Didn't debt grow astronomically under the last republican administration?

So why do Democrats get this reputation for being debt addicts? Direct evidence showing republicans like spending too, but they just spend the money on stuff you personally approve of, rather than things you think are not needed.

This drama in the states is interesting, and definitely shows up some hardcore partisans from my perspective. The most interesting part to me is of course how it's going to effect the rest of us. Ireland is just entering a very fragile recovery after a few years of cutting billions out of it's economy every year in austerity budgets. Now would not be a good time for America to cause a global financial upset, but the chips will fall where they will.

Not really. Under Bush's 8 years, the deficit ran up 3.551 trillion dollars. 1.9 trillion of that in the Dem controlled congress of the last two years, with 1.4 trillion of that total being during the year of the economic collapse when receipts just plummeted. Under Obama's tenure, we've seen deficit spending of 4.652 trillion. The two worst years of 1.3 trillion a piece being while the Dems controlled Congress. Obama and pals have raised as much debt in three years what it took Bush 8 years, with an economic collapse thrown in, to spend.

That's probably why they've been getting the reputation as debt addicts. Clinton overall saw a neutral deficit because he worked with a Republican controlled Congress during the 2nd term, instead of against.

The Fed Gov grew astronomically under Bush, there was an increase in spending, probably not nearly as much as was really needed. The political climate "demanded" it at the time. Hind sight 20/20 and all that jazz. But the numbers are there. One party loved to throw around the term "spend like a drunken sailor" a lot last decade, and once they got control of the purse strings... well that drunken sailor turned into a spendaholic who thought they had a free credit card with no limit.

 Ouze wrote:
You should run on that platform. "Elect me. It doesn't matter what you want, I won't do it, because you're all stupid!"

And this is why arguing with Seward on US politics is a fool's errand. This is a guy who freely admits that the basic underpinning of our democracy is fatally flawed by too damn much representation.

No, it's fatally flawed by a politically disinterested and frequently horribly ill-informed populace and, more and more, a diminishing sense of civic virtue.

Which is nothing new, by the way, but it becomes a more and more magnified problem as the size and scope and reach of the government grows. That's why it was designed small. The founders knew the mob is largely idiotic.

Also, I have to ask; is the constant misspelling of my name and incorrect assertions about my former occupation stuff intentional, and just some deeply subtle jab I'm not getting, or what?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Da Boss wrote:
That's a fair point, I know you are not really a Republican, Seaward. I just find it interesting that people often claim the Democrats are worse than the GOP in that regard, contrary to evidence.

Historically, they are. Bush was very far from a conservative in any sense but the social, though, so using him as a baseline is always going to skew things. "Better than Democrats" doesn't mean "good" however, so while Republicans aren't as bad about skyrocketing spending as Democrats, they're still bad enough.

 Seaward wrote:
Also, I have to ask; is the constant misspelling of my name

That's an accident, and I regret the error. I work with a guy named Seward and seem absolutely incapable of not writing his name unintentionally.

 Ouze wrote:

 Seaward wrote:
Also, I have to ask; is the constant misspelling of my name

That's an accident, and I regret the error. I work with a guy named Seward and seem absolutely incapable of not writing his name unintentionally.

I don't know what he expects from a member of the stupid electorate...

 Seaward wrote:

The electorate isn't worried about debt because the electorate's awfully stupid as a general population, and ridiculously easy to bribe.

I didn't realize that "awfully stupid" could be possessed.

At any rate, debt is a long term concern. At the moment US needs to concern itself with deficit and, as a result, its own identity.

 Seaward wrote:

Which is nothing new, by the way, but it becomes a more and more magnified problem as the size and scope and reach of the government grows. That's why it was designed small. The founders knew the mob is largely idiotic.

I'd have to argue that they're as stupid as foxes. In our society, we have a pretty sharp divide between "makers" and "takers," mostly because the stigma of being a "taker" has been largely abrogated and it's become a social norm. They're voting in their best interests, to be sure, but at the end of the day it amounts to nothing less than theft at gunpoint by proxy.

One solution is to remove voting rights from anyone who has accepted certain entitlements in the past year. That would do much to balance representativeness fairly between the people making the money, and the leeches who are living off of their efforts.

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:

 Seaward wrote:

Which is nothing new, by the way, but it becomes a more and more magnified problem as the size and scope and reach of the government grows. That's why it was designed small. The founders knew the mob is largely idiotic.

I'd have to argue that they're as stupid as foxes. In our society, we have a pretty sharp divide between "makers" and "takers," mostly because the stigma of being a "taker" has been largely abrogated and it's become a social norm. They're voting in their best interests, to be sure, but at the end of the day it amounts to nothing less than theft at gunpoint by proxy.

One solution is to remove voting rights from anyone who has accepted certain entitlements in the past year. That would do much to balance representativeness fairly between the people making the money, and the leeches who are living off of their efforts.

I like how Democrats are the evil takers, but if you look at maps you get this:

 d-usa wrote:

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:

 Seaward wrote:

Which is nothing new, by the way, but it becomes a more and more magnified problem as the size and scope and reach of the government grows. That's why it was designed small. The founders knew the mob is largely idiotic.

I'd have to argue that they're as stupid as foxes. In our society, we have a pretty sharp divide between "makers" and "takers," mostly because the stigma of being a "taker" has been largely abrogated and it's become a social norm. They're voting in their best interests, to be sure, but at the end of the day it amounts to nothing less than theft at gunpoint by proxy.

One solution is to remove voting rights from anyone who has accepted certain entitlements in the past year. That would do much to balance representativeness fairly between the people making the money, and the leeches who are living off of their efforts.

I like how Democrats are the evil takers, but if you look at maps you get this:

Where in my post do you see the word "Democrat" at all?

We should also make a distinction between people receiving Veterans' benefits, Social Security, and other things that they've actually paid into or worked for, and people receiving EBT and Obamaphones.

Not in your post. But it's the usual spin on things.

Just be happy that I didn't bother to address your stupid plan to take away the voting rights of 100% of the population.

 d-usa wrote:
Not in your post. But it's the usual spin on things.

Just be happy that I didn't bother to address your stupid plan to take away the voting rights of 100% of the population.

Are you ESL or something? What part of "CERTAIN" entitlements do you not understand?

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
Not in your post. But it's the usual spin on things.

Just be happy that I didn't bother to address your stupid plan to take away the voting rights of 100% of the population.

Are you ESL or something? What part of "CERTAIN" entitlements do you not understand?

Thinking that anybody should no longer have any say in their own country because their country helped them is stupid.

Who gets to decide what entitlements let you ignore the constitution and make you lose your right to vote?

At least be man enough to go balls-to-the-wall with your idea and take away the rights of anybody that has ever gotten anything from the Government.

And matter of fact, I am ESL. Thanks for being mean to me and bringing up all those painful memories...

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:

One solution is to remove voting rights from anyone who has accepted certain entitlements in the past year. That would do much to balance representativeness fairly between the people making the money, and the leeches who are living off of their efforts.

Only ~20% of the US population receives state assistance of some sort and, given that poor people don't generally vote (unless they are also old), I don't see how your proposal solves anything.

Well, aside from the "problem" of people in the US not voting Republican.

 d-usa wrote:

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
Not in your post. But it's the usual spin on things.

Just be happy that I didn't bother to address your stupid plan to take away the voting rights of 100% of the population.

Are you ESL or something? What part of "CERTAIN" entitlements do you not understand?

Thinking that anybody should no longer have any say in their own country because their country helped them is stupid.

Who gets to decide what entitlements let you ignore the constitution and make you lose your right to vote?

At least be man enough to go balls-to-the-wall with your idea and take away the rights of anybody that has ever gotten anything from the Government.

And matter of fact, I am ESL. Thanks for being mean to me and bringing up all those painful memories...

Since you failed miserably at two attempts at reading comprehension, it's probably time to revisit those lessons.

Allowing a non-working majority to vote hard earned money away from a working minority is "stupid." Defending that ridiculous train wreck of a game plan is "stupid" as well.

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:

Where in my post do you see the word "Democrat" at all?

We should also make a distinction between people receiving Veterans' benefits, Social Security, and other things that they've actually paid into or worked for, and people receiving EBT and Obamaphones.

Obamaphones?

No wonder d-usa assumed you were hostile to Democrats.

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
Not in your post. But it's the usual spin on things.

Just be happy that I didn't bother to address your stupid plan to take away the voting rights of 100% of the population.

Are you ESL or something? What part of "CERTAIN" entitlements do you not understand?

Thinking that anybody should no longer have any say in their own country because their country helped them is stupid.

Who gets to decide what entitlements let you ignore the constitution and make you lose your right to vote?

At least be man enough to go balls-to-the-wall with your idea and take away the rights of anybody that has ever gotten anything from the Government.

And matter of fact, I am ESL. Thanks for being mean to me and bringing up all those painful memories...

Since you failed miserably at two attempts at reading comprehension, it's probably time to revisit those lessons.

Allowing a non-working majority to vote hard earned money away from a working minority is "stupid." Defending that ridiculous train wreck of a game plan is "stupid" as well.

Do you really think that the majority of voters don't work?



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 dogma wrote:

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:

Where in my post do you see the word "Democrat" at all?

We should also make a distinction between people receiving Veterans' benefits, Social Security, and other things that they've actually paid into or worked for, and people receiving EBT and Obamaphones.

Obamaphones?

No wonder d-usa assumed you were hostile to Democrats.

I know right!

The Off-Topic managed to drop below face-palm and entered full face-desk mode today.

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:

Are you ESL or something? What part of "CERTAIN" entitlements do you not understand?

Well, at least he's not demanding that only white male protestant land owners be allowed to vote.

The US moved away from that model for a reason. Something about angry men with guns and full fledged rebellions.

 d-usa wrote:

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
Not in your post. But it's the usual spin on things.

Just be happy that I didn't bother to address your stupid plan to take away the voting rights of 100% of the population.

Are you ESL or something? What part of "CERTAIN" entitlements do you not understand?

Thinking that anybody should no longer have any say in their own country because their country helped them is stupid.

Who gets to decide what entitlements let you ignore the constitution and make you lose your right to vote?

At least be man enough to go balls-to-the-wall with your idea and take away the rights of anybody that has ever gotten anything from the Government.

And matter of fact, I am ESL. Thanks for being mean to me and bringing up all those painful memories...

Since you failed miserably at two attempts at reading comprehension, it's probably time to revisit those lessons.

Allowing a non-working majority to vote hard earned money away from a working minority is "stupid." Defending that ridiculous train wreck of a game plan is "stupid" as well.

Do you really think that the majority of voters don't work?

No, absolutely not. But failing to curb this trend will allow that end state.

“The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public's money.”
― Alexis de Tocqueville

This is what we should be trying to avoid.



Let's not avoid the other half of the equation, which includes people too stupid to realize that they actually may have to pay to support the entitlement programs for which they voted.

http://www.mercurynews.com/nation-world/ci_24248486/obamacares-winners-and-losers-bay-area

So we should ignore the Constitution because a Frenchman thinks that people living in a Government might actually want a Government that they can benefit from?

 d-usa wrote:
So we should ignore the Constitution because a Frenchman thinks that people living in a Government might actually want a Government that they can benefit from?

Where do you set the limit? Arguably, a Ferrari would "benefit" me greatly. I would also benefit from a brand new Rolex, and "free" organic groceries from Whole Foods. Who is going to pay for that?

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
So we should ignore the Constitution because a Frenchman thinks that people living in a Government might actually want a Government that they can benefit from?

Where do you set the limit?

At ignoring the Constitution, it's not really rocket science.

The rest of your reply is just mindless nonsense since you think that the Constitution doesn't matter and that somebody somewhere should get to decide who gets to vote or not vote.