[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

I'd also like to point out that "every day" seems to be the day to talk about gun control, which is blatantly obvious from the "every day is the day to talk about gun control" thread. But when it comes to creating a budget to reign in unsustainable spending ...This isn't a conversation our nation should be having.

Shut up and pay, damnit. And stop asking questions.

Who says it isn't a conversation our nation should be having? That we aren't having this conversation doesn't mean that us on the left believe that we should be avoiding having it.

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Who says it isn't a conversation our nation should be having? That we aren't having this conversation doesn't mean that us on the left believe that we should be avoiding having it.

The Senate says that, by not having it, for three years. Yet they are voted in once again, despite untenable forecasts. To me, that action speaks pretty loudly on how much those on the left and in power care to have this conversation.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

The Senate says that, by not having it, for three years. Yet they are voted in once again, despite untenable forecasts. To me, that action speaks pretty loudly on how much those on the left and in power care to have this conversation.

I think this is one of the biggest points in favor of Republicans that should be beaten. If wanna keep spending as is, at least own up to it and pass it.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

The Senate says that, by not having it, for three years. Yet they are voted in once again, despite untenable forecasts. To me, that action speaks pretty loudly on how much those on the left and in power care to have this conversation.

The failure of the Senate to pass a budget doesn't mean it is being avoided though, it means that one cannot be decided and agreed upon, and/or various politicians don't want to shoulder blame.

This is completely inexcusable, I'm not defending this, I'm just saying it's more of a political than an ideological issue.

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

The failure of the Senate to pass a budget doesn't mean it is being avoided though, it means that one cannot be decided and agreed upon, and/or various politicians don't want to shoulder blame.

This is completely inexcusable, I'm not defending this, I'm just saying it's more of a political than an ideological issue.

How would you reconcile that with the exponentially increasing spending as a percentage to revenue then? If this were the case, no new spending should have occurred at all for the same reason no new budget was created - political deadlock.

"We can't agree on a plan for spending but we sure can agree on more spending"

Sorry besson, that doesn't make any sense.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

How would you reconcile that with the exponentially increasing spending as a percentage to revenue then? If this were the case, no new spending should have occurred at all for the same reason no new budget was created - political deadlock.

"We can't agree on a plan for spending but we sure can agree on more spending"

Sorry besson, that doesn't make any sense.

I think you are confusing a budget and appropriations. A budget is more of a long-term strategy. I've stated that the Senate should have passed a budget. Just because it is hard and politically inconvenient doesn't let them off the hook, likewise for entitlement reform, health care reform, and anything else that needs to be improved upon. However, a budget is not required for appropriating money, it never has been.

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

I think you are confusing a budget and appropriations. A budget is more of a long-term strategy. I've stated that the Senate should have passed a budget. Just because it is hard and politically inconvenient doesn't let them off the hook, likewise for entitlement reform, health care reform, and anything else that needs to be improved upon. However, a budget is not required for appropriating money, it never has been.

And the senate has used that to their full advantage to pass more spending without any regard towards a long term solution. Hence my point, bessy. They know what they are doing. It isn't a political deadlock issue, its a strategy and one that fulfills both the Democratic Senates idealogical and political interests. In other words, they are avoiding a budget.

[besson3c]

Politifact also states that this has happened on 4 other occasions since 1983:

http://www.politifact.com/tennessee/...-budget-more-/

The main problem is the fact that joint budget bills are not required. Yes, the Senate is to blame for taking advantage of this fact, but that politicians don't do stuff they aren't required to do should not be a surprise, and is not something unique to either party.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Politifact also states that this has happened on 4 other occasions since 1983:

PolitiFact Tennessee | Bob Corker says Senate has not passed a budget in more than three years

The main problem is the fact that joint budget bills are not required. Yes, the Senate is to blame for taking advantage of this fact, but that politicians don't do stuff they aren't required to do should not be a surprise, and is not something unique to either party.

That's a rationalization.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

That's a rationalization.

Of what?

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Politifact also states that this has happened on 4 other occasions since 1983:

PolitiFact Tennessee | Bob Corker says Senate has not passed a budget in more than three years

The main problem is the fact that joint budget bills are not required. Yes, the Senate is to blame for taking advantage of this fact, but that politicians don't do stuff they aren't required to do should not be a surprise, and is not something unique to either party.

Perhaps then we should find people of better character to lead our country then? Who will solve problems we as a society face whether they are required to or not? Or at the very least, reign in the control over our personal and financial lives we are giving them? Now we're getting it!

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Of what?

Of their inaction.

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

Perhaps then we should find people of better character to lead our country then? Who will solve problems we as a society face whether they are required to or not? Or at the very least, reign in the control over our personal and financial lives we are giving them? Now we're getting it!

Derail

Are they required to look out for me personally?
Are they required to defend my home against any and all offenders?

Nope. Hey! 2nd amendment.

Are they required to uphold my right to keep and bear arms so that I may do so myself. Yes!

Wow, what insight to the founding fathers line of thinking...And you can apply this to the 1st, 4th, and i'm sure many other amendments too!

Besson now understands "the right" in that congressmen will only do what is required of them, no more. It is up to each and every individual to fill in the rest. Because we now know that human nature dictates that those with power will abuse it within the confines of their requirements, and that we as a society must define ourselves in every aspect of our lives including but not limited to our speech, our health, the defense of our livelihoods, our neighbors, etc - not beg washington to do it for us.
/derail.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

Perhaps then we should find people of better character to lead our country then? Who will solve problems we as a society face whether they are required to or not? Or at the very least, reign in the control over our personal and financial lives we are giving them? Now we're getting it!

I don't think anybody would disagree with this, and certainly the polls agree.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

Of their inaction.

I've been pretty clear that they shoulder blame, I was just redirecting the criticism to broaden the scope in identifying what I see as the true source of the problem. That the Senate is abusing this right now could very well be happenstance.

Why haven't joint budget bills been a requirement? This seems like a good idea even under better economic conditions.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

Derail

Are they required to look out for me personally?
Are they required to defend my home against any and all offenders?

Nope. Hey! 2nd amendment.

Are they required to uphold my right to keep and bear arms so that I may do so myself. Yes!

Wow, what insight to the founding fathers line of thinking...And you can apply this to the 1st, 4th, and i'm sure many other amendments too!

Besson now understands "the right" in that congressmen will only do what is required of them, no more. It is up to each and every individual to fill in the rest. Because we now know that human nature dictates that those with power will abuse it within the confines of their requirements, and that we as a society must define ourselves in every aspect of our lives including but not limited to our speech, our health, the defense of our livelihoods, our neighbors, etc - not beg washington to do it for us.
/derail.

Citizens taking up weapons to defend themselves from the government is a completely retarded solution though. For one, insurrection is messy and unnecessary in a democracy. Moreover, some gun nuts with assault weapons are no match for our military (if the government really was interested in a civil war).

The real solution is to elect the right people, and for enough people to be participating in our democracy, and demanding an end to infotainment in order to help best direct our democracy so that we can elect the right people would also be nice.

If, say, 80% of our population was participating in our elections and we were still getting these results, then maybe I'd be inclined to agree with you.

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Citizens taking up weapons to defend themselves from the government is a completely retarded solution though. For one, insurrection is messy and unnecessary in a democracy. Moreover, some gun nuts with assault weapons are no match for our military (if the government really was interested in a civil war).

I'll save for another thread.

The real solution is to elect the right people, and for enough people to be participating in our democracy, and demanding an end to infotainment in order to help best direct our democracy so that we can elect the right people would also be nice.

Can we discuss things in term of realistic probability? It'd be nice if we could end all suffering everywhere. That isn't going to happen. Pretending that will happen is willful ignorance of the history of civilization and human nature. We as a society must recognize that fact and keep in place the checks and balances that allow each person to decide their fate as much as is reasonably possible. The government will never, ever, ever, care about me personally and as such, will never make decisions regarding my future as well as I will. That said, our government needs to reflect that reality should we wish to remain a free and prosperous society. If they can't even pass a damn budget, why would we want them to decide our fate with regards to any important life decisions?

If, say, 80% of our population was participating in our elections and we were still getting these results, then maybe I'd be inclined to agree with you.

But you see, we will never have 80% of the population voting. Why craft policy based on hypotheticals that will not come to fruition in our lifetimes or even our children's lifetimes?

What you've proposed is no solution, because it will not happen. How many decades do we have to endure before people start waking up and taking their lives into their own hands?

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

I'll save for another thread.


Can we discuss things in term of realistic probability? It'd be nice if we could end all suffering everywhere. That isn't going to happen. Pretending that will happen is willful ignorance of the history of civilization and human nature. We as a society must recognize that fact and keep in place the checks and balances that allow each person to decide their fate as much as is reasonably possible. The government will never, ever, ever, care about me personally and as such, will never make decisions regarding my future as well as I will. That said, our government needs to reflect that reality should we wish to remain a free and prosperous society. If they can't even pass a damn budget, why would we want them to decide our fate with regards to any important life decisions?



But you see, we will never have 80% of the population voting. Why craft policy based on hypotheticals that will not come to fruition in our lifetimes or even our children's lifetimes?

What you've proposed is no solution, because it will not happen. How many decades do we have to endure before people start waking up and taking their lives into their own hands?

Wait, so this idea of a civil war against our government is realistic, but getting more people involved in our democracy is a fantasy?

Huh?

Why is it that other countries have more people that participate in their elections if this idea is so wildly unrealistic? Why is it that other democratic countries have politicians and parties they assign higher approval ratings to?

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Wait, so this idea of a civil war against our government is realistic, but getting more people involved in our democracy is a fantasy?

First of all you've failed to address 80% of my post. Including everything on the topic of this thread. Let me make that clear before we go any further.

Secondly, how many civil wars have there been just in the last decade century to topple tyrannical governments? Quite a few.

Thirdly:
We've had one civil war and one election with 80% turnout of eligible voters. 2.4 million people voted in that election. There are over 300 million people in the country today.


The civil war was more recent, by the way. So how far fetched is it really?

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

First of all you've failed to address 80% of my post. Including everything on the topic of this thread. Let me make that clear before we go any further.

I didn't intend for you to fixate on the 80% number, it wasn't central to my point. The point I was trying to make is that we have low participation in this country, and higher participation would help provide the results we want (in addition to reducing the influence money has on our politics, the population demanding better information from the media, etc.), and is attainable - whatever that percentage is.

Secondly, how many civil wars have there been just in the last decade century to topple tyrannical governments? Quite a few.

How many of these were mature democracies?

Thirdly:
We've had one civil war and one election with 80% turnout of eligible voters. 2.4 million people voted in that election. There are over 300 million people in the country today.

I'm not sure I get your point.

The civil war was more recent, by the way. So how far fetched is it really?

Quite. Our democracy not only exists, is mature, but wars can be won without this level of violence these days. Buying an election is far less expensive than a civil war.

[Shaddim]

Gosh, I'm short of funds this month, that Huayra took a big chunk out of my disposable cash. I think I'll take out a LOC against it, that way I can have a few 100Gs for Vegas. That sounds brilliant.

[screener]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

Gosh, I'm short of funds this month, that Huayra took a big chunk out of my disposable cash. I think I'll take out a LOC against it, that way I can have a few 100Gs for Vegas. That sounds brilliant.

Ah geez.

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

I didn't intend for you to fixate on the 80% number, it wasn't central to my point. The point I was trying to make is that we have low participation in this country, and higher participation would help provide the results we want (in addition to reducing the influence money has on our politics, the population demanding better information from the media, etc.), and is attainable - whatever that percentage is.

Are you sure? How would having higher participation decrease the level of abuse at the top?

How many of these were mature democracies?

How would you define a mature democracy, and do you believe that's what we have now?

I'm not sure I get your point.

You see no difference between a voting pool of 2.4 million and over 300 million in terms of affecting positive change?

Quite. Our democracy not only exists, is mature, but wars can be won without this level of violence these days. Buying an election is far less expensive than a civil war.

Do you have anything to back this claim up other than your personal opinion? What wars have been won without "this level of violence?" Ever?

And you're right, buying an election is way cheaper than a war - hence why the 2nd ensures that those without significant wealth will always have a voice.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

... the 2nd ensures that those without significant wealth will always have a voice.

[besson3c]

Those without significant wealth always have a voice anyway: their participation in our democracy, and their votes. What voice does your gun provide you? Jack shit, the government doesn't care about your gun, they can steamroller all over you in other ways, and if they really wanted to take you out your gun is not going to make a difference.

This isn't a movie.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

...and if they really wanted to take you out your gun is not going to make a difference.

I think it would make at least a little difference: it gives them an easier cover story if they want to "take you out" without raising suspicion.

[besson3c]

Bill Mahr pointed out that it isn't the 2nd amendment we should be worried about, it's the rest of the constitution. Why isn't there similar outrage over wiretapping, the recent internet legislation, the Patriot Act, etc.? As he says, worrying about the 2nd amendment at this point is like having a strip club with no girls, and only bouncers.

He is obviously exaggerating for comedic effect, but he has a point, one cannot cherry pick what parts of the constitution they really care about the most.

[Shaddim]

The last time the ATF guys were here to visit, they told me they wouldn't dream of storming my property without air support. "It would be mass suicide". Made me feel good.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

The last time the ATF guys were here to visit, they told me they wouldn't dream of storming my property without air support. "It would be mass suicide". Made me feel good.

The ATF guys said the same thing to me, but mostly because of my ninja karate skills.

At least I know that Obama isn't coming to get me though.

[screener]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

The last time the ATF guys were here to visit, they told me they wouldn't dream of storming my property without air support. "It would be mass suicide". Made me feel good.

Wow, what a country where you feel good about that.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Those without significant wealth always have a voice anyway: their participation in our democracy, and their votes. What voice does your gun provide you? Jack shit, the government doesn't care about your gun, they can steamroller all over you in other ways, and if they really wanted to take you out your gun is not going to make a difference.

Of course the government cares about your gun, that's why they're generally registered. You're fired up over the word tyranny as if someone here is suggesting we're in those times now. As far as steamrolling and taking me out and guns not making a difference and all this, you're missing the point. If a mere 2% of the US population were to become motivated by one thing or another, they'd represent more than 6 million people; 3 times the number currently enlisted in the standing armies.

The police are effective at finding perpetrators of crime, but in the poorer neighborhoods I've had to live in, they're generally very late to the game. What voice? A say in whether or not they would be raped, robbed, kidnapped, assaulted, etc... It puts a small elderly woman on equal footing with one large man or one man on equal footing with 4 large men.

This isn't a movie.

Neither is the news out of the Middle East and while this not the condition of our system, tyranny is a human condition that has repeated itself enough that it shouldn't be relegated to the fictional.

[The Final Dakar]

*looks at thread title*

I had to make sure I wasn't in the wrong thread.

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Those without significant wealth always have a voice anyway: their participation in our democracy, and their votes. What voice does your gun provide you? Jack shit, the government doesn't care about your gun, they can steamroller all over you in other ways, and if they really wanted to take you out your gun is not going to make a difference.

This isn't a movie.

And what ensures their participation in democracy? Words on a page? A politician's promise?


If they wanted to take me out, my guns won't make a difference. If they wanted to take out 6 million people (2%), now they'd have a problem. The value in gun ownership is the deterrence factor. Why did we not Nuke the Soviet Union? For threat that they could do the same to us.

In this analogy, the citizenry's guns are the only deterrent we have from our ruling class just wholesale ignoring the constitution. There is nothing magical about that peice of paper that enforces it. Its the system of checks and balances contained within. The 2nd amendment is one of those checks - you take that away the whole house of cards would fall.

Would it happen overnight? No.

[mduell]

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

exponentially increasing spending as a percentage to revenue

Please demonstrate this ratio is exponentially increasing.

[cgc]

Originally Posted by mduell 

Please demonstrate this ratio is exponentially increasing.

Actually, debt is exponentially increasing but debt-to-GDP is not.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by mduell 

Please demonstrate this ratio is exponentially increasing.

You're asking him to demonstrate compounding interest?

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

And what ensures their participation in democracy? Words on a page? A politician's promise?

Enough participation and demand for accountability could lead to corrupt politicians that we are inclined to distrust being elected less frequently.

If they wanted to take me out, my guns won't make a difference. If they wanted to take out 6 million people (2%), now they'd have a problem. The value in gun ownership is the deterrence factor. Why did we not Nuke the Soviet Union? For threat that they could do the same to us.

Why would they? They could start dropping bombs and firing missiles on a high density like New York and do this pretty easily.

In this analogy, the citizenry's guns are the only deterrent we have from our ruling class just wholesale ignoring the constitution. There is nothing magical about that peice of paper that enforces it. Its the system of checks and balances contained within. The 2nd amendment is one of those checks - you take that away the whole house of cards would fall.

Would it happen overnight? No.

Sorry, this is a dumb argument.

There are people happy to ignore the constitution and any other laws while even supporting the 2nd amendment. Maybe the 2nd amendment is not the part of the constitution we should be most worried about, maybe it is the other aspects to our liberties (although many of these we've never really had in the first place)?

There are also other deterrents too. A politician cannot ignore laws if he/she is not elected in the first place.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Of course the government cares about your gun, that's why they're generally registered. You're fired up over the word tyranny as if someone here is suggesting we're in those times now. As far as steamrolling and taking me out and guns not making a difference and all this, you're missing the point. If a mere 2% of the US population were to become motivated by one thing or another, they'd represent more than 6 million people; 3 times the number currently enlisted in the standing armies.

If we had 6 million people motivated and willing to kill, we'd be in complete anarchy and disarray. If groups like OWS and the Tea Party can't mobilize over a coherent cause, what makes you think 6 million will?

Besides, like I said, enough bombs (e.g. nukes) and missiles and those 6 million people cease to exist pretty quickly in a high density area.

Neither is the news out of the Middle East and while this not the condition of our system, tyranny is a human condition that has repeated itself enough that it shouldn't be relegated to the fictional.

I'm still waiting for examples of tyranny occurring in a modern democracy.

The thing is, this whole premise and its context is just pure nonsense.

First of all, the whole premise of a citizenry being a check and balance on the military is bogus. The concept here is for the citizenry to be a second line of defense for the military when we are invaded by outside forces. As far as I'm concerned, with the military industrial complex what it is, this concept is literally obsolete.

Secondly, our entire political system was designed with the sorts of checks and balances to prevent another Hitler. Have you thought about how much stuff would have to fail and collapse for there to be another Hitler in this country? If it gets to this point, our whole democracy will have completely collapsed, and at this point we won't have to fear the government threatening us with violence, we'll have to fear rebuilding the country.

Thirdly, as I've said, modern governments such as ours in an economy like ours don't need violence to dominate us and take away our liberties, they can do so by building an aristocracy as they have and ruling the economy.

What you are describing might become relevant if this government has completely collapsed and this country as we know it is on the brink of collapse, *and* for some inexplicable reason what remains of the government has decided to open fire on us and are somehow allowed to do so.

The prospects of this happening are so incredibly remote, we might as well be worrying about any number of other Glenn Beck-esque apocalyptic scenarios.

[besson3c]

Snow-i and ebuddy: out of curiosity, do you own Goldline stock?

[cgc]

Funny, the argument to raise the debt ceiling is "to pay debts already incurred" yet our debt is going up so we're either paying minimum payments or we're still spending money like it's going out of style.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by cgc 

Funny, the argument to raise the debt ceiling is "to pay debts already incurred" yet our debt is going up so we're either paying minimum payments or we're still spending money like it's going out of style.

Paul Krugman would say that spending cuts with simultaneous high unemployment would exacerbate the situation. This is certainly worthy of consideration, as if this premise is correct, even making minimum payments could be threatened in an economy that isn't producing anything, and likewise for interest rates.

If nothing more, I'm hoping that most of us can agree that the, at times, hysteria over the deficit has been monopolizing things at the peril of job creation/growth. No jobs/growth, high unemployment = no amount of spending cuts being sufficient so long as this trend continues, hypothetically speaking.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Snow-i and ebuddy: out of curiosity, do you own Goldline stock?

What a moronic thing to ask. Besson, are you in a Dungeons and Dragons club?

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

What a moronic thing to ask. Besson, are you in a Dungeons and Dragons club?

Why is it moronic? You seem worried about government tyranny, which is probably less likely than our currency becoming virtually worthless, right?

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

You're asking him to demonstrate compounding interest?

.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

If we had 6 million people motivated and willing to kill, we'd be in complete anarchy and disarray. If groups like OWS and the Tea Party can't mobilize over a coherent cause, what makes you think 6 million will?

Besides, like I said, enough bombs (e.g. nukes) and missiles and those 6 million people cease to exist pretty quickly in a high density area.

Well... lobbing missiles into residential areas will likely motivate more than 2%. And yes, that would be complete anarchy and disarray. No one is suggesting we're in those times.

I'm still waiting for examples of tyranny occurring in a modern democracy.

The thing is, this whole premise and its context is just pure nonsense.

Now you know why you're still waiting for examples. I was glad to see that you had narrowed the field of discussion to modern democracies because of course, those old ones were corruptible. I'm still waiting for examples of modern democracies that do not acknowledge a right to own arms.

First of all, the whole premise of a citizenry being a check and balance on the military is bogus. The concept here is for the citizenry to be a second line of defense for the military when we are invaded by outside forces. As far as I'm concerned, with the military industrial complex what it is, this concept is literally obsolete.

I couldn't disagree more. You need boots on the ground for this degree of control. The concept would never be obsolete and any SWAT or ATF agent dressed to the hilt in bullet and bomb-proofing armor could attest to the amount of respect they give even one lone wolf.

Secondly, our entire political system was designed with the sorts of checks and balances to prevent another Hitler. Have you thought about how much stuff would have to fail and collapse for there to be another Hitler in this country? If it gets to this point, our whole democracy will have completely collapsed, and at this point we won't have to fear the government threatening us with violence, we'll have to fear rebuilding the country.

The Constitution violates the space-time continuum. Yes, our entire political system was designed with the sorts of checks and balances that would prevent a Hitler. The foundation of our system, including the anti-Federalists who had a say in its drafting, saw to it that a right to bear arms was maintained.

Hitler strips the right from the subject-race. I know... I know... Hitler had all these tanks and planes and bombs and stuff, but for whatever reason was still interested in taking away a personal right to own arms.

Thirdly, as I've said, modern governments such as ours in an economy like ours don't need violence to dominate us and take away our liberties, they can do so by building an aristocracy as they have and ruling the economy.

What you are describing might become relevant if this government has completely collapsed and this country as we know it is on the brink of collapse, *and* for some inexplicable reason what remains of the government has decided to open fire on us and are somehow allowed to do so.

The prospects of this happening are so incredibly remote, we might as well be worrying about any number of other Glenn Beck-esque apocalyptic scenarios.

I know right? That's why I can't for the life of me understand why you're so fixated on the prospect.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Paul Krugman would say that spending cuts with simultaneous high unemployment would exacerbate the situation.

I won't trust any economist who is worth less than my mechanic.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

I won't trust any economist who is worth less than my mechanic.

He's an academic, so I guess this is a variation on one of those silly "those that can't do, teach" comments?

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

He's an academic, so I guess this is a variation on one of those silly "those that can't do, teach" comments?

Silly? No. I expect an authority on economics and finance to have exceptional finances, just as I would be disappointed to find a professor in mech. engineering who can't rebuild a small-block V8. It's similar to voting in politicians who have never managed a successful business (and/or have led several into bankruptcy). We may not want to admit it, but we have the government we deserve.

Ross Perot may have been a nut in some ways, but if he'd been elected the first time he ran for Pres, we wouldn't be in the economic mess we're in now. (We'd could possibly have worse foreign policy issues, but you can't have everything.)

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

Silly? No. I expect an authority on economics and finance to have exceptional finances, just as I would be disappointed to find a professor in mech. engineering who can't rebuild a small-block V8. It's similar to voting in politicians who have never managed a successful business (and/or have led several into bankruptcy). We may not want to admit it, but we have the government we deserve.

Ross Perot may have been a nut in some ways, but if he'd been elected the first time he ran for Pres, we wouldn't be in the economic mess we're in now. (We'd could possibly have worse foreign policy issues, but you can't have everything.)

It's completely silly, because it erroneously assumes that managing personal finances or finances for a business is the same as managing a national economy, and of course, a president doesn't create a budget anyway.

This is the same argument that Mitt Romney tried to make.

[Shaddim]

A president can make a budget, many have submitted them to congress over the years, Clinton submitted 6 of them during his time in office. I absolutely agree, a national economy would be much more challenging. All the more reason why Krugman and the like should be viewed with cynicism, since they have no practical experience. On that issue, Romney was right. Was that supposed to be a stinging rebuke?