World Politics - US Federal Government Shutdown [Archive] - Page 2

ICantSpellDawg

10-11-2013, 01:08

Lemur is the very definition of moderate. If you want a flaming liberal look at me. I don't think the dems are left enough.

Gun rights being generally the only issue I agree with the right on.

I wouldn't consider you a flaming liberal. I wouldn't consider Lemur one either. I wouldn't consider you a Democrat, but I would consider Lemur one. The 2 parties contain the most moderate individuals out of the political spectrum, less so now than before perhaps. Independents tend to be immoderate - those who cannot moderate their own agenda's in order to even form a working coalition with others. They are not necessarily partisans, but the failure to agree with people doesnt make you a moderate: Just because someone is an independent doesn't make them a moderate - this needs to be clear. The most extreme political ideologies lie outside of the 2 party system. Why wouldn't this make sense? Parties are for those who compromise to play nice - seeking either the brainless or most politically moderate.

My point is that Lemur is pretty moderate in his approaches to policy problems, but in a distinctly partisan way. This makes him a perfect candidate for a supporter of a political party.

I prefer to undermine authority. I don't like authority and don't believe that anyone has any - outside of the use of force, which is usually unjust, except when it is being used to further undermine authority. If the GOP was in power, I would probably seek to undermine them in many ways. I am an extremist in many ways, as well as a moderate. So what?

ICantSpellDawg

10-11-2013, 01:10

No, you are just starved for attention.

Okay

ICantSpellDawg

10-11-2013, 01:24

Sure. My point was fair enough on the topic of Lemur's political affiliation.

You, however, have a middle of the parties position on alot of topics. I cannot remember ever once being in agreement with Lemur in a discussion on these boards. Maybe he can recall better than I. Although I often argue with you, much of it is the result of my forum-tailored callous (but confrontational) and nihilistic arguments - we also, although less often, are on a similar side of an issue. I appreciate both of your argumentative styles - but yours is less defined in a partisan way, even though the positions are sometimes less moderate than Lemur's. I'm not saying that either of you are wrong or anything like that - just different. And there is really nothing wrong with that - I like different styles and approaches to issues and respect both of your ideas often.

You happen to know your spectrum location, whereas Lemur is in denial of his obvious Democratic bonifides, which bothers me on a subcutaneous level.

ICantSpellDawg

10-11-2013, 01:35

Also, radicalism creeps in an and attempts to change what is viewed as the norm. The right is undergoing this invasion currently, with different types of radicalism causing major disruption within the party. In fact, both of the vying extremist veins are almost mutually exclusive. One is a militant, xenophobic and ignorant reactionary ideology that is horrifying to me. The other is a minarchist, anti-establishment libertarianism, which I vociferously support. I don't see a future for the former, but I do see a future for the latter, but we have to take hold. The direction now is for ever shrinking individual rights, more commonly ignored or co-opted by the government. I believe that we can turn this around, but only if we can convince enough people to make us a partisan norm.

Libertarians have made many advancements in the Democratic party, but have resulted in different outcomes (minority rights, destruction of restrictive social norms, etc). I hope it takes hold in both parties so that a substantial majority is able to damn government to the maximum extent possible. What was once unthinkable is now the norm. This happens in all directions.

ICantSpellDawg

10-11-2013, 01:39

I believe in nationalizing vital industry NO, universal healthcare Maybe, taxes on the mega rich comparable to the harshest in Europe NO, dismantling most of the military industrial complex Maybe, free education all the way to whatever level a person can handle Maybe , tripling the minimum wage Not triple, but open to increase, dismantling most of the prison system and reforming the rest YES, ending the war on drugsYES, utterly destroying monopolies that abuse the consumer and intentionally impede technological progress or human dignity in the name of profit YES, and much more. And guns

We do not agree on much at all, at the end of the day.

You don't give us enough credit. I said yes to more than I said no to.

I like that you aren't afraid of extremism. Extremism changes the world. Extremism abolished slavery, overthrew the King King of England, Had the Democratically controlled Senate reject an "assault weapons" ban, Pulled Gaddafi's bloated corpse into the streets, Beheaded the King of France, Started all religions and resistance movements. Extremism makes the world go round.

CountArach

10-11-2013, 01:40

ICantSpellDawg

10-11-2013, 01:50

?

Sounds like the argument of an extremist. I Like it!

Husar

10-11-2013, 01:53

If you want to decide who is the most liberal, it would make sense to define liberal first.

Mainly because US Americans usually use a wrong definition of the term.

Husar

10-11-2013, 02:55

Liberal comes from the latin "liber" which means free. You can usually deduce the rest from that. In political terms this usually refers to people who want more personal freedoms and fewer rules in society. As such applying it to the left means it only fits in social terms, where the left is often for fewer regulations regarding e.g. abortion, gay rights and so on. Economically speaking the right is far more liberal though. Our liberal party here is actually liberal in both regards but with a two-party system it gets somewhat complicated...

ICantSpellDawg

10-11-2013, 02:58

Our liberal party here is actually liberal in both regards but with a two-party system it gets somewhat complicated...

Except on guns, where each party is infuriatingly old fashioned and puritanical in your country.

Armed citizenry is the new way, not the old. It only seems old in the United States because we were among the first in modern history to experience an environment where the land was more expansive than governments ability to strip people of their means of self defense.

History is full of regimes imposing restrictions on the lower classes ability to own arms. With the discovery of the new world and subsequent years of man's realization that government's only legitimate role is as protector of individual liberty, arms began to proliferate. there was a minor speed bump in the 70's and 80's, but that bump seems to have been inverted. The future is in the equalization of power using the common ownership of arms as a deterrent. Just saying. If anyone would like to discuss this, let's take it to the gun thread.

Husar

10-11-2013, 03:10

Except on guns, where each party is infuriatingly old fashioned and puritanical.

Since everybody was allowed to have a gun in the good old days, how is being against gun ownership (I assume that is what you mean since it infuriates you) old-fashioned?
Apart from that gun ownership falls under social policy, to view it as being on the same level as economic policy is a bit skewed.
Even Wikipedia agrees (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republican_Party_(United_States)#Social_policies) and incidentally also makes me wonder why you say Republicans infuriate you with their position on gun ownership?

ICantSpellDawg

10-11-2013, 03:11

no, German politicians.

ICantSpellDawg

10-11-2013, 03:24

Maybe the future of our country will come more in the form of what is considered de-volution rather than secession. What Pat Buchanan, in his recent article (http://www.wnd.com/2013/10/is-red-state-america-seceding/), refers to as "secession" is both that and de-volution within the system. This would be preferable to an American Civil War style secession; instead of unshackling the secessionist from the confines of the Constitution by allowing easy amendment of the unpopular content, it would allow more states the ability to more effectively govern themselves - further confounding the Federal government's ability to affect change on a larger scale - under the auspices of the same Constitution which protects all Americans. Breaking up CA, TX, NY along with many other States which have been growing quickly would be a good thing for nearly everyone. It wouldnt allow red states to abuse immigrants or blue states to abuse gun owners. Maybe the introduction of 50 more states?

Any takers?

Pannonian

10-11-2013, 03:53

Except on guns, where each party is infuriatingly old fashioned and puritanical in your country.

Armed citizenry is the new way, not the old. It only seems old in the United States because we were among the first in modern history to experience an environment where the land was more expansive than governments ability to strip people of their means of self defense.

History is full of regimes imposing restrictions on the lower classes ability to own arms. With the discovery of the new world and subsequent years of man's realization that government's only legitimate role is as protector of individual liberty, arms began to proliferate. there was a minor speed bump in the 70's and 80's, but that bump seems to have been inverted. The future is in the equalization of power using the common ownership of arms as a deterrent. Just saying. If anyone would like to discuss this, let's take it to the gun thread.

Bwahahaha. If it were up to popular opinion in Europe rather than the state imposing its standards, guns would be far more restricted than they are now. In England certainly, and I doubt it's any more liberal in most of Europe, interest in guns is enough to mark you out as a potential nutcase.

Husar

10-11-2013, 11:16

no, German politicians.

http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2012/jul/22/gun-homicides-ownership-world-list

We still rank 15th in terms of civilian gun ownership, quite close to a lot of other European countries.
So if you find Europe infuriating, the rest of the world has to make your head explode.

Myth

10-11-2013, 11:37

97% of NASA has been furloughed. My wife's best friend is a PhD who works for NASA creating safety systems to stop airplanes from crashing. Her work is non-essential and she is not working or getting paid. Due to serious budget issues (NASA doesn't pay very well to begin with, people work there because they love their work), she has had to file for unemployment benefits. It's ridiculous.

You might excuse NASA for being a bit angry about this situation when you realize just how much they are getting frogged over. Anyone who's complaining about the lack of a NASA website needs to check their attitude at the door.

My post wasn't very coherent, I meant exactly this - the site for the IRS works, but NASA's doesn't?! It's absurd.

Husar

10-11-2013, 11:58

If the IRS stops working you're going to literally lose ALL government and not just part of it.

How can you complain that government services stop working and that you have to pay taxes at the same time? The former are paid for by the latter after all.

HoreTore

10-11-2013, 12:59

HoreTore's sayings about lefties never agreeing applies here.

Right I forgot in Europe liberal means something else.

The only true difinition of a leftie is that I'm the only one and you're all wrong.

That's a true leftie position. Everything else is reactionism in disguise.

Husar

10-11-2013, 13:28

You bring up another good point, that much of what is called conservatism is actually reactionary.

After all to conserve bananas does not mean to make them green again.

TinCow

10-11-2013, 13:52

My post wasn't very coherent, I meant exactly this - the site for the IRS works, but NASA's doesn't?! It's absurd.

It depends entirely on which IT staff are working and which aren't, as well as the nature of the site. For example, at VA IT staff assigned for developing new software have been furloughed, but those required to keep systems running are working. It's a safety and security issue; Veterans need to be able to access information for their own health and safety benefits. The IRS site is less important for safety, but it does remain far more critical to daily life for citizens than most websites. Taxes still have to legally be paid and people require access to that information. The IRS was only 90% furloughed, in comparison to 97% of NASA. In addition, the IRS has a partially independent revenue stream and doesn't get all of its income from the Federal government. As such, it retains a cash flow that can maintain some services even though they've been cut off by Congress. In contrast, very few of NASA's goals are considered to be vital to safety or security of the nation. Almost all of the 3% still working there are involved in keeping the ISS flying so that the astronauts up there don't die, and preventing satellites from crashing into each other or falling to earth. That's basically it. Their IT staff is basically completely gone, and the website itself does not provide critical information needed by the public on a daily basis. As such, the site has been shut down to reduce expenditures, as well as because no one is around to maintain it.

I find it ironic that pretty much everyone complaining about the NASA site being down are the exact people who would never use the site in the first place.

Pannonian

10-11-2013, 14:18

You bring up another good point, that much of what is called conservatism is actually reactionary.

After all to conserve bananas does not mean to make them green again.

It's one of the ironies of politics that old school socialists and Tories were actually quite friendly with each other, and both regarded the Thatcherites as undesirable revolutionaries. I'm from the former school, where there are different shades of community, but a shared recognition that communal effort of some kind is necessary, versus the radical individualism of Thatcherism. In Britain, both socialists and Tories count as conservatives, whereas the "Conservatives" are actually radicals.

Lemur

10-11-2013, 16:46

As fascinating as I found the page-long debate over myself ... bleh, who am I kidding? Epic boredom on that topic. ICSD can hypothesize all he likes about who really belongs in what bucket, but the truth too simple for debate: If someone says they're a Republican, Democrat, or Indie, they are. Self-identification is the only reliable gauge, all else is puffery and self-delusion.

Meanwhile, yet another conservative with excellent bona fides states the obvious (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-10-09/republicans-need-a-graceful-exit-strategy-now.html):

Republicans should look for a graceful exit as quickly as possible, rather than trying to use the shutdown -- or God forbid, the debt ceiling -- to extract unlikely concessions.

I know that many of my conservative readers do not believe this, but I share many of your goals. I would like a smaller government that does less stuff. I oppose the Affordable Care Act. [...]

[T]he fact that there is a problem does not mean that there is a solution. The fact that you are really angry about what has happened over the last four years and passionately wish to undo some of the damage does not mean that a way exists for you to do so. Do not fall prey to that fatal political syllogism:

1. Something must be done.

2. This is something.

3. Therefore, this must be done. [...]

My advice, for what it’s worth, is to ask for something you can get, and then settle for that. Be realistic about what Democrats are going to agree to -- and the answer is not “completely dismantling Obamacare,” however wonderful that would be.

Seamus Fermanagh

10-11-2013, 20:28

Bwahahaha. If it were up to popular opinion in Europe rather than the state imposing its standards, guns would be far more restricted than they are now. In England certainly, and I doubt it's any more liberal in most of Europe, interest in guns is enough to mark you out as a potential nutcase.

Brit culture is really that far along in thinking them an inherent evil? As classifying them as an entity rather than a tool?

Seamus Fermanagh

10-11-2013, 20:30

As fascinating as I found the page-long debate over myself ... bleh, who am I kidding? Epic boredom on that topic. ICSD can hypothesize all he likes about who really belongs in what bucket, but the truth too simple for debate: If someone says they're a Republican, Democrat, or Indie, they are. Self-identification is the only reliable gauge, all else is puffery, self-delusion, and blissful lack of self-awareness about identity politics.

Meanwhile, yet another conservative with excellent bona fides states the obvious (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-10-09/republicans-need-a-graceful-exit-strategy-now.html):

Republicans should look for a graceful exit as quickly as possible, rather than trying to use the shutdown -- or God forbid, the debt ceiling -- to extract unlikely concessions.

I know that many of my conservative readers do not believe this, but I share many of your goals. I would like a smaller government that does less stuff. I oppose the Affordable Care Act. [...]

[T]he fact that there is a problem does not mean that there is a solution. The fact that you are really angry about what has happened over the last four years and passionately wish to undo some of the damage does not mean that a way exists for you to do so. Do not fall prey to that fatal political syllogism:

1. Something must be done.

2. This is something.

3. Therefore, this must be done. [...]

My advice, for what it’s worth, is to ask for something you can get, and then settle for that. Be realistic about what Democrats are going to agree to -- and the answer is not “completely dismantling Obamacare,” however wonderful that would be.

Well, the latest reports suggest that the GOP is trying to find a face-saving means of caving, probably angling for further budget cuts and re-working of sequestration rather than another failed frontal on the ACA. The opening offers of movement on the Debt Limit seem to be their face-saving opener approach.

Not a resolved issue yet at all.

Pannonian

10-11-2013, 20:41

Brit culture is really that far along in thinking them an inherent evil? As classifying them as an entity rather than a tool?

Firing one off might be fun in a controlled environment, such as a gun club with everything kept within confines. Any interest outside that is interest in a subject which has no use in everyday life, and which has the potential for danger at best, and with the wrong people can result in something extremely bad. Blokes probably see gun enthusiasts as slightly creepy and to be kept clear of, while mothers are notoriously militantly anti-gun and anti-anything that might pose the slightest risk to their precious kids. Also, note my use of the word liberal above. Liberal gun laws are laws that allow for more freedom, as explained by Husar re: the root liber. What unreined popular opinion in Britain would demand is more restrictive gun laws that is the opposite of liberal.

Seamus Fermanagh

10-11-2013, 21:35

Firing one off might be fun in a controlled environment, such as a gun club with everything kept within confines. Any interest outside that is interest in a subject which has no use in everyday life, and which has the potential for danger at best, and with the wrong people can result in something extremely bad. Blokes probably see gun enthusiasts as slightly creepy and to be kept clear of, while mothers are notoriously militantly anti-gun and anti-anything that might pose the slightest risk to their precious kids. Also, note my use of the word liberal above. Liberal gun laws are laws that allow for more freedom, as explained by Husar re: the root liber. What unreined popular opinion in Britain would demand is more restrictive gun laws that is the opposite of liberal.

Have no trouble with the more denotative meaning of "liberal." I just factor in whether it is being used by a Euro (Open, Liberality, Free-thinking) or a Yank (Collectivist Government programs).

Pannonian

10-11-2013, 23:54

Thinking about it, ICSD's argument for "the equalization of power using the common ownership of arms as a deterrent" was exactly the argument Mikhail Kalashnikov gave for his belief in the AK-47 as an instrument of peace. Cheap and rugged enough to be ownable and useable by everyone, even the poorest and most uneducated, and it would equalise the power relationship between the strong and the weak, leading to peace. I thought it was bonkers when MK argued it, and I still think it's bonkers now.

Husar

10-12-2013, 00:14

Words mean what the people want them to mean, and in the USA "Liberal" covers a very broad range of progressive notions.

Yes, but in this case the different meaning probably originated from a lack of knowledge as to what the term actually means, which was the point I was making between the lines. ~;)

Pannonian

10-12-2013, 00:26

Yes, but in this case the different meaning probably originated from a lack of knowledge as to what the term actually means, which was the point I was making between the lines. ~;)

Maybe the yanks should rein in their use of the English language, rather than give free rein to their misunderstanding of meanings due to lack of knowledge about the origins of words and sayings. NB. rein in, free rein. Not reign in or free reign. They're horse-riding terms, describing how much control a rider exerts on the horse.

Montmorency

10-12-2013, 00:30

Free reign/free rein is a good double puntendre, come on.

Seamus Fermanagh

10-12-2013, 00:33

Maybe the yanks should rein in their use of the English language, rather than give free rein to their misunderstanding of meanings due to lack of knowledge about the origins of words and sayings. NB. rein in, free rein. Not reign in or free reign. They're horse-riding terms, describing how much control a rider exerts on the horse.

And a boot is something you wear, while a screen is perforated and does not shield completely. :yes:

Husar

10-12-2013, 00:33

Which is a terrible assumption. Due to only having two parties, one progressive and one reactionary (the roles often switching) the terms and labels used to define a sweeping group of beliefs lasts longer than it can remain accurate. The effect of the two party system on buzzwords and political jargon is Orwellian.

European concepts of liberal are embodied in traditional libertarians in America.

The two party system is Orwellian in itself, which basically shows yet again that you can only disprove a negative assumption about the USA by bringing up an even worse point that is actually true. ~;)

Husar

10-12-2013, 00:43

Well ya, in this case. But to be fair, parties are a total subversion of the founders' intent, who tried to envision each politician being a rational platform unto himself. Utopian, eh?

Oh, it happened numerous times in recent history, I just didn't make you aware of it every time. A gentleman never tells. ~;)

As for no parties, how then could anyone achieve a 50% majority to form a government or is that only for the Presidential election while congress and senate were supposed to reach majorities without party affiliation of the voting members?

Pannonian

10-12-2013, 00:46

Maybe brits should suck it up and deal with an evolving linguistic landscape. You sound like a Frenchy, all "Ze language must be PURE!"

It doesn't need to be pure, as English is the impurest language in the world, borrowing words and influences wherever we can't just steal them. However, surely it's not asking for too much to expect consistent logic within a single sentence. Eg. the abomination that is the Americanism "I could care less". The correct phrase is "I couldn't care less", as in one cares so little about a subject that it's impossible to care any less than one already does. By saying that you could care less, you're saying that you still care a little about the subject, and there's still a little that you can care less about, and you're not yet at the bottom.

Pannonian

10-12-2013, 01:06

Oh, it happened numerous times in recent history, I just didn't make you aware of it every time. A gentleman never tells. ~;)

As for no parties, how then could anyone achieve a 50% majority to form a government or is that only for the Presidential election while congress and senate were supposed to reach majorities without party affiliation of the voting members?

Simple. Just use the British system, where the bloke who's in charge of the money and offices is able to dispense favours in such a way as to ensure orderly government, and alliances are formed to get enough votes to pass Bills through the House. If there aren't enough votes, then some favours can be given here and there to secure the votes, and if the political landscape isn't clear enough for the Chief Macchiavellian to see where to dispense said favours, then another grand election is held to clarify things. If this new election shows the ex-Chief Minister to have exhausted the patience of the electorate, it just means they've lost the Mandate of Heaven (or at least the Mandate of Buckingham), and it's someone else's turn to have a go at playing the government game.

Tellos Athenaios

10-12-2013, 01:25

@Pan Logic is the enemy of good English!

If true, it seems we reached rock bottom. Therefore the debt ceiling would, in fact, not be anything to worry about.

Seamus Fermanagh

10-12-2013, 01:56

It doesn't need to be pure, as English is the impurest language in the world, borrowing words and influences wherever we can't just steal them. However, surely it's not asking for too much to expect consistent logic within a single sentence. Eg. the abomination that is the Americanism "I could care less". The correct phrase is "I couldn't care less", as in one cares so little about a subject that it's impossible to care any less than one already does. By saying that you could care less, you're saying that you still care a little about the subject, and there's still a little that you can care less about, and you're not yet at the bottom.

Yes, but remember that American English got it's start when it mugged proper English in a Boston alley and rummaged through its pockets for spare grammar and a couple of nouns.

Pannonian

10-12-2013, 02:12

Yes, but remember that American English got it's start when it mugged proper English in a Boston alley and rummaged through its pockets for spare grammar and a couple of nouns.

And the battered Englishman limped back to his house, shaken not so much by the ferocity of the attack, but by the lack of taste that saw the American ruffian reject the priceless handwritten pocket edition of the collected works of Shakespeare in favour of the shoddily printed penny dreadful that he took. It's bad enough to be mugged, but to be mugged by someone with so little culture...

HopAlongBunny

10-12-2013, 13:04

Until the world finds a reasonable alternative to the $US as a reserve currency expect the games to continue.

Tellos Athenaios

10-12-2013, 14:01

Until the world finds a reasonable alternative to the $US as a reserve currency expect the games to continue.

There are several. Thus far, convenience is what keeps the USD as the reserve currency of choice.

Kadagar_AV

10-12-2013, 15:41

Seamus Fermanagh

10-12-2013, 15:49

...USAnians are obviously trying to learn this, for them, foreign language... But the attempt is rather feeble, and USAnians have completely given up on reining it in. Heck, half the things USAnians say means the exact opposite of what they mean, and the other half just has poor grammar and/or pronunciation....

We love English accents and find their mis-use of words quaint. Really, though, we pretty much expect the rest of you lot to learn American Standard. Foreign languages are too much work and we have too many important things to do with our time. We got the big economy anyway, so learn our language if you want to keep up.

Montmorency

10-12-2013, 16:00

"I aint dun nuffin" = I am innocent of what you accuse me of.

One of the sentences just above makes me want to kick the person in the face.

Just because Germanic languages don't like negative concord doesn't make it "ungrammatical" for a particular dialect...

Kadagar_AV

10-12-2013, 16:41

Just because Germanic languages don't like negative concord doesn't make it "ungrammatical" for a particular dialect...

So make up a new language, stop abusing an existent one.

The sentence mentioned, pronunciation aside, doesn't even make sense in the USA.

"I have not done nothing" = I have done something. STOP ABUSING A BEAUTIFUL LANGUAGE :soapbox:

Montmorency

10-12-2013, 16:50

So make up a new language, stop abusing an existent one.

Er, yeah - that's how new languages arise...

Kadagar_AV

10-12-2013, 17:05

Er, yeah - that's how new languages arise...

Well, if USAnians are to stick with English, they might as well educate themselves in it.

At least somewhat.

Fisherking

10-12-2013, 18:07

English is a very... wide... language.

Intellectuals however look to the English English (You know, ENGLISH), as some sort of key to the language.

USAnians are obviously trying to learn this, for them, foreign language... But the attempt is rather feeble, and USAnians have completely given up on reining it in. Heck, half the things USAnians say means the exact opposite of what they mean, and the other half just has poor grammar and/or pronunciation.

"I aint dun nuffin" = I am innocent of what you accuse me of.

One of the sentences just above makes me want to kick the person in the face.

Sorry Kadagar AV. If you knew about linguistics you would know that British English is the newer form of the language.

The American version is still caught up in the mid 1700s. The British accent did not arise until the 1820s or there abouts.

Regional dialects can be pegged to certain parts of England. Rustic dialects go back even further.

Sorry, but those Americans, you so despise are preserving the language of their forefathers, while the Brits have forgotten it. The Empire, you know.

Besides, you have some 70 million in all the UK speaking a wide range of dialects. I think you are referring to the Midlands dialect. Meanwhile there are only around 320 million in North America speaking similarly (Canada you know).

Assuming that London owns English is like assuming that Seattle is the home of coffee.

Pannonian

10-12-2013, 18:26

The only thing I love more than English is abusing English. And there's nothing more English than that.

There is indeed nothing more English than abusing English. But it only happens with former public schoolboys, and they pay certain ladies good money for the privilege.

Pannonian

10-12-2013, 18:52

You hear that? That was the sound of whatever you just did going right over my head. Some kind of limey slang at work?

Life as a dominatrix (http://www.sofeminine.co.uk/key-debates/life-as-a-dominatrix-n211605.html)

"When you think of a dominatrix what do you think of? Black leather catsuits, whips, chains and an old Etonian boy being spanked?"

Husar

10-12-2013, 19:08

English is a very... wide... language.

Intellectuals however look to the English English (You know, ENGLISH), as some sort of key to the language.

Which intellectuals? At my university we're apparently using American English for scientific writings.

Kadagar_AV

10-12-2013, 22:15

Which intellectuals? At my university we're apparently using American English for scientific writings.

Really?

Over here you get ridiculed if you spell it "color".

Double negatives and you will be hit with the stupid-stick.

Husar

10-12-2013, 23:01

Really?

Over here you get ridiculed if you spell it "color".

Double negatives and you will be hit with the stupid-stick.

Yes. I'm not fond of "color" but neither am I fond of "centre".

As for double negatives, they are not really part of American English, to assume they are used in scientific writing is ridiculous.
They are just part of everyday speech/dialects/slang, I didn't say we use slang for scientific writing.

Seamus Fermanagh

10-13-2013, 02:00

Really?

Over here you get ridiculed if you spell it "color".

Double negatives and you will be hit with the stupid-stick.

Old Joke on U.S. College campuses (campi?):

New Student: Hey, could you tell me where the library is at?

Old Student: At this university, we do not end our sentences with prepositions.

New Student: Sorry, so where's the library at, a******?

Greyblades

10-13-2013, 03:59

Is there any chance we could adjourn this pointless english lesson and get back to the matter at hand?

Sp4

10-13-2013, 04:33

How did you get hung up on English? ^^

Tellos Athenaios

10-13-2013, 13:47

In America, to my knowledge, English is not a reference to dominatrixes or whatever. :shrug: You strange limeys.

To the best of my knowledge, English also refers to the inhabitants of England.

HoreTore

10-13-2013, 14:34

To the best of my knowledge, English also refers to the inhabitants of England.

Thus, the link to dominatrix.

When ones idea of 'jolly good fun' involves sitting around drinking tea and crumpets, you know there's something wild going on in the bedroom.

Seamus Fermanagh

10-13-2013, 15:08

Thus, the link to dominatrix.

When ones idea of 'jolly good fun' involves sitting around drinking tea and crumpets, you know there's something wild going on in the bedroom.

Agreed, compensation for too much stiff.....upper lip....in public.

Pannonian

10-13-2013, 16:04

Agreed, compensation for too much stiff.....upper lip....in public.

The stiff upper lip is the bit between the rosy cheeks.

Lemur

10-14-2013, 15:47

Oh look, my personal congresscritter is trying to scuttle a deal. Again. Like he always does (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/10/13/paul-ryan-shutdown-debt-ceiling_n_4093583.html). Two thoughts:

I'd like to slap my representative repeatedly.
Why is anyone surprised? This is consistent with his behavior over the past decade.

Gah.

[Paul Ryan] is rallying conservatives against a Senate plan to fund the government and raise the debt ceiling, the Washington Post reported on Saturday.

The plan, proposed by Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine), would fund the government through March and raise the debt ceiling through January. Senate Democrats rejected the proposal on Saturday because it locks in sequestration cuts for too long.

Sources told the Post that, in a private meeting with House Republicans, Ryan said that by kicking the can down the road, the GOP would lose “leverage" in their fight against Obamacare.

Ryan's main concern appears to be delaying the health care law's individual mandate, but ThinkProgress points out that Ryan also emphasized the need to give employers the ability to deny birth control coverage based on moral or religious reasons.

According to the Post, some Republicans present for Ryan's speech "grew visibly excited about the prospect of opposing" plans like Collins'.

CrossLOPER

10-14-2013, 21:24

Is there any chance we could adjourn this pointless english lesson and get back to the matter at hand?
Yes, like the fact that there is a very real chance that the furloughed workers are not going to be paid for a month's worth of work due to the situation we have going on at the Dick Dome?

Seamus Fermanagh

10-15-2013, 19:08

Well, Vets are fucked. TinCow can correct me if I'm wrong, but as of today the chances of any Veteran, of any war, with any level of disability, receiving any kind of payment on-time in November is about that of a snowball in hell.

I'm out of derogatory terms for Congress. :shrug:

I suggest Mencken and Clemens -- both were wonderful in their excoriation of that institution. Perhaps that will allow you to re-ammo? I sadly concur that you are not likely to run short of targets anytime soon.

TinCow

10-15-2013, 21:37

Well, Vets are fucked. TinCow can correct me if I'm wrong, but as of today the chances of any Veteran, of any war, with any level of disability, receiving any kind of payment on-time in November is about that of a snowball in hell.

I'm not aware of any specific date for when the November payments become "doomed," bar November 1. I know Shinseki said some stuff about late October being a deadline for getting the November checks out, but I don't recall him saying an actual date. I'd expect the "late October" stuff to be days from the 20th onwards, not anything beforehand. I would think that if a bill were passed before the 17th reopening the government and raising the debt ceiling, all checks would arrive on-time. Maybe even if it was passed a few days after. That said, I'm not privy to those kinds of discussions and my agency has nothing to do with the mechanics of actual payment in any case. I'm just a lowly grunt working away at the backlog. My personal deadline is November 7th, as that's when my agency itself runs out of cash and I no longer get paid.

[edit]I just remembered, I do recall hearing something about GI Bill payments having already been halted as of last week. That's separate from compensation and pension payments though.

I'm out of derogatory terms for Congress. :shrug:

I believe that referring to someone as a Congressman/woman is itself now a sufficiently derogatory term to warrant lethal response in a stand-your-ground situation in Florida and some other states.

ICantSpellDawg

10-16-2013, 00:11

We are obviously going to default sooner or later, let's just get the show on the road.
If the US defaults and loses a credit rating with more agencies, wouldn't this have a positive effect on other types of investment? Or would the entire standard be lowered. If people thought that the US government was irresponsible, shouldn't a recognition of this fact drive bond US prices higher, interest rates up? Wouldn't this drive money into a private sector which looks better by comparison at the same time as it dosincentivises government borrowing? Collapse of trust in government does not mean trust is gone. We live in a trust vacuum - if the government loses hold, you find trust in another's hand.

Fingers crossed for crossing the Rubicon. Government should be shown for how untrustworthy and profligate it is.

I think the GOP is finally ready to shoot the proverbial hostage. Please fold your arms, curl your body forward and brace for crash.

Also, I can't believe that there are so few articles which highlight an upside. There is literally an upside to everything. There has to be an upside to this, since it is our more likely by the minute course

Montmorency

10-16-2013, 00:38

I am totally cool with the prospect of dying of dehydration in a gutter within X years.

Probably less suffering if you don't fight over sustenance with the other indigents. Simply relax and try to stay asleep for the better part of a week or so. It might prove difficult at first due to the pain and all the rest, but once you're halfway-through you shouldn't be able to do much else besides sleep. It works even better if it comes to pass in the winter; this might seem counterintuitive, but the discomfort of the heat and humidity and insect-life of summer would likely make it more difficult to let go.

Don't be scared, is all I'm sayin'.

:on_tears::on_sleep::on_109:on_moon::on_void::on_dead:

:~:wave::flybye:

ICantSpellDawg

10-16-2013, 00:43

Gaius Scribonius Curio

10-16-2013, 01:07

ICantSpellDawg

10-16-2013, 01:36

Not to put too fine a point on it, but: there is a positive to possible world-wide economic collapse, inflicted by a one group of self-interested politicians, in one single country, whose collective understanding of the international economy would apparently fit easily on the head of a pin?

Not only are they willing to destroy the US economy, but they do not even appear to have considered the wider consequences.

Whatever. Treasury yields rise, government debt becomes riskier, money diverts to other governments or private industry. Or, we pay the debt back anyway, just later and even though yields rise, nobody is that shaken because what are the alternatives? Velocity is slowed down, resulting in jobs lost that were likely to be lost anyway. The plus side to the stagnation is that money that was directed at government is now directed elsewhere. Government is crippled, money has to find something else now that the government is no longer able to pretend that it is solvent

Major revisions forced to medicare, social security and we end up paying our debts anyway. Who knows? An overwhelming majority of economists? Let's start taking risks. People used to throw all of their money into rickety old ships and cross the world's oceans. They used to get into aircraft and fly without knowing what to expect. Sometimes you have to not be afraid to lose everything.

Lemur

10-16-2013, 03:45

If the US defaults and loses a credit rating with more agencies, wouldn't this have a positive effect on other types of investment?

https://i.imgur.com/BOqeSBs.jpg

a completely inoffensive name

10-16-2013, 07:56

People used to throw all of their money into rickety old ships and cross the world's oceans. They used to get into aircraft and fly without knowing what to expect. Sometimes you have to not be afraid to lose everything.

Looks like the first thing to fix is the education system.

Xiahou

10-16-2013, 12:43

There's not going to be a default, folks. The government makes more than enough tax revenue to service the debt. I linked a Moody's article earlier. Now here's one from Forbes (http://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffreydorfman/2013/10/03/dont-believe-the-debt-ceiling-hype-the-federal-government-can-survive-without-an-increase/).

The federal government estimates it will collect almost $3 trillion in revenue for the fiscal year that runs from October 1, 2013 until September 30, 2014. Below I demonstrate one possible way the federal government could institute some priorities and spend only the amount it receives in revenue. (All the numbers I use to construct the balanced budget below can be found here.)

To begin with, the interest on the national debt must be paid. I will budget $240 billion for that. The White House is guessing a little lower, but interest rates have been rising, so I will play it safe. Next, social security payments should run about $860 billion. Place that as the second priority and we already have spent $1.1 trillion of the $3 trillion we have.
It won't be unicorns and rainbows, but default won't happen.

TinCow

10-16-2013, 13:25

Let's start taking risks. People used to throw all of their money into rickety old ships and cross the world's oceans. They used to get into aircraft and fly without knowing what to expect. Sometimes you have to not be afraid to lose everything.

Uh, you do realize that that the risks involved in sailing those rickety old ships across the world's oceans was the one of the main reasons that the modern insurance industry developed, right? People were not fans of the risk even back then.

Ironside

10-16-2013, 13:57

There's not going to be a default, folks. The government makes more than enough tax revenue to service the debt. I linked a Moody's article earlier. Now here's one from Forbes (http://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffreydorfman/2013/10/03/dont-believe-the-debt-ceiling-hype-the-federal-government-can-survive-without-an-increase/).

It won't be unicorns and rainbows, but default won't happen.

And Jeffrey Dorfman also expects that fireing a big chunck of employed people will have 0 effect on the income.

It's a 50% cut on education, abolishment of NASA (good luck restarting it afterwards), DoE (who are responsible of taking care of the nuclear waste for starters), DoC (they do patents), dumping farm subsidies (long term it might be useful, shot term it's going to kill off US farming), 40% defense cut, etc, etc. This will of course have no negative side effects at all.

It's causing an economic crash about the same time you can see recovery from the last one.

TinCow

10-16-2013, 14:11

To be fair to ICSD, I do somewhat share his view that if Oct 18th arrives and the debt ceiling has not been raised, not a whole lot will happen. The risk comes into play with a much longer-term issue. A short jaunt over the ceiling won't really do much to shake the faith of investors in the validity of US bonds. The fact remains that the global market believes that, even if the US goes over the debt ceiling, it will eventually get authorized and all bonds will be repaid in full, possibly even with higher interest to compensate for any temporary defaults that occurred along the way. The market basically does not think it is even possible for there to be a scenario in which the debts are never repaid, which is what was at risk in places like Greece. As such, life will generally go on as normal in the financial industry come Oct 18th. Certainly the stock markets will rock and roll, but that will be an instinctual reaction to uncertainty and it will eventually even out. Harm will start to kick in the longer the default goes on, as failure to make payments will start to impact the US economy directly and would likely plunge us back into recession if it lasted long enough. That in itself is bad news and will depress the entire global economy, but it's not a situation like that which developed in 2008. True financial chaos would only occur if the markets started to believe that US bonds would not be repaid in full and, quite honestly, it's hard to imagine a scenario in which that could ever occur. It wouldn't be a pleasure cruise for anyone, particularly those who depend on monthly checks which would not arrive, but it's not quite the financial apocalypse that some have made it out to be. The reason is simply that the financial markets have more faith in the US government than our own citizens do. Right or wrong, that's all that matters.

TinCow

10-16-2013, 14:40

If the US defaults and loses a credit rating with more agencies, wouldn't this have a positive effect on other types of investment? Or would the entire standard be lowered. If people thought that the US government was irresponsible, shouldn't a recognition of this fact drive bond US prices higher, interest rates up? Wouldn't this drive money into a private sector which looks better by comparison at the same time as it dosincentivises government borrowing? Collapse of trust in government does not mean trust is gone. We live in a trust vacuum - if the government loses hold, you find trust in another's hand.

This bit is incorrect. The US is in a unique position because of the level of trust that is placed in its credit-worthiness by the global financial industry. There is no alternative to the US for this role, which is one of the main reasons the markets haven't already abandoned us. If there was somewhere else they could go that was as safe, or even close to as safe, they would already be there. But they aren't because there isn't. Once the US is no longer regarded as a guaranteed safe haven for investments, we will be in a world where this is no guaranteed safe haven for investments. That's not necessarily a financial apocalypse either, but there simply isn't another investment option that is ready to step into our shoes. People talk alot about China, but there is a growing sense in the markets that China itself is riding a bubble. Asian markets have always been notoriously bubble-rific and big collapses out there are part of doing business. European confidence is gone and will not return for a long time. I shouldn't even need to mention the problems with South America, Africa, and Russia. There's also the problem that even where there are other markets that are considered safe, they aren't large enough to meet demand. Part of the benefit of the US is that we carry so much debt that there's always room to invest in us. The same can't be said for much smaller states. Even if you think Canada and Sweden are nice stable places, they alone cannot support the global marketplace.

Once confidence in the US is gone, we will be in uncharted waters. There has never been a period in modern history in which there has not been a financial safe-haven for investments of some kind, not even during the Great Depression. If the markets lose confidence in US credit-worthiness, we will certainly go through a period of financial chaos the likes of which no living person has ever seen. That said, it's going to take a lot more than one day over the debt ceiling to shake confidence in the US. Make us go past the debt ceiling for a month or more, and then repeat the default process a second time and a third time, and you may want to start buying a lot of bullion.

Lemur

10-16-2013, 15:01

Now here's one from Forbes (http://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffreydorfman/2013/10/03/dont-believe-the-debt-ceiling-hype-the-federal-government-can-survive-without-an-increase/).
Or more accurately, from a Southern libertarian economics professor, whose notable work is titled Ending the Era of the Free Lunch (http://www.amazon.com/Ending-Free-Lunch-Jeffrey-Dorfman-ebook/dp/B006TO6T1A). Not exactly reaching outside of your comfort zone there. Yes, 9 out of 10 libertarians agree: Government bad. Now let's hear from Grover Norquist and the cast of Atlas Shrugged (http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/atlasshrugged/atlas-shrugged-movie-who-is-john-galt)!

Despite the fact that all of your recent posts have boiled down to "the government can pay its bills," and "default won't happen," I don't get the impression you've done much reading on the subject. Can you address prioritization (http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-shutdown-treasury-debt-limit-20131016,0,3357429.story)? The unevenness (indeed, randomness) of tax receipts, when broken down to a week-by-week or month-by-month basis? The weird bill (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/10/10/the-republicans-want-to-take-away-treasurys-extraordinary-measures-wait-what/) the Repubs tried to force through forbidding the Treasury to take "extraordinary measures" to not default?

TinCow is correct that prioritizing debt repayment over all other functions would leave ample money to service the debt, while crippling silly things like the military. But it's not clear the U.S. Treasury is even set up to perform that sort of prioritization, which is an issue when you're processing millions of payments per year.

TinCow

10-16-2013, 15:13

@TinCow (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/member.php?u=6193) is correct that prioritizing debt repayment over all other functions would leave ample money to service the debt, while crippling silly things like the military. But it's not clear the U.S. Treasury is even set up to perform that sort of prioritization, which is an issue when you're processing millions of payments per year.

That's not what I was referring to, actually. Whether prioritization occurs or not, the faith remains that the US will eventually pay back the full amount of all of its bonds, plus interest. That faith remains even if the US actually fails to make an interest payment on bonds. The belief is that, even if this occurs, the US will still compensate the bondholder fully a little further down the road, possibly even with higher interest rates than they were issued at originally. That's the faith that the markets have in the US system at the moment. They believe that the US is capable of paying its debts and that the current crisis is caused by politics, not by an underlying weakness of the US economy. Thus, once the political situation is resolved, the money will continue flowing as normal, even if it is delayed. In order for there to be true financial chaos, investors need to believe that it may be possible that the US will never pay them in full for their bond investments. We're nowhere near close to that kind of sentiment yet.

Lemur

10-16-2013, 15:26

In order for there to be true financial chaos, investors need to believe that it may be possible that the US will never pay them in full for their bond investments.
Oh, fair point, but from what mainstream economists and investors are saying, just denting the confidence in the USA's debt is having repercussions. This isn't strictly binary, where we flip from "everything's great" to "buy leather clothing and join a roving cannibal gang (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZfL4xKQeSfo)." Degradation has gradations.

By one set of calculations (Macroeconomic Advisors (http://pgpf.org/special-reports/the-cost-of-crisis-driven-fiscal-policy)), the debt brinksmanship and uncertainty wrought by our Tea Party friends has already cost the USA ~3% of GDP growth since 2010, and added ~1.4% to unemployment.* Major investors are already shunning notes that come due in November and December (http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304106704579137482810334624) (Bank of Japan is demanding a steep discount on all of those notes).

Money is a confidence game. Nobody in their right mind can dispute this. Damage the confidence, and you create trouble. It takes a sizable pair of brass balls to support the self-inflicted damage, and then declare that there is no damage.

*Note that Macroeconic Advisors' numbers were run before the latest shutdown. For estimates of damage from our current funtime adventure, see Goldman Sachs' Jan Hatzius, who estimates 2% GDP growth damage (http://blogs.marketwatch.com/capitolreport/2013/10/14/goldmans-jan-hatzius-shutdown-could-cut-gdp-growth-to-2/).

TinCow

10-16-2013, 15:48

Oh, fair point, but from what mainstream economists and investors are saying, just denting the confidence in the USA's debt is having repercussions. This isn't strictly binary, where we flip from "everything's great" to "buy leather clothing and join a roving cannibal gang." Degradation has gradations.

By one set of calculations (Macroeconomic Advisors (http://pgpf.org/special-reports/the-cost-of-crisis-driven-fiscal-policy)), the debt brinksmanship and uncertainty wrought by our Tea Party friends has already cost the USA ~3% of GDP growth since 2010, and added ~1.4% to unemployment. Major investors are already shunning notes that come due in November and December (http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304106704579137482810334624) (Bank of Japan is demanding a steep discount on all of those notes).

Money is a confidence game. Nobody in their right mind can dispute this. Damage the confidence, and you create trouble. It takes a sizable pair of brass balls to support the self-inflicted damage, and then declare that there is no damage.

I agree with this. If the 18th rolls around with no debt ceiling increase, there will be significant damage done to our reputation and, with every day that goes by, to the economy. As I said, we could easily plunge back into recession if the US misses SSA payments and other such things. However, there is something of an alarmist Financial Mad Max attitude going around which I think has the potential to undermine the Democrats position. If they try and make people believe that the entire system will come crashing down on the 18th, those that are most vocal disputing it (the Tea Party) will gain credibility. That's particularly so because even if there is a default it would likely be short-lived and resolved before the most serious impact began to take hold. That in itself would be good for the Tea Party, because the public would visibly see us go over the debt ceiling and the world not end. They would not understand that the only reason that the world didn't end was that we didn't go far enough over. Thus, they would be much more likely to support going far enough over in the future. That, to me, is dangerous because the Tea Party itself is dangerously wrong about the long-term impact of the problem, as demonstrated by ICSD's opinion about such a prolonged default. If that kind of mentality is given some credibility, the risk that a long-term default (or a repeat several months down the road) will occur increases. As such, I think it's important to be realistic about exactly what will happen here to make sure that the Dems are not accused of crying wolf after the fact. We need to emphasize to the American public that if they wake up on the 18th with no debt ceiling increase they shouldn't expect to see roving bands of marauders in the streets and half the world on fire. Life will go on as per normal for most people for at least a few days or weeks. It would only be after such a period that things would get increasingly worse. If people understand that, there's less of a risk that the obstructionists will get a credibility bounce that might itself cause the catastrophe that we want to avoid.

CrossLOPER

10-16-2013, 21:47

Looks like the first thing to fix is the education system.
Sounds like a Soviet plot, to me.

ICantSpellDawg

10-16-2013, 23:32

I agree with this. If the 18th rolls around with no debt ceiling increase, there will be significant damage done to our reputation and, with every day that goes by, to the economy. As I said, we could easily plunge back into recession if the US misses SSA payments and other such things. However, there is something of an alarmist Financial Mad Max attitude going around which I think has the potential to undermine the Democrats position. If they try and make people believe that the entire system will come crashing down on the 18th, those that are most vocal disputing it (the Tea Party) will gain credibility. That's particularly so because even if there is a default it would likely be short-lived and resolved before the most serious impact began to take hold. That in itself would be good for the Tea Party, because the public would visibly see us go over the debt ceiling and the world not end. They would not understand that the only reason that the world didn't end was that we didn't go far enough over. Thus, they would be much more likely to support going far enough over in the future. That, to me, is dangerous because the Tea Party itself is dangerously wrong about the long-term impact of the problem, as demonstrated by ICSD's opinion about such a prolonged default. If that kind of mentality is given some credibility, the risk that a long-term default (or a repeat several months down the road) will occur increases. As such, I think it's important to be realistic about exactly what will happen here to make sure that the Dems are not accused of crying wolf after the fact. We need to emphasize to the American public that if they wake up on the 18th with no debt ceiling increase they shouldn't expect to see roving bands of marauders in the streets and half the world on fire. Life will go on as per normal for most people for at least a few days or weeks. It would only be after such a period that things would get increasingly worse. If people understand that, there's less of a risk that the obstructionists will get a credibility bounce that might itself cause the catastrophe that we want to avoid.

Your responses have been well reasoned, non-alarmist and effectively apolitical which I respect.

With regards to my understanding of this situation, I am not an economics guy, I understand that. What I do seem to accept is that;
1.Deficit spending for Federal and, to some extent, State Governments is a good thing in most situations.
2.the debt ceiling is not the edge of the world but a guide sign well in advance of the edge of the world.
3.Our levels of deficit spending have reached unsustainable levels and our current spending is not being directed in a way that makes deficit spending a good thing in the first place; effective education and infrastructure development.
4. Our spending levels, low growth outlook, and entitlement culture, coupled with longer life expectancy make dramatic tax increases over time a guarantee

Recognition of these things makes me desire pulling us past this artificial ceiling as this would help us to constantly fail to increase it, until we are able to get our spending in order - to a more favorable ratio of deficit spending. It would give much more credit to the position that it will not be increased, so that more radical debt and budget cuts are required, to entitlements in particular. Medicare and social security ages should be spiked, with a means tested ladder to those who would be most harmed. Major cuts to education expenses with a major drive towards fewer teachers by radically increased use of technology. Dramatic shedding of redundant government jobs, as they are treated as a form of entitlement. We can have a bloody revolution, or we can have a financial one, but there is nothing healthy about our national situation. We are at the point where people are breaking. Sacrifice of the GOP is worth it to force a major overhaul.

I'm not afraid of being called an idiot. When I smell bullshit I don't have to be a scientist to call it out. This is a representative democratic republic. We elect those who represent us, they are not appointed based on how intelligent other intelligent people think they are. The world will not end if the central planners in our politburo back up a bit and cut some of the reigns is my point. Damage to trust in the system, proximity to the debt ceiling with stoic realizations about it's artificial nature may have helped us for next time or it may have shrunk the GOP in the house. It remains to be seen until the midterms.

Seamus Fermanagh

10-17-2013, 00:17

There's a place for anti-spending policy in the mainstream, just not in a way the far right wants.

Of course not. The last time spending was the way they dream of it was in the 1950s, at the height of our "we have the only industries left in the world" phase and the Medicare, Medicaid, federal welfare programs did not exist. Prior to that, the last time it was roughly that way was during the 1920s, when isolationism ruled and military spending was about 1% of GDP and there was no social security.

Truly putting our spending house in order would require far more than tweaking -- or even defunding -- the ACA.

Xiahou

10-17-2013, 02:48

The "deal" has passed the senate. We know why Mitch McConnell supported it- they gave him 2,918,000,000 good reasons (http://news.yahoo.com/congressional-deal-includes-nearly--3-billion-for-kentucky-dam-project-001012679.html).

CountArach

10-17-2013, 02:57

Just of out interest there has obviously been a lot of polling lately about the shutdown and some which purport to show what the House could look like thanks to this. Usually I don't put much stock in generic ballot questions (for a variety of reasons) but I found this interesting, particularly given the discussion of incumbency that we had here the other day:
http://www.people-press.org/2013/10/15/as-debt-limit-deadline-nears-concern-ticks-up-but-skepticism-persists/

The grim public mood is reflected in the record share of voters who want most members of Congress defeated in next year’s midterm elections. Nearly three-quarters (74%) of registered voters would like to see most members of Congress defeated; during the 2010 and 2006 election cycles, which both culminated in shifts in control of the House, no more than 57% in each of these two cycles wanted most members of Congress not to be reelected.

Moreover, the share saying they do not want their own representative reelected – 38% – is as high as it has been in two decades. At this stage in the 2010 and 2006 midterms, fewer wanted to see their own member of Congress defeated (29% in November 2009, 25% in September 2005).

That is just absolutely unprecedented.

Seamus Fermanagh

10-17-2013, 05:29

a completely inoffensive name

10-17-2013, 05:51

Yes, we might see one of the biggest "out with the incumbents" efforts in recent memory.

And I will remain skeptical until the ballots are counted.

Fisherking

10-17-2013, 07:36

Husar

10-17-2013, 11:03

ICantSpellDawg

10-17-2013, 12:23

Republicans really blew it on this one. It is probably time to replace Boehner. His speakership has resulted in weakness without trade-off. I'm not sure what he is doing.

TinCow

10-17-2013, 14:03

Yes, we might see one of the biggest "out with the incumbents" efforts in recent memory.

I've voted for my House Rep (a Dem) several times, basically on auto-pilot. Next time I'm going to be carefully reading the platforms of his primary challengers. If any of them campaigns on being moderate and reaching across the isle to make deals with the Republicans, that person will get my vote in the primary. If the Dem candidate doesn't hold that view, but by some miracle the Republican does, I will vote for the Republican. My voting priorities are now as follows: First, don't be a bigot. Second, act like an adult and compromise. Everything else is irrelevant as far as my vote goes.

Fisherking

10-17-2013, 14:29

You can blame it on one party because there is only one party pretending to be two parties.

The other problem is that people don't like change. They prefer the corrupt politicians they have over an insecure future, which is true here as well.

That is about the way it is.

I've voted for my House Rep (a Dem) several times, basically on auto-pilot. Next time I'm going to be carefully reading the platforms of his primary challengers. If any of them campaigns on being moderate and reaching across the isle to make deals with the Republicans, that person will get my vote in the primary. If the Dem candidate doesn't hold that view, but by some miracle the Republican does, I will vote for the Republican. My voting priorities are now as follows: First, don't be a bigot. Second, act like an adult and compromise. Everything else is irrelevant as far as my vote goes.

Wise! But that assumes they will do what they say they will, which is uncommon.

Seamus Fermanagh

10-17-2013, 14:32

I've voted for my House Rep (a Dem) several times, basically on auto-pilot....

You are not alone. Far from it.

You new methodology is a good one. I hope others emulate it.

Sadly, ACIN's skepticism is well-founded.

Lemur

10-17-2013, 14:39

Here is the real problem, or part of it at any rate:

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?v=10151899681508984

I keep telling you that you can't blame on party. Maybe there are others who think the same...
He sounds kind of confused, actually, lumping a whole bunch of disparate phenomena under "extraction."

Also, at this point I am really done with tu quoque and "both sides do it" arguments. I call bullhockey.

Yes, all politicians are liars, but some lie more frequently and stupidly (http://www.politifact.com/personalities/michele-bachmann/) than others. Yes, political parties are amoral, but some are more nihilist (http://www.latimes.com/business/hiltzik/la-fi-mh-debt-ceiling-20131015,0,4520864.story) than others.

The US debt is eminently fixable, if people would stop being such hysterics about it. Check GDP-to-debt ratio (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:PublicDebtTriade.PNG), and then try to tell me that we're becoming Greece. Our numbers look good. If Ayn Rand fanatics such as Paul Ryan (http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/newsdesk/2012/08/paul-ryan-and-ayn-rand.html) would stop destroying all attempts at a compromise, we could make some serious steps toward fixing the balance sheet. Pretty much instantly.

(BTW, did you know that the deficit has been falling rapidly (http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/DC-Decoder/2013/0916/Obama-Deficits-falling-at-fastest-rate-since-WWII.-Is-that-true) anyway? You sure wouldn't know that if you listedn to red-faced McPanicmonkey on MSNBC.)

https://i.imgur.com/xXT0KSu.png

The other forms of "extraction" Sir Rants-a-lot describes are harder to address, because there are big-money interests that would have to have toes stepped on. But here's a helpful thought: don't lump four or five completely different financial phenomena into an unclear term such as "extraction." And shouting does not make you more convincing.

Seamus Fermanagh

10-17-2013, 14:40

Right wing radio is commenting on yesterday's "kick the can a bit" deal as a total cave-in surrender/victory for Obama. Callers seem to be in favor of punishing any GOP rep or Senator who voted yes for the deal.

I myself think that George Will had it right. Valid tactic, but only effective with buy-in from the public supporting the "underdog" on what they believe is a worthy cause. In other words, had the GOP made it about cutting spending and paying down the debt on a fight over the debt limit, they might have been able to sell it and garner support. Over the ACA, they didn't have a chance.

This should, in my estimate, yield a more staunchly TEA/Social Conservative GOP after the next couple of elections. Fair chance of them being a minority party at the same time though.

However, a year in politics is a long time. Craziness with the ACA or unknown events moths ahead could alter this political landscape entirely.

Lemur

10-17-2013, 14:46

This should, in my estimate, yield a more staunchly TEA/Social Conservative GOP after the next couple of elections.
Serious question: Why is it that whenever a Republican suffers any sort of defeat, supporters reflexively go for "he/she wasn't ideologically pure enough"? I ask because it's such a one-sided phenomenon. I don't hear my Dem friends say that when a Dem gets KO'ed. They talk circumstances, mistakes the guy made, things the opposition got right, etc. But they don't immediately say, "He wasn't a pure enough Democrat, we need more ideology next time!"

It's a striking discrepancy between the two parties.

Tellos Athenaios

10-17-2013, 15:03

Serious question: Why is it that whenever a Republican suffers any sort of defeat, supporters reflexively go for "he/she wasn't ideologically pure enough"?

It's a striking discrepancy between the two parties.

You're dealing with people who's basic plan seems to be:

Stand at your window at night and say 'I believe'
Magic spirit thingy will come and take you away
To a Neverland without government, without adults, without laws, without taxes, without responsibility, and without restrictions of any kind on your personal freedom.

... So when the spirit fails to magically appear the only conclusion can possibly be that you're not a true believer. They know their story, it's the only explanation.

drone

10-17-2013, 15:22

I've voted for my House Rep (a Dem) several times, basically on auto-pilot. Next time I'm going to be carefully reading the platforms of his primary challengers. If any of them campaigns on being moderate and reaching across the isle to make deals with the Republicans, that person will get my vote in the primary. If the Dem candidate doesn't hold that view, but by some miracle the Republican does, I will vote for the Republican. My voting priorities are now as follows: First, don't be a bigot. Second, act like an adult and compromise. Everything else is irrelevant as far as my vote goes.

As a Virginian, you should be using the open primary system to moderate the Republican candidates. Try to get a moderate GOPer nominated, then vote as you see fit in November.

Myth

10-17-2013, 15:42

As a Virginian, you should be using the open primary system to moderate the Republican candidates. Try to get a moderate GOPer nominated, then vote as you see fit in November.

For a moment there, I read it as "Varangian" and I was like... WHERE DO I SIGN UP?

Seamus Fermanagh

10-17-2013, 16:56

Serious question: Why is it that whenever a Republican suffers any sort of defeat, supporters reflexively go for "he/she wasn't ideologically pure enough"? I ask because it's such a one-sided phenomenon. I don't hear my Dem friends say that when a Dem gets KO'ed. They talk circumstances, mistakes the guy made, things the opposition got right, etc. But they don't immediately say, "He wasn't a pure enough Democrat, we need more ideology next time!"

It's a striking discrepancy between the two parties.

A good comment and a valid question.

If you listen to right wing radio, as I do, you hear quite a number of folks who take such a stance on conservatism. I have heard Limbaugh say that a failing of most GOP candidates for President, recently, is that they were not conservative enough. Limbaugh, along with many others on the US political right, are convinced that, whether outspoken about it or not, a solid majority of people are motivated by and support the core values of conservatism and that a politician courageous enough to ignore the media and evoke that inner strength will not only win the election but embody a powerful mandate for leadership.

So, for many of them, the short term goal is to precipitate a crisis that either a) forces the opposition (Dems) to cave, allowing more conservative policies to flower (and with that success brings more conservatives to the fore within the GOP), or b) is defeated but shows who is really championing the conservative cause, thus convincing voters in districts with RINO (Republican in Name Only -- since only an out and out conservative is a "true" Republican) representatives to replace them with dyed-in-the-wool conservatives and transform the party. They are, though they do not state this in so many words often, perfectly willing for that party to be a minority party, at least in the short term, since they KNOW that Americans are, at heart, mostly conservative and that their views will therefore eventually win out.

Many of them haven't embraced the fact that only about 20-25% of Americans are conservatives by their definition, and that the middle 50% of the population (mugwumps) has any number of conservative values but does NOT embrace the whole panoply of Ayn Randian conservatism. The mugwumps want to pick and choose which combo of values to support and often very purposefully do not want to embrace anything that is extreme in either direction. Over the last 20 years, there actually seems to be a groundswell in favor of some of the social-democratic policies associated with Europe, which would run counter to the TEA orthodoxy beliefs. Again, the TEA crowd are failing to account for the middle blob of the population's preference for a mixed strategy and an acceptance of the primacy of the federal government (even though most in this group still want a number of limitations ON that government).

Instead, the right tends to dismiss the moderates as cowards, waiting for what appears to be a majority opinion to form and then jumping on the bandwagon. The right also believes this makes them susceptible to media agenda-setting, hence their constant vitriol for the politically "left" tone of much of the mainstream media.

Just how they reconcile in their minds the view that moderates are both "most people are conservative at heart" and "indecisive and easily lead by peer pressure" is beyond me. I have yet to hear an articulate reconciliation of both trends.

I myself am a conservative -- particularly on economics and the role of the federal government. I am less so, marginally, on "social" issues and national defense/our role as the world's police officer. I would like to see the federal government curtailed a good bit, more power put back in the hands of the states, and taxation taken out of the hands of the feds and placed in the hands of my state and local officials -- as these politicians have, historically, been somewhat easier to unseat as incumbents and more of a part of their communities rather than closeted inside the DC beltway for most of the year.

For all of that, I simply don't get why the TEA crowd will not accept facts and adopt a policy that addresses and seeks to change the situation facing them -- as opposed to the current strategy of denying those facts, shouting their own position even louder and somehow assuming that stridency will work more effectively that careful efforts at attitude change. The comm scholar in me goggles at this.

Oh well, I needed to vent that a bit. Thanks for your patience all.

Pannonian

10-17-2013, 17:23

Many of them haven't embraced the fact that only about 20-25% of Americans are conservatives by their definition, and that the middle 50% of the population (mugwumps) has any number of conservative values but does NOT embrace the whole panoply of Ayn Randian conservatism. The mugwumps want to pick and choose which combo of values to support and often very purposefully do not want to embrace anything that is extreme in either direction. Over the last 20 years, there actually seems to be a groundswell in favor of some of the social-democratic policies associated with Europe, which would run counter to the TEA orthodoxy beliefs. Again, the TEA crowd are failing to account for the middle blob of the population's preference for a mixed strategy and an acceptance of the primacy of the federal government (even though most in this group still want a number of limitations ON that government).

A question from an outsider. Why is "Tea" acronymic here?

Pannonian

10-17-2013, 17:26

Yes, we might see one of the biggest "out with the incumbents" efforts in recent memory.

Would Lemur be interested in taking part though? He sounds rather fond of his congressman.

Greyblades

10-17-2013, 17:28

TEA, Taxed Enough Already

Kinda funny because they dont seem to care much about the amount of tax but that its a black democrat collecting them.

Ironside

10-17-2013, 17:30

Greyblades

10-17-2013, 17:34

When they lynch Ted Cruz, can anyone come along or do we have to buy tickets?

Lemur

10-17-2013, 18:00

I needed to vent that a bit. Thanks for your patience all.
Why apologize? I thought your reasoning and explanation was really solid, and I appreciate you taking the time to put your thoughts together.

Also, it it your Paul Ryan that will be leading the Republican side in getting a unified budget, Lemur? :sweatdrop:
Well, if history is any guide, my representative won't get 100% of everything he wants, so he will reluctantly be forced to burn the house down.

This is pretty much how I see my congresscriter:

http://youtu.be/9AEUIHBoudU

Seamus Fermanagh

10-17-2013, 18:03

TEA, Taxed Enough Already

Kinda funny because they dont seem to care much about the amount of tax but that its a black democrat collecting them.

Unkind and untrue. The large majority of tea-party types simply don't give a damn about the man's race(s). The fact that he is a big-government type actively seeking to create another government entitlement that must be funded is more than enough.

Lemur

10-17-2013, 18:14

The fact that he is a big-government type actively seeking to create another government entitlement that must be funded is more than enough.
If that's the case, why don't they get worked up about the Iraq war, which was approx. ~$2 trillion, 100% funded by debt? Medicare Part D? Ronald Reagan's socialization of the US healthcare system (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergency_Medical_Treatment_and_Active_Labor_Act)? The PATRIOT Act?

As an outsider, their outrage seems extremely selective. So it's not unreasonable for non-tea-partiers to look at the rage and fear, and say, "Maybe something else is driving this?"

Here's an essay (http://dish.andrewsullivan.com/2013/10/16/the-tea-party-as-a-religion/) that I found thought-provoking:

In trying to understand the far-right mindset – which accounts for around a quarter of the country – I think you have to zoom out and see all of this in context. [...]

[Y]ou cannot understand the current GOP without also grasping how bewildered so many people are by the dizzying onset of modernity. The 21st Century has brought Islamist war to America, the worst recession since the 1930s, a debt-ridden federal government, a majority-minority future, gay marriage, universal healthcare and legal weed. If you were still seething from the eruption of the 1960s, and thought that Reagan had ended all that, then the resilience of a pluralistic, multi-racial, fast-miscegenating, post-gay America, whose president looks like the future, not the past, you would indeed, at this point, be in a world-class, meshugganah, cultural panic. [...]

What the understandably beleaguered citizens of this new modern order want is a pristine variety of America that feels like the one they grew up in. They want truths that ring without any timbre of doubt. They want root-and-branch reform – to the days of the American Revolution. And they want all of this as a pre-packaged ideology, preferably aligned with re-written American history, and reiterated as a theater of comfort and nostalgia. They want their presidents white and their budget balanced now. That balancing it now would tip the whole world into a second depression sounds like elite cant to them; that America is, as a matter of fact, a coffee-colored country – and stronger for it – does not remove their desire for it not to be so; indeed it intensifies their futile effort to stop immigration reform. And given the apocalyptic nature of their view of what is going on, it is only natural that they would seek a totalist, radical, revolutionary halt to all of it, even if it creates economic chaos, even if it destroys millions of jobs, even though it keeps millions in immigration limbo, even if it means an unprecedented default on the debt.

This is a religion – but a particularly modern, extreme and unthinking fundamentalist religion. And such a form of religion is the antithesis of the mainline Protestantism that once dominated the Republican party as well, to a lesser extent, the Democratic party. [...]

[A]s religious organizations grow powerful and complacent, and their adherents do likewise, they make themselves vulnerable to challenges from upstart sects that “impose significant costs in terms of sacrifice and even stigma upon their members.” For insurgent groups, fervor and discipline are their own rewards.

Right now, the Republican Party is an object of contempt to many on the far right, whose adamant convictions threaten what they perceive as Republican complacency. The Tea Party is akin to a rowdy evangelical storefront beckoning down the road from the staid Episcopal cathedral. Writing of insurgent congregations, Finke and Stark said that “sectarian members are either in or out; they must follow the demands of the group or withdraw. The ‘seductive middle ground’ is lost.”

Seamus Fermanagh

10-17-2013, 18:55

If that's the case, why don't they get worked up about the Iraq war, which was approx. ~$2 trillion, 100% funded by debt? Medicare Part D? Ronald Reagan's socialization of the US healthcare system (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergency_Medical_Treatment_and_Active_Labor_Act)? The PATRIOT Act?

A few do decry the Iraq War and a few of the older ones decry the EMTALA and the amnesty efforts under Reagan. A lot complained and bitched about Part D at the time.

Why aren't they going after it now? Beats me.

The Patriot Act doesn't seem to be a focus of any outside the (L) part of the group. I agree with you that it should be.

Of course, expecting consistency from a group of yanks is an act of unbridled optimism in and of itself!

Lemur

10-17-2013, 18:57

Why aren't they going after it now? Beats me.
Right, nobody has a good explanation for the selective outrage of the Tea Partiers. So all I'm saying is that it's not crazy-town for outsiders to speculate on other motives.

Lemur

10-17-2013, 20:05

Nobody should be smug, and nobody should be doing a victory lap.

This little temper tantrum has done damage to our economy (http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2013/10/the-greatest-risk-to-the-us-economy-is-still-the-people-in-charge-of-it/280640/), and to world confidence in the USA (http://www.usnews.com/news/world/articles/2013/10/17/relief-around-world-as-us-avoids-debt-default).

Relief tempered with caution would be more appropriate.

Seamus Fermanagh

10-17-2013, 21:02

Right, nobody has a good explanation for the selective outrage of the Tea Partiers. So all I'm saying is that it's not crazy-town for outsiders to speculate on other motives.

Perhaps not. I do admit to being frustrated at the quick association between racism and conservatives though. I find racism to be a form of self-expressed stupidity that is anathema to my way of thinking, and get annoyed when some are too quick to characterize my views by focusing on the expressed views of a few idiots. I try not to be so sweeping in my posts (successfully I think) and to accord others the same privilege of respect for their views -- to allow for the possibility of nuanced and varied viewpoints on a subject -- even if I argue with the main thrust taken by my intellectual "opposition" on an issue.

So I acknowledge that I might be reacting to this on a bit of a "pet peeve" level. Perhaps I am incorrect and a great swath of tea-partyers and conservatives are neaderthalic in their thinking to the point that they buy into all of that "bruised peach" excrement and that they simply can't allow themselves to be comfortable with a "darkie" running the White House. Perhaps that's what's really motivating them in their thinking. If so, however, I haven't met such or heard such in my own experience.

It is likely, statistically, that at least some of the TEA crowd are racists, just as some of those supporting the American political left are eco-whacks who believe that humans are an unnatural element of planet earth and need to be eradicated to free Gaia. In other words, all of the political perspectives have a fruit bat fringe. I try not to confuse them with the mainstream of the various perspectives.

Lemur

10-17-2013, 21:07

eco-whacks who believe that humans are an unnatural element of planet earth and need to be eradicated to free Gaia.
HOW DID YOU GET HOLD OF MY DIARY?

-edit-

On a slightly more serious note, since your thoughts deserve a response:

"Racism" is pretty darn useless as a description, unless you're applying it to yourself, because it's a motivation. And (a) pretending to know what motivates somebody else is dangerous and prone to error, and (b) nobody but the thickest, stupidest moron would ever admit to racial animus in the USA. So ... it's kinda moot.

That said, the Tea Party reaction to Obama always make me think of Blazing Saddles, which probably means I am a bad person:

http://youtu.be/IZT7xLjxuhs
I've been struggling with how to formulate, simply and clearly, why I find the Tea Party so disturbing. Finally stumbled across an essay that nails it (http://www.theamericanconservative.com/dreher/confusing-politics-with-religion/):

Can the Tea Partiers’ beliefs be falsified? I don’t think they can be. I mean, is there any evidence that could convince them that the fault here lies with themselves, in the way they conceive politics, and in the way they behaved? It sure doesn’t look like it. In that sense, they think of politics as a kind of religion. [...]

Religion requires us to believe the impossible; that’s what makes it religion. Politics is the art of the possible; that’s why it is not religion.

Papewaio

10-17-2013, 21:21

I thought TEA stood for The Economic Anarchists.

HopAlongBunny

10-17-2013, 21:41

Less precise than Lemur's link, but in much the same vein:

http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2013/10/shutdown-deal-done-but-war-goes-no-winners-only-losers-2013101781245693884.html

The Lurker Below

10-17-2013, 21:50

https://i.imgur.com/xXT0KSu.png

Hey now, cherry picking content smells of Washington politics and has no place between gentlemen. Including the whole picture gives a better sense of reality and demonstrates that this so called "deficit reduction" still leaves deficits THREE TIMES greater than they were 10 years ago.

TEA, Taxed Enough Already

Kinda funny because they dont seem to care much about the amount of tax but that its a black democrat collecting them.

Even though the group started when Bush was president, most observers share this closed-minded attitude.
11079

Lemur

10-17-2013, 22:02

the whole picture gives a better sense of reality and demonstrates that this so called "deficit reduction" still leaves deficits THREE TIMES greater than they were 10 years ago.
"Whole picture" is a funny concept when you're talking about mathematical abstraction, but okay. If I thought for one minute that Tea Partiers were genuinely concerned with deficits, there would be a whole lot to talk about, including what mix of revenue increase/spending decrease would bring maximal deficit reduction with minimal economic disruption. But somehow that conversation never engages them, and that sort of deal-making is anathema to their reps. So ... cheers. It appears that y'all like to complain about deficits, but don't want to do anything about 'em. (See: Ryan, Paul.)

Even though the group started when Bush was president
If you mean the Tea Party originated in the space between the 2008 Obama election victory and Obama taking office (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tea_Party_movement#History), then yes, technically correct, although any fair-minded observer would say that there's a definite correlation between the multi-culti Democratic president and the Tea Party.

PanzerJaeger

10-17-2013, 22:11

Hey now, cherry picking content smells of Washington politics and has no place between gentlemen. Including the whole picture gives a better sense of reality and demonstrates that this so called "deficit reduction" still leaves deficits THREE TIMES greater than they were 10 years ago.

Thank you. The start point on that graph was very misleading. (Not suggest that was Lemur's intent.)

Lemur

10-17-2013, 22:14

The start point on that graph was very misleading.
What, at the moment when massive, unfunded tax breaks met the biggest economic collapse since the Great Depression? Indeed, how could that represent anything but cherry-picking?

Besides which, the indisputable fact is that the US deficit is falling, and is projected to continue to do so.

And if anyone on the Tea Party side were serious about deficit reduction, they would look for ways to make deals, instead of attempting to burn the house down every time they don't get 100% of what they want.

CountArach

10-17-2013, 22:37

Lemur

10-17-2013, 22:41

The Netroots movement had a lot to do with this and showed what a motivated, activist base can do in primaries.
Huh, I heard the term "Netroots," but I never paid attention.

I guess I should read up ...

PanzerJaeger

10-17-2013, 22:43

What, at the moment when massive, unfunded tax breaks met the biggest economic collapse since the Great Depression? Indeed, how could that represent anything but cherry-picking?

Besides which, the indisputable fact is that the US deficit is falling, and is projected to continue to do so.

And if anyone on the Tea Party side were serious about deficit reduction, they would look for ways to make deals, instead of attempting to burn the house down every time they don't get 100% of what they want.

I was only referencing the graph. Using very narrow bounds to imply one trend when a more rational data set selection implies the direct opposite is the definition of cherry picking. You know this.

CountArach

10-17-2013, 23:15

Huh, I heard the term "Netroots," but I never paid attention.

I guess I should read up ...
They are truly powerful. For example Act Blue, which is where most of the donations from the Netroots blogs are channelled through raised more than $22.5 million in the previous financial quarter, almost entirely for either progressive candidates at all ballot levels or for Democrats in competitive seats, with an average of under $40 per donation:
http://blog.actblue.com/2013/10/03/eoqmadness-and-a-2-million-day/

ICantSpellDawg

10-17-2013, 23:44

Edited

CountArach

10-18-2013, 00:37

But there is no truly organized lefty counterpart to the Tea Party. I'd expect to see one soon barring a sudden marginalization of the Tea Party.
Oh yeah definitely it isn't formalised and it is nowhere near as rabid but the point is that there are large portions of the Party who will seek a level of ideological purity.

HopAlongBunny

10-18-2013, 01:09

A snapshot of the cost in research:

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=government-shutdown-was-temporary-the-damage-to-science-permanent

Xiahou

10-18-2013, 04:18

Besides which, the indisputable fact is that the US deficit is falling, and is projected to continue to do so.Sure, if they keep falling they may even get down to the levels they were at during the Bush administration. Wouldn't that be something? No one thought they were too high then...

Ironside

10-18-2013, 09:24

Sure, if they keep falling they may even get down to the levels they were at during the Bush administration. Wouldn't that be something? No one thought they were too high then...

In part because it meant that it would be handling a major economic crisis very poorly. Considering the starting position, Obama has done a good to great work on the economics. Expenses have stabilised enough that the spike is gone in practice (as in 2000-2012 has about the same yearly increase as 2000-2008). Income is still lagging behind. ACA is in part intended to drive medicare costs down longterm (I know you don't expect it to work) and social security and military are the big expenses that you could cut to make a large diffference. Both would bring massive protest storms if cut, and the Republicans haven't exactly been in negotiation mode during the last years. So it's basically politically impossible to do such things.

He'll never get credited for it.

A retirement question, how does it work in the US? I'm wondering since both ss and medicare spiked during the crisis. It matches fired old people retireing and going over from private health insurance to ss, but I don't know if the US system works that way.

Xiahou

10-18-2013, 15:09

Considering the starting position, Obama has done a good to great work on the economics.If he's done such a fine job, why is the deficit (as a percent of the GDP) for 2012 (the latest year we have non-estimate numbers for) still 7%? That's double what it was under Bush's highest year (2004). I don't remember anyone, myself included, who thought the rate of debt accumulation under Bush was acceptable

It seems like you want to have it both ways in your efforts to make Obama look good. The deficit is high because the economy is so terrible. Yet, on the other hand, thanks to Obama, the economy is doing great. The deficit has fallen, but that's mainly due to the sequester- which Obama and Democrats in congress want to reverse. They got their tax hikes on the rich, and then no one wanted to talk seriously about trimming spending, so the sequester was triggered. Now they want to talk about more tax hikes.

It's pretty neat how the administration wants to take credit for lowering the deficit when it was done over their objections. Regardless, the sequester cuts are over a 10 year schedule- projections that go beyond that show the deficit falling off the cliff again. And using the White House's own projections (which are typically over-optimistic), when Obama leaves office, the deficit will still be higher than at any point during the Bush administration.

If you consider that a "great job", I'd like to know what your standard is....

Edit: link (http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/Historicals) for my numbers.

Seamus Fermanagh

10-18-2013, 16:20

Bush's deficits were larger than they should have been for what was being accomplished. The Medicare D thing was a financial bonanza for the pharmaceutical industry but has had mixed results at best overall. Way too much of the monies allocated to Iraq and the WoT were spent poorly as well.

While Obama's administration must bear the burden for the stimulus packages of 2009 and onward, it should be noted that the EESA (included TARP) was a product of the Bush administration. It can be argued that this legislation allowed for a long-slide into recession and the survival of most of the financial firms involved, generating stability. Absent this effort, we may have had a shorter recessions, but it would've been massive and world spanning as the bubble popped. These were some of the costs that Obama inherited.

The problem with the Obama stimulus package was that it became the biggest pork barrel in history. More dollars were spent on idiot projects than anything else, and a lot of the "shovel-ready" infrastructure jobs were anything but shovel ready. The goal was to shove money into the economy and minimize a crash -- which it certainly helped with -- but rather than spending on public works with lasting value, too much of it was spent funding the pet projects of influence groups along with massive funds for tax breaks and payments to social security recipients. Was it wrong to spend the money? No. Was it well thought out? Yes....but on a political level more than a recovery level.

In short, there is a lot of blame to go around. As the Rutledge character in 1776 queried, "who stinketh the most?"

Xiahou

10-18-2013, 16:45

While Obama's administration must bear the burden for the stimulus packages of 2009 and onward, it should be noted that the EESA (included TARP) was a product of the Bush administration. There's no denying that. But even if you give the Obama administration a pass on all of 2009, the deficit is still higher.

The problem with the Obama stimulus package was that it became the biggest pork barrel in history. It didn't become one, it was designed as one. It spread around federal largesse to pet projects in the name of "stimulus". Then, when the stimulus ran out, they could warn us of dire budget cuts if we didn't maintain the new spending levels- thanks to the fraud that's known as "baseline budgeting".

"In short, there is a lot of blame to go around. As the Rutledge character in 1776 queried, "who stinketh the most?"Bush was bad on spending- I'm not here to argue that. But.... what difference, at this point, does it make?

Even with the sequester, it's a struggle to return to Bush-level spending. They want to roll back the sequester. It's bewildering to see people who condemned Bush's profligacy try to praise Obama's.

Seamus Fermanagh

10-18-2013, 16:52

Most of the US political left would like to see the deficit reduced. They just have a substantially different agenda for where the reductions would be coming from.

That said, I DO think the US political left is far more tolerant of endless deficits than are the GOP -- and for a certainty more tolerant than are the TEA crowd.

Xiahou

10-18-2013, 17:05

It's definitely fun to see who the hacks are in congress (that would be the majority of them). When they're out of power, they're deficit hawks. When they're in power... what deficits?

I hope that if the GOP ever gets their hands back on the reins again that there's enough of those dangerous, unhinged lunatics known as TEA partiers around to effect real change- probably not...

Montmorency

10-18-2013, 17:22

Death and Taxes 2014 (http://www.timeplots.com/collections/catalog/products/death-and-taxes-poster-2014)

Death and Taxes 2004 (http://mibi.deviantart.com/art/Death-and-Taxes-9410862)

Note that Discretionary spending is $350 billion higher than in 2004.

National Security/Military in 2004: $399 billion
National Security/Military in 2014: $647 billion

Not-That 2004: $383 billion
Not-That 2014: $509 billion

Also, consider that current Discretionary spending as % of GDP is not at all high, historically.

Would you blame Obama for Mandatory spending over which he has no control, and for the defense budget?

How would things have gone differently under any other POTUS?

Xiahou

10-18-2013, 17:48

Would you blame Obama for Mandatory spending over which he has no control, and for the defense budget? Who does have control of it, if not the chief executive. Has he offered any serious plan to address them? Someone had better, because it's going to continue to crowd out other spending as it takes over a larger and larger share of the budget and drives out yawning deficits.

Any time a Republican even whispers about reform, we're told they're going to throw grandma off a cliff. When are we going to grow up and have a serious discussion about entitlement reform? Probably not before we're all going off the cliff with grandma. There's too much hay to be made playing politics and denying reality.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OGnE83A1Z4U

Lemur

10-18-2013, 17:49

Most of the US political left would like to see the deficit reduced. They just have a substantially different agenda for where the reductions would be coming from.
The Tea Party/GOP position makes any meaningful deficit reduction difficult, if not impossible. If you say:

I don't like the deficit.
But don't raise any more revenues with tax rates.
And don't close a single tax loophole.
And don't you dare attempt to create a simplified tax structure if it means any more revenue.
And don't touch defense.
And don't touch elderly entitlements.
But please balance the budget by tomorrow.

Doesn't really leave much room for ... anything, ya know?

This is why I do not believe the Tea Party is serious about the deficit. I think the national debt is more of a totem than an issue for them.

Ironside

10-18-2013, 18:11

If he's done such a fine job, why is the deficit (as a percent of the GDP) for 2012 (the latest year we have non-estimate numbers for) still 7%? That's double what it was under Bush's highest year (2004). I don't remember anyone, myself included, who thought the rate of debt accumulation under Bush was acceptable

Because a balanced budget would require military cuts during war, big social security cuts and big medicare cuts. Or massive tax rises. With the current political climate, could you see any of these remotely possible? All of them are fairly obvious "both parties agrees somewhat" situations.

The big tax cuts due to the stimulus package are one of the things I'm uncertain about, but since they pretty much came immidiatly or even before taking office, I count them more like a situation to handle, rather than something he implemented.

It seems like you want to have it both ways in your efforts to make Obama look good. The deficit is high because the economy is so terrible. Yet, on the other hand, thanks to Obama, the economy is doing great. The deficit has fallen, but that's mainly due to the sequester- which Obama and Democrats in congress want to reverse. They got their tax hikes on the rich, and then no one wanted to talk seriously about trimming spending, so the sequester was triggered. Now they want to talk about more tax hikes.

Increasing the taxes back to late Bush levels or even Clinton levels makes sense to recover the deficit. Table 2.1 should show quite clearly how much of an income drop 2009 was. Income recovery is one area where Obama has been doing more poorly.
Over 75% of the budget is related to the military, medicaid and social security. That's not some small projects.

If you consider that a "great job", I'd like to know what your standard is....

Edit: link (http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/Historicals) for my numbers.

Well, we can take that the expenses 2009-2012 increased by about 20 billion dollars. The last time the increase was that low in a single year was between 1972-1973 and the budget was about 1/15 of what it is now. That's my standard. The 2018 prognosis does feel a bit wobbly though, both expenses and income increases drastically.

Read around on that link, it shows major shift in where the expenses ended and why it didn't immidiatly drop the year after (2010), when they got some returns on the covering for the housing bubble.

Beskar

10-18-2013, 18:26

You have to remember that Bush inherited and led the nation during a time of 'Economic Boom/Prosperity' whilst Obama inherited the beginning of the worst Recession since 1930 which was 1) Bound to make the debt situation worse (less income. bigger welfare) 2) The cost of the Stimulus Packages to get out of that situation.

That is a big difference which is often overlooked.

Lemur

10-18-2013, 20:41

When are we going to grow up and have a serious discussion about entitlement reform?
Not while Paul Ryan is taken seriously, that's for sure.

What's the second word in "Grand Bargain"?

Obama and the Dems have made it painfully, awkwardly clear that they are willing to negotiate on liberal sacred cows. It's up to the Repubs to reciprocate, and show that they're actually, you know, interested.

Xiahou

10-18-2013, 20:43

The Tea Party/GOP position makes any meaningful deficit reduction difficult, if not impossible. If you say:

I don't like the deficit.
But don't raise any more revenues with tax rates.
And don't close a single tax loophole.
And don't you dare attempt to create a simplified tax structure if it means any more revenue.
And don't touch defense.
And don't touch elderly entitlements.
But please balance the budget by tomorrow.

Doesn't really leave much room for ... anything, ya know?

This is why I do not believe the Tea Party is serious about the deficit. I think the national debt is more of a totem than an issue for them.
Virtually no one is willing to entertain the possibility of entitlement reform, if you look at the polls.
Everyone thinks the government should spend less, but when you ask them where- all you get is blank stares or something insipid like "Let's cut aid to countries that hate us!", as though that accounts for even a drop in the bucket.

Look at the polls (http://www.people-press.org/2013/02/22/as-sequester-deadline-looms-little-support-for-cutting-most-programs/)- the only item that gets close to majority support is cutting "Aid to the world's needy".

There continue to be sizable partisan differences in views of funding for government programs. For most, substantially larger shares of Republicans than Democrats support decreased funding. Yet there are only two possible reductions that draw majority support from Republicans – foreign aid (70%) and unemployment assistance (56%). There is no program among the 19 included in the survey that even a plurality of Democrats wants to see decreased.

In a way, I guess we make it easy for our politicians to ignore the real problems- we don't seem to know what they are.

Lemur

10-18-2013, 21:03

Virtually no one is willing to entertain the possibility of entitlement reform, if you look at the polls.
Which is why both parties would need to dive in together, along with a number of other unpopular measures, such as closing tax loopholes.

The difficulty is that Repubs have expressed absolutely no desire to do anything contrary to the wishes of their base. Nor is there evidence that Repub leaders could deliver the votes, even if a difficult and painful Grand Bargain were struck.

In this, as in all things for all time, I blame my congressman.

Note that Grover Norquist is a huge problem when it comes to making a bargain. Pledging to never, ever, under any circumstances close a loophole or raise a marginal tax rate ... well, imagine if the entire Dem caucus has signed a Holy Vow to never cut any spending ever, under any circumstances. Kinda limits the ability to get anything done, no?

Xiahou

10-18-2013, 21:15

You seem to be looking at this perhaps a little one sided. Obama got significant tax increases (http://blog.heritage.org/2013/01/08/tax-changes-2013/) as part of the previous "fiscal cliff" deal. Where was his grand bargain/compromise on spending cuts? We got the sequester, but that was a result of failed negotiations- not compromise. The sequester had been designed to be so horrific that neither side would allow it to take effect. In the end, the Republicans decided to was better to take bite the bullet than continue to try and negotiate.

Obama got tax hikes. Let's see him approve of some meaningful cuts before he comes back around for more tax hikes. :yes:

Edit: Personally, I'm all for tax reform. Not for tax increases, however. Regardless, had Obama shown any interest in real cuts, his claims of wanting to compromise would seem more sincere to me.

Lemur

10-18-2013, 21:28

Where was his grand bargain/compromise on spending cuts?
Here, let me Google that for you (http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2011-07-06/business/35267423_1_debt-talks-obama-plans-congressional-leaders).

As part of his pitch, Obama is proposing significant reductions in Medicare spending and for the first time is offering to tackle the rising cost of Social Security, according to people in both parties with knowledge of the proposal. The move marks a major shift for the White House and could present a direct challenge to Democratic lawmakers who have vowed to protect health and retirement benefits from the assault on government spending.

“Obviously, there will be some Democrats who don’t believe we need to do entitlement reform. But there seems to be some hunger to do something of some significance,” said a Democratic official familiar with the administration’s thinking. “These moments come along at most once a decade. And it would be a real mistake if we let it pass us by.”

Rather than roughly $2 trillion in savings, the White House is now seeking a plan that would slash more than $4 trillion from annual budget deficits over the next decade, stabilize borrowing, and defuse the biggest budgetary time bombs that are set to explode as the cost of health care rises and the nation’s population ages.

That would represent a major legislative achievement, but it would also put Obama and GOP leaders at odds with major factions of their own parties.

I'm all for tax reform. Not for tax increases, however.
Are we defining "tax increase" using the Grover Norquist formula? Are you saying that a radically simplified tax code is illegitimate if it produces more revenue? Or what?

Seamus Fermanagh

10-18-2013, 22:12

Whole thing just sucks. The only entitlement reform that MIGHT pass is an increase for social security. It is the primary retirement income of a majority of Americans. Cutting it is simply not going to happen.

Medicare and Medicaid might be slowed in terms of rate of growth.

Welfare is really the only one that might be open for reductions, but it has already been pared back far more than the others.

Some tax loopholes must be maintained. Without those loopholes allowing them to opt out of the normal system of taxation, corporations and the wealthy will flee. Any that can be closed should help.

The defense budget will probably be slashed -- it likely needs to go back to 2% GDP as opposed to the 6-8 level we've been doing. That will necessitate a reduction in commitments, a return of U.S. forces to U.S. territory save for a very few exceptions etc. We simply cannot afford to police the world and both balance our budget and pay down the debt.

Discretionary spending will need to be hacked across the board as well -- far more so than sequestration has accomplished.

Even with those cuts noted above, we'll have to roll back tax reductions and increase taxes back up to 1982 rates if we are going to pay down the national debt by a couple of percentage points each year -- which must be the long term change to right the fiscal house.

The alternative would be to actually cut/privatize social security. I do not believe that that will ever happen unless it is then replaced by a basic living allowance.

Beskar

10-18-2013, 22:14

The Tea Party/GOP position makes any meaningful deficit reduction difficult, if not impossible..

I have to admit, if I was the one in charge, what I would do as the minimum, would be -
- Raise revenue via high-bracket tax rates whilst tax reform takes place as a stop-gap measure. This creates incentive to help and push reform in order for it to expire.
- Close tax loopholes.
- Streamline and simplify tax-structure
- Touch defence

End result
- Budget balanced by "tomorrow" (2-5 years for losing deficit)

As I couldn't resist myself, here are reforms I would implement in America if I were the President..

- Raise minimum wage, remove the 'waiter tip' cop-out. Service industry personal get the royal shaft in the provisions and no, they do not make up for it in tipping and tipping should not be a mandatory practise.

- Reduce defence spending significantly. America spends 1/3rd of the worlds total on Defence. Perhaps a GDP figure of around 2.8% instead of 4.4%, decreasing nuclear arsenal and allowing the lapse/non-renewal of programmes which are costly and non-efficient as the main drive for the cuts. Sell off or repurpose the older arsenal, perhaps do so in stages and depending on the level of technology involved.

- Start progressive changes to Healthcare. An American NHS would not occur overnight unless super-costly.
Federal-level watch-body and State-level implementation into Trusts.
It would be done in stages, starting with GP Surgeries being brought under the control of State-level Trusts. These would charge affordable rates and these will assist to help, refer and treat people.
Introduction of a nation-wide insurance which is administrated at a state level, this would have set costings for essential treatment. Similar to the fix-rate German system.
Make it so this insurance has to be accepted by law. This should see a dramatic reduction in the price of insurance, with insurances from existing companies providing 'luxury services'/privileges people may desire.
If required, start the construction of ANHS hospitals focusing on the major cities first, then spreading out to the more rural areas.
Aim is to make the programme self-sufficient, re-purpose Medicare into the new framework.
Give incentives to newly trained doctors to join the ANHS system. This could be providing help with medical school fees in return for a 3-5 contract.
Buy medicines at similar prices to other countries such as Canada, Britain, etc. The average cost can be up to ten times higher in the United States.
Make it so if employers are not funding insurance, they have to contribute to it. Influence from the French system in this case.

- Reform Lobbying. This includes setting fixed monetary limits on politicians campaign fund. Make it an offence to accept bribes of any kind, especially when there is a conflict of interest. Working on Oil Policy whilst enjoying a holiday to Hawaii paid for by BP? Enjoy losing your seat and a ban from in standing in elections and possible criminal charges. Term limits for the Senate and Congress.

There are quite a few things I would do whilst in power, and this is simply tip of the iceberg stuff!

Personally, I'm all for tax reform. Not for tax increases

Could I ask for a clarification of what you mean by this? Is it...

I would like the same percentage and rates for taxes (10% for A, 20% B) as of now, but I would like the tax-code simplified and less exploitable. This may increase or decrease (depending on situations) the revenue generated by taxes (for different brackets), but an increase in revenue generated by this acceptable, however, I am against the increase of rates A, B, etc as a result of this.

or

I am for tax simplification and closing loopholes, but an increase in the amount of revenue generated by this is unacceptable and taxes such be cut accordingly.

I am presuming you are meaning 1, but a couple of replies seem to indicate 2.

Montmorency

10-18-2013, 22:46

Whole thing just sucks. The only entitlement reform that MIGHT pass is an increase for social security. It is the primary retirement income of a majority of Americans. Cutting it is simply not going to happen.

About SS - if it's currently paid for by payroll taxes + surpluses, and backed up by special federal debt:

Then would it be OK to dismiss the Trust-Fund securities as 'insignificant debt'? My understanding is that this debt only represents a commitment by the federal government to pay for the outlays of another part of the federal government should that part experience shortfalls and become unable to pay through internal means. In other words, no money is being lost or even moved around for these trust-fund securities (besides that tax-surpluses are added to the federal budget in exchange for them), as they can only be redeemed in the event of a program-deficit - is that correct?

Similar question for Medicare.

If the above is basically on-track, then should we at all concerned about this sort of "intragovernmental debt", in itself? That is, leaving aside the issue of the long-term ability of these programs to service pay-outs to eligible persons...

The defense budget will probably be slashed -- it likely needs to go back to 2% GDP as opposed to the 6-8 level we've been doing.

While it's easy to come to the conclusion that the military should cut on contracting, payroll for admin and foot, and procurement, and become leaner, more dynamic and flexible, and focused on R&D, responsiveness, and scalability - what of the hundreds of thousands of weapons systems currently mothballed, the tens of thousands of tanks and so-on? All that hardware seems to require a huge amount of labor and money just to be maintained.

On one hand, we don't want all that stuff to just fall apart, else we might as well scrap it now. On the other, the world doesn't really have the demand or even the funds to buy up all this excess - and it's against our humanitarian and nat-sec interests to unload so much hardware in the contemporary world anyway.

if we are going to pay down the national debt by a couple of percentage points each year

I think for the current world-system, we don't actually need to get on any sort of deleveraging track, as long as we can demonstrate sustainable deficit-management. We've seen so far, it seems to me, that a few years of political incontinence would prove at least as detrimental to our debt-situation as a generation of 5+% deficits, as long as those deficits were seen to be marginally-considered or not a gross abuse of hegemonic privilege to enrich our population...

Xiahou

10-19-2013, 02:38

The defense budget will probably be slashed -- it likely needs to go back to 2% GDP as opposed to the 6-8 level we've been doing. That will necessitate a reduction in commitments, a return of U.S. forces to U.S. territory save for a very few exceptions etc. We simply cannot afford to police the world and both balance our budget and pay down the debt.Sorry, I just saw this when someone else called it out. Where are you getting your numbers? Referring again to me link using OMB data from the White House's website, national defense spending has averaged about 5.4% of GDP. In 2012, it was 4.3%. Lower than mean.

And don't touch defense.
There's more of an isolationist bent to the TEA part than Lemur realizes. (Link: Tea Party activists: Bring on defense cuts (http://thehill.com/news-by-subject/defense-homeland-security/176393-tea-party-activists-bring-on-defense-cuts))It's the old guard GOP who won't hear anything of defense cuts, and it is they that remain pro-intervention. I think if we're going to take some small step back from the "world police" role we took on for ourselves, there is room for defense cuts. But saying we're going to cut it by half or even more is just unrealistic. We'll have the entire defense budget tied up paying benefits to veterans.

Also, thank you Lemur, I had forgotten about the proposal to change how SS COLA adjustments are calculated. It's worth noting that the average savings from that probably worked out to $13bn/yr. Not quite chump change, but it doesn't address the problem.... also, how did Obama's own party take to that plan? I don't think it was the nasty tea party that torpedoed it.

While I'm on the subject... Social Security cuts are becoming more and more necessary, but I don't like them. They really do screw old people. Social Security is already a bad investment. Depending on your marital status and longevity, you might see something like a 2-6% return on your "investment". If instead, they could have invested that money in a S&P500 index fund, they would have seen a 10+% ROI. Cutting it's already paltry returns is just screwing them more.

For my part, I'd gladly take a haircut on what I've paid into SS thus far if I could take that 12+% of my income and invest it instead.... but it's not going to happen.

Are we defining "tax increase" using the Grover Norquist formula? Are you saying that a radically simplified tax code is illegitimate if it produces more revenue? Or what? I'm saying that I'm all for us stopping using the tax code for social engineering. Stop using it to encourage people to make dumb decisions. But, when you're looking at closing loopholes and ending exemptions, you're walking through a mine field. People who have come to count on them stand to get hammered hard when they go away. So, we should look at lowering actual rates where it makes sense to offset the income people will lose when their deductions go away.

I don't think there's a lot of revenue to be had on the front-end with tax reform. But, streamlining the code could recover a lot of lost productivity which could instead be used to grow the economy and increase revenue on the back end.

Montmorency

10-19-2013, 02:57

But saying we're going to cut it by half or even more is just unrealistic. We'll have the entire defense budget tied up paying benefits to veterans.

The VA 2014 Budget request for 2014 is $152.7 billion. This includes $66.5 billion in discretionary resources and $86.1 billion in mandatory funding. The discretionary budget request represents an increase of $2.7 billion, or 4.3 percent, over the 2013 enacted level.

And Medical Care takes up $55 billion of the discretionary budget. So your point is somewhat exaggerated.

Ironside

10-19-2013, 08:27

Sorry, I just saw this when someone else called it out. Where are you getting your numbers? Referring again to me link using OMB data from the White House's website, national defense spending has averaged about 5.4% of GDP. In 2012, it was 4.3%. Lower than mean.

It probably depends on how you count. NSA, CIA and veteran's benefits can be counted as national defense, but aren't counted as that in the budget, where they have their own posts.

Seamus Fermanagh

10-19-2013, 15:09

Xiahou:

I agree with you as to what SHOULD be. I think that we SHOULD begin a slow but eventually complete privatization of most of the extant entitlements in the system. Even if things like MSA's and IRA's become a legal requirement burden on each individual, I believe that we would still better off under such a mandated approach than with an ostensibly "equal for all" program funded and managed by the federal government.

I just do not believe that it will ever happen that way.

I have begun to think that the entitlement trap -- and trap it is, no matter how much it looks like a radiant future for decades -- is already sprung.

Most of what I outlined above is nothing like I would want, but where I think we should end up going in a political culture that will not cut but will add to entitlements.

What I would like will not happen. What I would like is to repeal the 16th and 17th amendments so that the states have persons representing the state's interests and so that the bulk of taxation is collected through the states. I'd like us to remember that the ***king 10th amendment isn't a ***king afterthought. What I would like is the privatization of Social Security into an individually-held retirement annuity account like FDR thought would have to be created since he viewed Social Security as unsupportable in the long run. What I would like is for the states to discontinue tax exempt status for churches on anything save for direct charitable works. What I would like would be for the governments to support medical savings accounts and devote their efforts to rooting out fraud (medical and otherwise). What I would like would be tort reform that compensates people for damages suffered and not for looking like a sweet old lady who needs a lottery win at the expense of a big corporation. What I would like would be a tax system based on consumption rather than income -- or for that matter even a tax on wealth -- pretty much anything except a damn income tax. What I would like is voting restrictions for anyone receiving more non-salaried compensation from the government than they pay in some form of tax because it is a little silly to enact a system where charity recipients get to set the payment schedule for the charity.

But I am not going to see any of that. I AM going to see an expansion of social security compensation because it is NOT enough to live on comfortably and it HAS become the nation's primary retirement system. It will be aged a bit since folks do not retire at 65 and die at 72 anymore, but it must be expanded because it is the ONLY WAY PEOPLE CAN PAY TO LIVE IN RETIREMENT. Trap in place.

We will see national health care because most people DO view health care as an individual right. They think, everyone has an equal right to life, so why does that rich bastard get to have the operation everyone knows is what we both need and I cannot? My life is just as valuable as hers. No system of insurance vouchers etc. will truly make equal healthcare available for all -- but a central government can. They can change the compensation system, pay doctors equally, tell the pharmaceuticals how much they will be getting for their product, determine the numbers of various services needed and see that they are made available on a first come first served basis. And they have the power to MAKE folks support the system. In fact, equality of outcome being the metric, the central government is the only means to effect this. Trap in place.

It is a trap because it will be, must be, economically unfeasible in the long run. If people receive benefits without working for them, why work? On a personal level it would be the idiot's choice to do so. As out healthcare becomes guaranteed to us, our retirement guaranteed to us, welfare and subsistence payments made for those who simply cannot find work guaranteed, higher education guaranteed to us, it will engender a system that encourages dronage on a massive scale. But no entitlements may ever be curtailed.

Damn. It's 1008 local time and I am wondering if it too early for a double of Clontarf.

ICantSpellDawg

10-20-2013, 13:41

Which is why both parties would need to dive in together, along with a number of other unpopular measures, such as closing tax loopholes.

The difficulty is that Repubs have expressed absolutely no desire to do anything contrary to the wishes of their base. Nor is there evidence that Repub leaders could deliver the votes, even if a difficult and painful Grand Bargain were struck.

In this, as in all things for all time, I blame my congressman.

Note that Grover Norquist is a huge problem when it comes to making a bargain. Pledging to never, ever, under any circumstances close a loophole or raise a marginal tax rate ... well, imagine if the entire Dem caucus has signed a Holy Vow to never cut any spending ever, under any circumstances. Kinda limits the ability to get anything done, no?

This is why I have suggested that the hypocrisy of older Republicans is destroying this country. They are so placated at the trough themselves that there is no breaking the habit. If tax and freedom extremists are to go anywhere, we need to break the GOP. Only when we are no longer betrothed to old government money Republicans will we have an opportunity to reach out to freedom democrats. Third party politics is the only way to oust the codgers.

This is why I am not worried about rendering the GOP garment with extremism. It is time for schism in the party. Entitlement reform will never begin as long as democrats defend all spending and republicans target only inconsequential spending, ignoring the elephant.