Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Community > MacNN Lounge > Political/War Lounge > Shut it down!

View Poll Results: Will the Govt. get shutdown?
Poll Options:
Yup 9 votes (64.29%)
Nope 5 votes (35.71%)
Voters: 14. You may not vote on this poll
Shut it down! (Page 9)
Thread Tools
The Final Dakar  (op)
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 17, 2013, 12:14 PM
 
Well, this makes about as much sense as anything else...

Conservatives Say Boehner's Job Is Safe, for Now | RealClearPolitics
"I've actually been really proud of Speaker Boehner in the last 2½ weeks," said Rep. Raul Labrador, who voted with several others in a failed attempt to overthrow the Republican leader in January. “I don’t think Speaker Boehner has anything to worry about right now.”
I guess Tea Party members feel kinship and respect that he willingly shot himself in the foot, rather than just pass the damn thing 2 weeks ago with the same votes he got last night.
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 17, 2013, 12:15 PM
 
Originally Posted by Shaddim View Post
That's why we write the budget together, in the meetings, with video, and when we're done they sign it. If they back out on the vote after all of that, that's their ass and the people will see it. There isn't enough transparency to make legislators culpable and keep them honest, there are too many shady, backroom deals going on. I want it all recorded, I want them to be held accountable. If they work pork projects outside of official chambers, they're out on their ass, censured from their caucus and the budget process entirely.
But who is "we"? Every member of Congress? A majority of them? It seems like getting them to do what party leadership wants is like herding cats.
     
OAW
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 17, 2013, 02:00 PM
 
Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton View Post
You're missing one piece of the puzzle; you've described the problem but you never referenced the solution. GDP and government aren't independent, so you can't simply shrink the government to control the ratio of GDP:GOV. The solution (pursued by parties numbering somewhere between 1.0 and 2.0), is to somehow by hook or by crook spur the GDP to rise, rather than the GOV to decline, in order to change that ratio you brought up for the better. The only idea anyone has to do this (through policy) is by seeding it with GOV resources. The strategy is to worsen the GDP:GOV ratio in the short term, but in so doing stimulate the GDP over the GOV in the long term. Yes, everyone agrees that the ratio itself is unsustainable. What they disagree on is how many steps backward we can take in the short term in pursuit of more steps forward in the long term. It's not entirely illogical to argue that even if we can't afford more steps backward in the short term, we have no alternative but to try them anyway because the long term goal of reviving the concept of "american industries" is paramount. If you subscribe to the counter-argument that the fabled "american industry" can arise without government design (gasp), then the "wait it out" shoe is now on your foot
This!!!!

Growing our way out of this debt problem is a much more sensible (and politically tenable) approach than cutting our way out of it.

OAW
     
turtle777
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: planning a comeback !
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 17, 2013, 02:32 PM
 
Originally Posted by OAW View Post
Growing our way out of this debt problem is a much more sensible (and politically tenable) approach than cutting our way out of it.
You are aware that this is a pipe dream ?!?!?!

It has almost never happened in history, especially when the debt to GDP ratio went above 90%.
(Read the book / study: "This Time Is Different")

It's like stating your plan is winning the lottery. Possible - yes. Realistic - no.

-t
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 17, 2013, 02:32 PM
 
Originally Posted by Shaddim View Post
I'm insulated. So is my family; my children, my children's children, and potentially even beyond that. This hurts the most vulnerable of us the worst, cuts off their opportunities, burdens them from cradle to the grave, all so we can have a little more now, politicians brown-nosing for votes, rather than wait until we right the ship. I suppose I could be like others in my tax bracket, but I'm not, I care, and it's like watching a car crash in slow motion and I can't do anything to stop it.

Also, why do you feel the need to keep reminding us that you're rich? We can't verify this, but I don't think anybody here doesn't know by now that this is the framework and context by which you post.

Not a big deal, I just find this kind of weird....
     
BLAZE_MkIV
Professional Poster
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Nashua NH, USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 17, 2013, 03:04 PM
 
Originally Posted by turtle777 View Post
You are aware that this is a pipe dream ?!?!?!

It has almost never happened in history, especially when the debt to GDP ratio went above 90%.
(Read the book / study: "This Time Is Different")

It's like stating your plan is winning the lottery. Possible - yes. Realistic - no.

-t
You could grow your way out of it, but first you'd have to stop the debt from ever increasing. Then increases in GDP and inflation debt would eventually become a trivial value to repay.

That's a balanced budget and two maybes.
     
BLAZE_MkIV
Professional Poster
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Nashua NH, USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 17, 2013, 03:08 PM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
Also, why do you feel the need to keep reminding us that you're rich? We can't verify this, but I don't think anybody here doesn't know by now that this is the framework and context by which you post.

Not a big deal, I just find this kind of weird....
Actually in this case it's topical. You're degree of wealth is an important indicator of bias in discussions like this. He has allot so his bias is long term not short term issues. There are people on this forum who have to worry about making rent. They can't afford to take the long view right now.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 17, 2013, 03:09 PM
 
Originally Posted by Shaddim View Post
Only in Groundhog Day every day started with a zero sum, there was equal potential each day and Phil was learning from his mistakes and eventually became a better person. In our scenario, we're getting deeper in debt and crushing the children of the middle and lower classes under our fiscal mistakes.

I'm insulated. So is my family; my children, my children's children, and potentially even beyond that. This hurts the most vulnerable of us the worst, cuts off their opportunities, burdens them from cradle to the grave, all so we can have a little more now, politicians brown-nosing for votes, rather than wait until we right the ship. I suppose I could be like others in my tax bracket, but I'm not, I care, and it's like watching a car crash in slow motion and I can't do anything to stop it.
Interestingly, I know people who are in your tax bracket, are quite good at insulating themselves (which is how they got there), and they care. I know they care because I know them, but one can also gauge it by them doing things like peeling off $20MM donations.

For whatever reason they seem to think declaring World War III on the country's credit rating won't help the middle and lower class.

Now that our appeals to authority have canceled each other out. We're back at square one now, aren't we?
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 17, 2013, 04:10 PM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
Now I see why it's possible subego is afraid I'll respond-bomb his post. Let me try again.
"Bomb" is the wrong way to put it. It implies hostility which isn't there.

I think more in terms of those two-story, self-contained, street paving machines.
     
Shaddim
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 17, 2013, 04:34 PM
 
Originally Posted by BLAZE_MkIV View Post
Actually in this case it's topical. You're degree of wealth is an important indicator of bias in discussions like this. He has allot so his bias is long term not short term issues. There are people on this forum who have to worry about making rent. They can't afford to take the long view right now.
Exactly. It's a difference in perspective, for lack of a better word.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
Shaddim
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 17, 2013, 04:51 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Interestingly, I know people who are in your tax bracket, are quite good at insulating themselves (which is how they got there), and they care. I know they care because I know them, but one can also gauge it by them doing things like peeling off $20MM donations.

For whatever reason they seem to think declaring World War III on the country's credit rating won't help the middle and lower class.

Now that our appeals to authority have canceled each other out. We're back at square one now, aren't we?
Frankly, I think we've fallen back farther than that. I don't see a fix for this in sight, anymore. The bottom falling out of the economy, and indeed the Western way of life, is inevitable. Now it truly is going to require a disaster, complete financial collapse, for people to wake up to what's happening. Worrying about things like rent will be a wistful daydream. I talked with my representative again and he told me he'd been threatened (he didn't say by whom), along with his family, if he didn't concede to certain demands. Big steps are being taken towards a totalitarian government, and combined with the erosion of our rights, the USA is quickly becoming a scary place to live.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 17, 2013, 05:18 PM
 
What were the demands?
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 17, 2013, 06:27 PM
 
Originally Posted by BLAZE_MkIV View Post
Actually in this case it's topical. You're degree of wealth is an important indicator of bias in discussions like this. He has allot so his bias is long term not short term issues. There are people on this forum who have to worry about making rent. They can't afford to take the long view right now.

Agreed, my point is simply that we all understand this by now. It's kind of like me saying every fifth post that I'm Canadian, you guys know that.
     
Shaddim
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 17, 2013, 07:16 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
What were the demands?
That he needed to "get in line", re; discontinue his support of the shutdown and not disrupt the raising of the debt ceiling. It appeared to have shaken him up pretty badly. I made a comment that surely he'd received death threats before, but he replied, "not like this, not anything like this".
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
turtle777
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: planning a comeback !
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 17, 2013, 07:38 PM
 
Originally Posted by Shaddim View Post
Frankly, I think we've fallen back farther than that. I don't see a fix for this in sight, anymore. The bottom falling out of the economy, and indeed the Western way of life, is inevitable. Now it truly is going to require a disaster, complete financial collapse, for people to wake up to what's happening. Worrying about things like rent will be a wistful daydream. I talked with my representative again and he told me he'd been threatened (he didn't say by whom), along with his family, if he didn't concede to certain demands. Big steps are being taken towards a totalitarian government, and combined with the erosion of our rights, the USA is quickly becoming a scary place to live.
You are absolutely right about this.

I see a 50/50 chance that the US will go full blown totalitarian, vs. the people standing up and fighting for the America it once was (i.e. civil war).

Unfortunately, these will be the only choices.

-t
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 17, 2013, 08:21 PM
 
Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton View Post
You're missing one piece of the puzzle; you've described the problem but you never referenced the solution. GDP and government aren't independent, so you can't simply shrink the government to control the ratio of GDP:GOV. The solution (pursued by parties numbering somewhere between 1.0 and 2.0), is to somehow by hook or by crook spur the GDP to rise, rather than the GOV to decline, in order to change that ratio you brought up for the better. The only idea anyone has to do this (through policy) is by seeding it with GOV resources.
This almost dismisses outright the idea of "shrinking" government as if that had really been given a serious shot. Perhaps some feel it's simply too politically untenable and have given up on the idea. I'm not there yet. Granted, we're in complicated times to be sure and there's no way to wrap it up in a neat bow, but it could start by simply addressing waste, fraud, and abuse. It'd require a few people to administer and regularly report it to the American people, but the strategy should be calculated for a worthy net-gain in $ saved. This would show good faith to the American people and those abroad for trust and investment in America. The good news here is you really haven't "shrunk" anything yet. We need well-publicized plans and policies directed right at the engine of American prosperity which remains the small business. Small businesses and the middle class overall are getting absolutely hammered. This should include a shrinkage of regulation and simplification of a tax law that inadvertently favors monoliths and eliminates small business competition. Small business success or failure hits very close to home and resonates heavily in consumer confidence. In this sense it's just getting government out of the way of a more organic market place. Not unlike a football game in which overzealous officiating creates uncertainty and hesitancy and is disruptive to the game.

The strategy is to worsen the GDP:GOV ratio in the short term, but in so doing stimulate the GDP over the GOV in the long term.

Yes, everyone agrees that the ratio itself is unsustainable. What they disagree on is how many steps backward we can take in the short term in pursuit of more steps forward in the long term. It's not entirely illogical to argue that even if we can't afford more steps backward in the short term, we have no alternative but to try them anyway because the long term goal of reviving the concept of "american industries" is paramount. If you subscribe to the counter-argument that the fabled "american industry" can arise without government design (gasp), then the "wait it out" shoe is now on your foot
I see what you're saying, but in light of the amount of stimulus already spent and a continued QE, the current worsen-the-GOV:GDP pace and related returns has me concerned about how far back we'd have to go or worsened we'd have to be to make a real difference. Using the football analogy again, a quarterback can only drop back so far before his options run out entirely. The problems will catch up to you if you don't find a deep out and soon.
ebuddy
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 17, 2013, 10:42 PM
 
Originally Posted by turtle777 View Post
You are absolutely right about this.

I see a 50/50 chance that the US will go full blown totalitarian, vs. the people standing up and fighting for the America it once was (i.e. civil war).

Unfortunately, these will be the only choices.

-t

I see a 5% chance of people standing up and fighting for the America it once was, because nobody knows what that actually was and how it looked, and many that think they do don't.

What was America, exactly, and when was this?
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 17, 2013, 11:03 PM
 
Originally Posted by Shaddim View Post
That he needed to "get in line", re; discontinue his support of the shutdown and not disrupt the raising of the debt ceiling. It appeared to have shaken him up pretty badly. I made a comment that surely he'd received death threats before, but he replied, "not like this, not anything like this".
Makes me curious what the difference is.
     
turtle777
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: planning a comeback !
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 18, 2013, 12:02 AM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
What was America, exactly, and when was this?
If I have to explain to you how America could be better than a totalitarian state, then maybe, you really don't deserve anything else.

Obviously, you and many others see nothing wrong with what's happening.

Let me tell you as some one who had family in Nazi concentration camps: you will not like how this ends. Same as in pre-nazi Germany, too many people here are just denying what's happening. The gradual loss of freedoms and liberties will only be mourned once it's too late.

-t
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 18, 2013, 12:05 AM
 
Originally Posted by turtle777 View Post
If I have to explain to you how America could be better than a totalitarian state, then maybe, you really don't deserve anything else.

Obviously, you and many others see nothing wrong with what's happening.

Let me tell you as some one who had family in Nazi concentration camps: you will not like how this ends. Same as in pre-nazi Germany, too many people here are just denying what's happening. The gradual loss of freedoms and liberties will only be mourned once it's too late.

-t

I'll see something wrong with what is happening when we can no longer vote our so-called totalitarian leaders out of office.
     
lpkmckenna
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Toronto
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 18, 2013, 01:37 AM
 
Originally Posted by BLAZE_MkIV View Post
Actually in this case it's topical. You're degree of wealth is an important indicator of bias in discussions like this. He has allot so his bias is long term not short term issues. There are people on this forum who have to worry about making rent. They can't afford to take the long view right now.
Ugh. Watching people grovel to the rich like this is very unpleasant.
     
Shaddim
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 18, 2013, 02:08 AM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Makes me curious what the difference is.
No idea, I didn't pressure him, but I'd guess a true threat is one that can be backed up, or at least there's the perception that it could be.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
Snow-i
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Maryland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 18, 2013, 03:10 AM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
I'll see something wrong with what is happening when we can no longer vote our so-called totalitarian leaders out of office.
Won't that be too late to uhh... vote them out of office?
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 18, 2013, 03:16 AM
 
Originally Posted by Snow-i View Post
Won't that be too late to uhh... vote them out of office?
It's not like we are going to wake up one morning to this reality. This system of government has more checks and balances than any other, I don't see the point in getting worked up at least until there is talk of doing away with elections.

Besides, I think you guys have your eyes in the wrong place. Maybe the real leaders are those bribing government who can't be voted out of office, and maybe politicians are their puppets? If you see things this way, wouldn't it be best to wage war against the puppet masters rather than the puppets?
     
Shaddim
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 18, 2013, 03:17 AM
 
Originally Posted by Snow-i View Post
Won't that be too late to uhh... vote them out of office?
Then we'd have to form an armed resistance and... oh wait.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
turtle777
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: planning a comeback !
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 18, 2013, 08:01 AM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
I don't see the point in getting worked up at least until there is talk of doing away with elections.
Muahahahaha

No totalitarian or fascist regime has ever held elections. LOL

-t
     
The Final Dakar  (op)
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 18, 2013, 09:12 AM
 
Out of curiosity, are we talking about a future dictator Obama or just a future pres?
     
Uncle Skeleton
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rockville, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 18, 2013, 10:22 AM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
This almost dismisses outright the idea of "shrinking" government as if that had really been given a serious shot.
Careful now, that logic can be used in both directions. Ardent top-down advocates can just as easily argue that the stimulus or hand-holding paradigm just hasn't gotten its "serious" shot yet. This line of reasoning is dangerous, unless both sides can pre-define what their "serious" shot will have been, so each can possibly be proved wrong (and I'm not under the delusion that either side is willing or able to do that; I won't even bother asking the advocates of each side here what their "serious shot" conditions would be).

it could start by simply addressing waste, fraud, and abuse. It'd require a few people to administer and regularly report it to the American people, but the strategy should be calculated for a worthy net-gain in $ saved.
Even at theoretical 100% efficiency, how much of the pie is attributable to waste? This is kind of like an underemployed person focusing on cutting expenses but not looking for a better job, just hoping that one falls in his lap. Yes, there are gains to be found there, but they would be dwarfed by any improvement on the income side. It's penny-wise and pound-foolish.

... I should reiterate, I'm not an actual supporter of this particular growth strategy, just a bystander who understands that it's a mischaracterization to describe the GOV side as wanting the reduced GDP:GOV ratio to be the actual goal and end-state. I can agree that they are likely to forget to walk it back when/if we recover from this situation, but I can't agree that they're doing it on purpose.


Not unlike a football game in which overzealous officiating creates uncertainty and hesitancy and is disruptive to the game.
I agree, but I'm afraid that whoever is steering this ship (big or small government types), there's going to be endless "tweaking" of the rules and the strategy, so the overzealous officiating is just going to be a foregone conclusion, until the problematic economy actually gets fixed one way or the other.


I see what you're saying, but in light of the amount of stimulus already spent and a continued QE, the current worsen-the-GOV:GDP pace and related returns has me concerned about how far back we'd have to go or worsened we'd have to be to make a real difference. Using the football analogy again, a quarterback can only drop back so far before his options run out entirely. The problems will catch up to you if you don't find a deep out and soon.
You know, that's actually quite a good analogy. My point was merely that the QB is going backwards to gain room to maneuver, not because he or his party actually believes that their end zone is in that direction (as turtle implied). Of course, in order to quit falling back he'll need an actual alternative strategy, something Congress has been unable to field. I want libertarian-ish strategies to be viable, but the fact is none have been to date, and I don't see any reason to expect this to change.
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 18, 2013, 01:25 PM
 
Originally Posted by turtle777 View Post
Muahahahaha

No totalitarian or fascist regime has ever held elections. LOL

-t

Obviously.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 18, 2013, 01:29 PM
 
Originally Posted by Shaddim View Post
No idea, I didn't pressure him, but I'd guess a true threat is one that can be backed up, or at least there's the perception that it could be.
That's what I was thinking.

"Look at the pictures of your family in the envelope I just had my associate put in your mailbox."
     
Shaddim
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 18, 2013, 02:17 PM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
Out of curiosity, are we talking about a future dictator Obama or just a future pres?
It's not centered around a person, more of a philosophy. *"We're building a better society", to borrow a phrase.






(*whether you like it or not.)
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
The Final Dakar  (op)
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 18, 2013, 02:26 PM
 
Originally Posted by Shaddim View Post
It's not centered around a person, more of a philosophy. *"We're building a better society", to borrow a phrase.






(*whether you like it or not.)
Each side think they're doing that. Whether its by rolling back some things or changing others.
     
Shaddim
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 18, 2013, 02:29 PM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
Each side think they're doing that. Whether its by rolling back some things or changing others.

I mostly just target the ones with the most momentum, and for a while it's been the Left that's leaned that way the furthest and fastest.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 18, 2013, 02:36 PM
 
Let's call the spades spades here.

Democrats tend to be pretty anti-totalitarian, they just get waylaid by being pro-government. Government, for better or worse, is primary instrument of totalitarianism.

On the other hand, Republucans like to talk a non-totalitarian game, and one would think their anti-government stance would temper their totalitarian views, but noooooo... government is just peachy for ramming 19th century morality down the throat. Nothing totalitarian there at all.
     
Shaddim
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 18, 2013, 03:29 PM
 
Dems: "You will do this."
Repubs: "You can't do that."

For some reason, the latter bothers me more than the former, though on the surface they may seem the same. On a local/regional level, Dems bother me the least. However, on a national level, Repubs are too disorganized and fractured to do as much harm. Whatever goes against the mob rule is the way I typically lean. Before the "war on terror", the last thing that really bugged me was DOMA, which was entirely bipartisan (chuckleheads), horrible legislation, there. Then there was the Patriot Act (bipartisan) and the creation of Homeland Security. BHO doubling down on those didn't endear me to him, and neither does his nonchalant issuance of Executive Orders. He doesn't try to lead, he attempts to rule, which goes back to the, "you will do this" problem.

A lot of people, especially around here, bitched about "King George" when Dubya was in office, but Emperor Obama has been much more of a monarch, but it's more acceptable for him because he throws crumbs to the masses (while stripping their rights). It all comes down to most folks wanting comfort and peace of mind, rather than freedom, because that's apparently safer and more convenient. That reminds me, I talked with one of my more liberal acquaintances the other day and she was really excited about autonomous cars, she couldn't wait until they were everywhere and people wouldn't be driving themselves anymore;

"Think of how much safer it'll be when people can't drive themselves, there'll no longer be accidents."
"What about the people who enjoy driving, because it's fun for them?"
"Public safety is more important than fun."
"How many times has your computer crashed this year? You think autonomous cars will be 100% reliable and risk free?"
"The government will make sure they're perfectly safe, and even if they do occasionally make mistakes they'll be more reliable than human drivers. It's going to be that way, you'll just have to accept it."

"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 18, 2013, 03:41 PM
 
She's only partially wrong. The government won't keep us safe, manufacturers wanting to protect their brand will.

People cried crazy conspiracy theories when Chevy killed the Volt. The reality seems pretty obvious. If the batteries on a Volt blow up, Chevy's stock goes in the shitter. Why open yourself up to that liability?

She's right when it comes to safety. How many times has my computer crashed in the last year? Maybe two or three times. How many times have I seen people **** up in the last year?

Umm... how long do you have?
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 18, 2013, 03:42 PM
 
Originally Posted by Shaddim View Post
Dems: "You will do this."
Repubs: "You can't do that."
Very well put! I'm yoinking it.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 18, 2013, 03:45 PM
 
WRT the middle of your post, I understand the appeal of "vote for the least effective", but I'm not quite there yet.
     
The Final Dakar  (op)
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 18, 2013, 03:46 PM
 
Originally Posted by Shaddim View Post
A lot of people, especially around here, bitched about "King George" when Dubya was in office, but Emperor Obama has been much more of a monarch
What are you basing this on? Executive orders?


Originally Posted by Shaddim View Post
"How many times has your computer crashed this year? You think autonomous cars will be 100% reliable and risk free?"
This is plain stupid. Autonomous cars don't need to be 100% reliable to beat the pants off of human error.
     
Shaddim
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 18, 2013, 04:41 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
She's only partially wrong. The government won't keep us safe, manufacturers wanting to protect their brand will.

People cried crazy conspiracy theories when Chevy killed the Volt. The reality seems pretty obvious. If the batteries on a Volt blow up, Chevy's stock goes in the shitter. Why open yourself up to that liability?

She's right when it comes to safety. How many times has my computer crashed in the last year? Maybe two or three times. How many times have I seen people **** up in the last year?

Umm... how long do you have?
The rest of my life? I don't roll like that. Personally, I don't believe my state will outlaw cars in their current form on public roads, at least not within my lifetime, although some states, such as: Ca, NY, and Ma, very well could.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
Shaddim
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 18, 2013, 05:20 PM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
What are you basing this on? Executive orders?
Erosion of individual rights, extensive abuse of executive orders and privilege, general inability to communicate with people who disagree with him, etc.

This is plain stupid. Autonomous cars don't need to be 100% reliable to beat the pants off of human error.
Really? A multitude of different systems, working in different ways, via wi-fi and various wireless carriers in ad-hoc, open setups. No, I can't imagine how that could go wrong.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
laughingbunny
Junior Member
Join Date: Sep 2013
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 18, 2013, 07:17 PM
 
Originally Posted by Shaddim View Post
Dems: "You will do this."
Repubs: "You can't do that."

For some reason, the latter bothers me more than the former, though on the surface they may seem the same. On a local/regional level, Dems bother me the least. However, on a national level, Repubs are too disorganized and fractured to do as much harm. Whatever goes against the mob rule is the way I typically lean. Before the "war on terror", the last thing that really bugged me was DOMA, which was entirely bipartisan (chuckleheads), horrible legislation, there. Then there was the Patriot Act (bipartisan) and the creation of Homeland Security. BHO doubling down on those didn't endear me to him, and neither does his nonchalant issuance of Executive Orders. He doesn't try to lead, he attempts to rule, which goes back to the, "you will do this" problem.

A lot of people, especially around here, bitched about "King George" when Dubya was in office, but Emperor Obama has been much more of a monarch, but it's more acceptable for him because he throws crumbs to the masses (while stripping their rights). It all comes down to most folks wanting comfort and peace of mind, rather than freedom, because that's apparently safer and more convenient. That reminds me, I talked with one of my more liberal acquaintances the other day and she was really excited about autonomous cars, she couldn't wait until they were everywhere and people wouldn't be driving themselves anymore;

"Think of how much safer it'll be when people can't drive themselves, there'll no longer be accidents."
"What about the people who enjoy driving, because it's fun for them?"
"Public safety is more important than fun."
"How many times has your computer crashed this year? You think autonomous cars will be 100% reliable and risk free?"
"The government will make sure they're perfectly safe, and even if they do occasionally make mistakes they'll be more reliable than human drivers. It's going to be that way, you'll just have to accept it."

Just out of curiosity, you don't have to answer if it's troublesome
What is DOMA, BHO? (these are untranslatable with dictionary) I really like to know
     
Shaddim
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 18, 2013, 08:00 PM
 
DOMA is the Defense of Marriage Act, it's a law that primarily specifies that states can deny marriages of same-sex couples, even if those couples are lawfully married in another state, and it also blocked same-sex married couples from being recognized as "spouses" for purposes of federal laws, or from receiving federal marriage benefits.

BHO = Barack Hussein Obama
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 18, 2013, 08:50 PM
 
@Shaddim,

I'm not saying human driven cars will be outlawed, I'm saying self-driving ones will be driven more safely, and safer to be in.
     
laughingbunny
Junior Member
Join Date: Sep 2013
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 18, 2013, 09:17 PM
 
Originally Posted by Shaddim View Post
DOMA is the Defense of Marriage Act, it's a law that primarily specifies that states can deny marriages of same-sex couples, even if those couples are lawfully married in another state, and it also blocked same-sex married couples from being recognized as "spouses" for purposes of federal laws, or from receiving federal marriage benefits.

BHO = Barack Hussein Obama
Ok, ok, these people must be very angry then, so republicans are a party that does a lot of old school things like this? So you are complaining what they are doing is unreasonable?

.....Ok
     
laughingbunny
Junior Member
Join Date: Sep 2013
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 18, 2013, 09:34 PM
 
Thanks so much for your reply! I think I'm addicted to learning these things, so I got more questions now...=.=

I was just reading this post:
The Republicans are asking the Democrats to negotiate, but so far the only item being bandied about is ACA funding with nothing in return. And one wonders why the Democrats find it unpalatable. It's not a compromise, it's a concession. With nothing given in return.

I don't know what ACA is, I searched on the internet it says "Association of Canadian Archivists"
is that what it is?

Just this question, then I'll rest for the weekend, thanks
     
laughingbunny
Junior Member
Join Date: Sep 2013
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 18, 2013, 10:28 PM
 
Ok, no need to reply me, I just found out it is Affordable Care Act from youtube
     
Shaddim
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 18, 2013, 11:43 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
@Shaddim,

I'm not saying human driven cars will be outlawed, I'm saying self-driving ones will be driven more safely, and safer to be in.
Oh, I don't doubt that one bit, once they get the kinks out. My wife had a good solution. Eventually, make interstates and freeways "automated only", but leave all others alone. That wouldn't bother me at all, since travel via the former is a boring, mind-numbing chore, anyway. I'm much more of a "Route 66" kind of guy, and prefer to avoid interstates, whenever possible.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
Shaddim
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 18, 2013, 11:45 PM
 
Originally Posted by laughingbunny View Post
Ok, no need to reply me, I just found out it is Affordable Care Act from youtube
That is correct.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 19, 2013, 09:59 AM
 
Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton View Post
Careful now, that logic can be used in both directions. Ardent top-down advocates can just as easily argue that the stimulus or hand-holding paradigm just hasn't gotten its "serious" shot yet. This line of reasoning is dangerous, unless both sides can pre-define what their "serious" shot will have been, so each can possibly be proved wrong (and I'm not under the delusion that either side is willing or able to do that; I won't even bother asking the advocates of each side here what their "serious shot" conditions would be).
Excellent points and why I maintained that it couldn't be wrapped up in a neat bow, but you know I'm compelled to try. I will say that one is merely simpler than the other and does not rely as much on purest ideology, unless you're a mathematician and/or historian dedicated to sustainability and solvency. For example, QE of $84B/month, annual deficits approaching or exceeding $1T, and a debt of $17T all constitute serious shots at monetarily stimulating the economy by any historical measure available. The Title 26 US federal income tax code is nearly 14,000 pages long and the Code of Federal Regulations is now approximately 157,974 pages long and both constitute historically significant oversight into the activities of mankind. There is public concern over each of the above across both sides of the aisle, but the legislative activity mostly in private does not align with this professed urgency. In short, I do not believe it's necessary to pre-define what trimming would look like, but to simply begin with transparency and good will.

Even at theoretical 100% efficiency, how much of the pie is attributable to waste?
You might be surprised.

This is kind of like an underemployed person focusing on cutting expenses but not looking for a better job, just hoping that one falls in his lap. Yes, there are gains to be found there, but they would be dwarfed by any improvement on the income side. It's penny-wise and pound-foolish.
I get your argument, but I don't see the imaginary barrier that one must be performed in lieu of the other. Historically low regard for Congress and government combined with an increasing lack of faith in this brain-trust causes immeasurable hesitancy in entrepreneurial activity and consumer confidence. Government waste has been ridiculed by those of both sides of the aisle and even made Obama's stump in citing penguin studies. The General Accounting Office has identified duplication in at least 1500 individual programs, costing taxpayers over $400 billion per year. The Omnibus Stimulus bill was $410 billion right? BTW, the $400 billion+ is merely in waste through duplicitous and fragmented bureaucracy and doesn't begin to touch fraud and abuse. IMO, the American people need to see action that indicates their government is aware of the growing phenomena of waste, fraud, and abuse and are taking bold, apparent steps to be good stewards of the collective resource. Conversely, any acts in good faith toward the aforementioned, primary economic drivers would be worth their weight in gold.

The pre-defined goal here would be no more complicated than... begin eliminating the duplicitous programs you've already identified as wasteful, inefficient, and fragmented and quantified as every bit as meaningful as the last stimulus attempt.

... I should reiterate, I'm not an actual supporter of this particular growth strategy, just a bystander who understands that it's a mischaracterization to describe the GOV side as wanting the reduced GDP:GOV ratio to be the actual goal and end-state. I can agree that they are likely to forget to walk it back when/if we recover from this situation, but I can't agree that they're doing it on purpose.

I agree, but I'm afraid that whoever is steering this ship (big or small government types), there's going to be endless "tweaking" of the rules and the strategy, so the overzealous officiating is just going to be a foregone conclusion, until the problematic economy actually gets fixed one way or the other.

You know, that's actually quite a good analogy. My point was merely that the QB is going backwards to gain room to maneuver, not because he or his party actually believes that their end zone is in that direction (as turtle implied). Of course, in order to quit falling back he'll need an actual alternative strategy, something Congress has been unable to field. I want libertarian-ish strategies to be viable, but the fact is none have been to date, and I don't see any reason to expect this to change.
I don't believe overzealous officiating and legislative whimsy is the product of a problematic economy, I believe it's a major contributor and perpetuates itself by the inherent folly of its very existence. This is no more useful than resolving the labor woes of Virginians by instituting chattel slavery only requiring bold government action to eliminate it 160 years later. I don't think viability can be measured until an attempt is made. I'll admit fault here as I simply cannot accept that logic and reason have become entirely untenable. I have children and so for my sanity and their hope, I may have to remain naively optimistic.
ebuddy
     
 
Thread Tools
 
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 05:45 AM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2017 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.,