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.

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:
Allowing a non-working majority to vote hard earned money away from a working minority is "stupid."

Anyone ever notice how conservatives freak out that people on welfare might support constant, unsustainable expansions to welfare... but they don't worry at all that tax payers might support constant, unsustainable cuts to income tax?

It's quite a weird blindspot, when you consider that since Reagan taxes have been cut multiple times, pretty much driving the entirety of the current deficit, while social security has been pegged and even reduced so that it now pays a much lower amount in real dollars.

Very strange. It's almost as if they just don't give a gak if their ideas have any real world existance at all...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Jihadin wrote:
Ugh Seb.

An unlimited borrowing limit for the government.

No, read what I am saying. You want to authorise spending above what you earn, you borrow to cover the difference. If you don't want to do that, then when setting revenue and expenditure you change them. You don't wait until you need to raise more debt and then freak out about it.

Just fething think about this, man. Think about sitting around the dining table with your family and writing up the budget for the week. And you pass out money for utilities, for the mortgage, for food, and everyone gets an allowance for their own stuff. And you realise that it's been a bad week in the business and so revenue is down, so you agree that for this week expenses will be a little higher than income. Everyone agrees, and off you go.

Then three days later your wife hides the credit card before you can buy groceries, shouting that she never agreed to borrow money.

That's crazy enough, but then it turns out your wife is just pretending to make that argument because she's hoping you'll cave and agree to lower the kid's allowances, and then she'll agree to run stuff up on the credit card (like she's been doing for years anyway).

At which point it makes good sense to say 'actually, what's best is for each of us to get our own credit card, and control spending through that weekly budget. This nonsense about having a budget and then revisiting it every time someone hides the credit is just disfunctional.

 sebster wrote:
Anyone ever notice how conservatives freak out that people on welfare might support constant, unsustainable expansions to welfare... but they don't worry at all that tax payers might support constant, unsustainable cuts to income tax?

No. Conservatives would tell you that, along with cutting taxes, government spending should also be shivved pretty hard. Thus the cuts wouldn't be unsustainable.

Real conservatives would. We don't seem to have any of those in the Republican party. Except when a Dem's in office. Government power an spending have expended astronomically since Bush Jr. It's not a partisan problem. Both sides are busily fething us.

 Seaward wrote:

 daedalus-templarius wrote:
"I've got mine so feth you," is the rallying cry of Libertarians across 'Merica.

No, it really isn't.

Though I certainly wouldn't mind if you guys didn't need quite so much of my money to survive.

"You guys" and "my money".

Wow, you're awfully cute. Such a strong, hardworking man; we indolent, unwashed masses should look up to your majesty.

 daedalus-templarius wrote:

 Seaward wrote:

 daedalus-templarius wrote:
"I've got mine so feth you," is the rallying cry of Libertarians across 'Merica.

No, it really isn't.

Though I certainly wouldn't mind if you guys didn't need quite so much of my money to survive.

"You guys" and "my money".

Wow, you're awfully cute. Such a strong, hardworking man; we indolent, unwashed masses should look up to your majesty.

His money was your money first before it became his money. So people are actually just reclaiming what was theirs to begin with.

 daedalus-templarius wrote:
"You guys" and "my money".

Wow, you're awfully cute. Such a strong, hardworking man; we indolent, unwashed masses should look up to your majesty.

Finally, someone gets it.

 Seaward wrote:
No. Conservatives would tell you that, along with cutting taxes, government spending should also be shivved pretty hard. Thus the cuts wouldn't be unsustainable.

So man up and do both, and if you can't get that over the line then do neither. But this nonsense where you cut taxes, watch the deficit sky rocket and then exclaim that you have to cut spending and the Democrats are trying to stop you being responsible is getting really old.

I like the people who get it, I occasionally wave to them as my palanquin passes by.

 sebster wrote:
So man up and do both, and if you can't get that over the line then do neither. But this nonsense where you cut taxes, watch the deficit sky rocket and then exclaim that you have to cut spending and the Democrats are trying to stop you being responsible is getting really old.

It certainly is, isn't it? One of many, many reasons I'm not a Republican.

 Seaward wrote:
It certainly is, isn't it? One of many, many reasons I'm not a Republican.

Then its all good.

 sebster wrote:

 Seaward wrote:
It certainly is, isn't it? One of many, many reasons I'm not a Republican.

Then its all good.

Seaward is obliquely referencing the idea that conservatives are not necessarily Republicans.

 dogma wrote:
Seaward is obliquely referencing the idea that conservatives are not necessarily Republicans.

I know. And as long as his claim to being a conservative, not a Republican is strong enough that come election day he stays well away from voting for the nutbars that make up a large portion of the current Republican party, well then we've got no problem. If that isn't true, and it turns out he's one of those conservatives who isn't a Republican but totally falls in to line every election... well then there's a problem, but we'll cross that bridge when we come to it.

 sebster wrote:
I know. And as long as his claim to being a conservative,

I don't recall having ever claimed to be a conservative. I'm certainly a libertarian, however.

not a Republican is strong enough that come election day he stays well away from voting for the nutbars that make up a large portion of the current Republican party, well then we've got no problem. If that isn't true, and it turns out he's one of those conservatives who isn't a Republican but totally falls in to line every election... well then there's a problem, but we'll cross that bridge when we come to it.

Welcome to the two-party system, where you can vote for the truly repugnant, the slightly less repugnant, or a guy who has no chance of winning.

When the stakes are high enough, it's generally worth voting for the slightly less repugnant. You might at least get half of the cut taxes/cut spending goal.

I believe the Libertarian party almost always fields a candidate.

Since most conservatives I have run across on the internet are not "Republicans" you would think these Libertarian candidates would be cleaning up. Unless of course they are LINOs!

 Easy E wrote:
I believe the Libertarian party almost always fields a candidate.

Since most conservatives I have run across on the internet are not "Republicans" you would think these Libertarian candidates would be cleaning up. Unless of course they are LINOs!

The Libertarian party does well compared to all the other third parties, but there are various sets of circumstances in place that ensure they'll never be remotely competitive on the national stage.

By that logic, we could say that all of our resident lefties who aren't voting Green are liberal in name only.

Except they don't claim to not be "Democrats" all the time.

Edit: In other news, I haven't been paying much attention to the Gov't Shutdown lately. Is it still going on?

 Easy E wrote:
Except they don't claim to not be "Democrats" all the time.

Lots of left-leaning people make that claim. Though, admittedly, it is more common to openly deny a preference for the Republican Party.

 Easy E wrote:
Except they don't claim to not be "Democrats" all the time.

I suspect if you searched as hard for people claiming to be liberals but not Democrats as you did for people claiming to be libertarians but not Republicans, you'd find just as many.

I'm not sure why that really matters, though. Are you asking if people sacrifice the purity of their political principles in order to try and elect someone with a better chance of winning who is slightly less odious than the competition? All the time. Everyone does. I'd have loved to have voted for Gary Johnson in 2012, but he had absolutely zero chance of winning, so I had to weigh the calculus of making a symbolic vote that would have absolutely zero bearing on the politics of the next four years versus voting for a guy whose politics were definitely not entirely in line with my own, but were nevertheless better than other main alternative.

Does that change what I think we should actually do as a country? No. Does it mean I'm a Republican? No. Does it mean you think I'm a Republican? Why would I care, exactly?

 Easy E wrote:
Except they don't claim to not be "Democrats" all the time.

Edit: In other news, I haven't been paying much attention to the Gov't Shutdown lately. Is it still going on?

Yes, it's still happening... nothing has changed.

In the Senate, interestingly, McConnell and Reid are at each other's throat... so a plan coming out of the Senate seems almost neigh impossible.

I’d predict that if the House can quickly pass a clean 6-8-week debt ceiling bill with nothing but the Vitter amendment, which is to have Congress get the same treatment as everyone else does under ObamaCare, both Reid and McConnell would have no choice but to pass it because refusing it would be political suicide.

 whembly wrote:

I’d predict that if the House can quickly pass a clean 6-8-week debt ceiling bill with nothing but the Vitter amendment, which is to have Congress get the same treatment as everyone else does under ObamaCare, both Reid and McConnell would have no choice but to pass it because refusing it would be political suicide.

The Vitter Amendment is basically a pay cut for anyone employed by Congress, most of whom are not Congressmen.

What you are trying to reference is the Grassley Amendment.

 Seaward wrote:

 Easy E wrote:

Does that change what I think we should actually do as a country? No. Does it mean I'm a Republican? No. Does it mean you think I'm a Republican? Why would I care, exactly?

You are right for the most part. It doesn't matter what label you put on it.

Why do I care? Because I don't understand the effort to distance yourself from the R brand and relabeling yourself a Libertarian. I guess its the same as saying Progressive vs. Democrat. In the end, it doesn't really matter because it is a two-party system. It's just a shade of grey that ultimately leads to the same place in a voting bloc.

 Easy E wrote:
Why do I care? Because I don't understand the effort to distance yourself from the R brand and relabeling yourself a Libertarian. I guess its the same as saying Progressive vs. Democrat. In the end, it doesn't really matter because it is a two-party system. It's just a shade of grey that ultimately leads to the same place in a voting bloc.

I've highlighted the problems in your post.

 dogma wrote:

 whembly wrote:

I’d predict that if the House can quickly pass a clean 6-8-week debt ceiling bill with nothing but the Vitter amendment, which is to have Congress get the same treatment as everyone else does under ObamaCare, both Reid and McConnell would have no choice but to pass it because refusing it would be political suicide.

The Vitter Amendment is basically a pay cut for anyone employed by Congress, most of whom are not Congressmen.

What you are trying to reference is the Grassley Amendment.

So... the Obamacare is good for thee, but not for me?

 whembly wrote:

 dogma wrote:

 whembly wrote:

I’d predict that if the House can quickly pass a clean 6-8-week debt ceiling bill with nothing but the Vitter amendment, which is to have Congress get the same treatment as everyone else does under ObamaCare, both Reid and McConnell would have no choice but to pass it because refusing it would be political suicide.

The Vitter Amendment is basically a pay cut for anyone employed by Congress, most of whom are not Congressmen.

What you are trying to reference is the Grassley Amendment.

So... the Obamacare is good for thee, but not for me?

Huh?

I'm waiting for moderate Republicans to wake up, smell the insanity, and utter the dread words:


'Bull Moose'.


Particularly with such hilarious idiocy as this:

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2013/10/glenn_beck_sarah_palin_and_tea_party_republicans_clean_up_the_mall_conservative.html

 djones520 wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 dogma wrote:

 whembly wrote:

I’d predict that if the House can quickly pass a clean 6-8-week debt ceiling bill with nothing but the Vitter amendment, which is to have Congress get the same treatment as everyone else does under ObamaCare, both Reid and McConnell would have no choice but to pass it because refusing it would be political suicide.

The Vitter Amendment is basically a pay cut for anyone employed by Congress, most of whom are not Congressmen.

What you are trying to reference is the Grassley Amendment.

So... the Obamacare is good for thee, but not for me?

Huh?

Trying to gauge dogma's position...

Why is it okay for those Congress-critters and staff to carve out "a special" lucrative subsidy that us "plebs" do not get?

His statement alludes that " basically a pay cut for anyone employed by Congress" that it's "okay" for them to do that.

I'm pretty sure most Americans would be taking a "paycut" as well because of this law.

 whembly wrote:

So... the Obamacare is good for thee, but not for me?

No, the Grassley Amendment forced employees of Congress to purchase healthcare coverage from the relevant exchanges. This was subsidized by the state using funds that would otherwise have been spent providing healthcare for Congressional employees.

The Vitter Amendment eliminates that subsidy, rendering it a de facto pay cut.

 dogma wrote:
[
The Vitter Amendment eliminates that subsidy, rendering it a de facto pay cut.

I get that... they'd essentially be placed in the arena as the Individual Exchange. Those that purchase on their own behalf.

Right?

So the only subsidy they'd get (if the Vitter Amendment goes through) if they qualify... just like everyone else purchasing in the Individual Exchange.

 whembly wrote:

Trying to gauge dogma's position...

I'm trying to decipher your broken English, so I guess we're on a level playing field.

 whembly wrote:

Why is it okay for those Congress-critters and staff to carve out "a special" lucrative subsidy that us "plebs" do not get?

Absent the Grassley Amendment there would be nothing special about the provision of healthcare insurance to the employees of Congress, as they are Federal employees.

 dogma wrote:

 whembly wrote:

Trying to gauge dogma's position...

I'm trying to decipher your broken English, so I guess we're on a level playing field.

Well... x'squeeze me professor dogma... I'm sure you'd hold the crown of cryptic messages on this board.

 whembly wrote:

Why is it okay for those Congress-critters and staff to carve out "a special" lucrative subsidy that us "plebs" do not get?

Absent the Grassley Amendment there would be nothing special about the provision of healthcare insurance to the employees of Congress.

Yep...

That's the point.