3 ms·

Contrary to the other reply, the Democratic and Republican parties are extremely different. It's very unusual for someone to feel comfortable just switching fro

by beat 11y ago

Contrary to the other reply, the Democratic and Republican parties are extremely different. It's very unusual for someone to feel comfortable just switching from one to the other suddenly. And don't confuse rhetoric with reality. The Republican Party is pro-business and, more importantly, anti-government - almost anarchists these days. Lessig's dreams of regulating campaign spending by corporations and the wealthy fly directly in the face of what the GOP really cares about these days.

JoshTriplett 11y ago
> The Republican Party is pro-business and, more importantly, anti-government That's the theory, but often not the practice. The Republican Party often favors bigger government, they just disagree about what to spend it on. Neither party is particularly small-government anymore.
- beat 11y ago
  Yeah, I can agree with that. I think it's a matter of interpretation. While they latch on to big-government things, the language is a phrasing of hostility, and the governing is borderline sabotage and hostage-taking. The shutdown crises suck.
  - EdSharkey 11y ago
    Yeah, they sortof suck, but we're 20T in the hole and 9% of the federal budget goes to debt service. That sucks more! When do the rabble on the right who instigate these debt showdowns get to be the righteous good guys instead of demons? Do we really need to spiral down to some catastrophe before we wake up and make a change here? It's the banksters accumulating most of the power with this debt here. I suspect the left will do the opposite of what should be done and install more growth-slowing policies and spend even more rapidly than the establishment republicans have.
    - beat 11y ago
      Because a debt showdown would do FAR more damage to the economy than debt servicing. Default due to petulance is NOT appropriate behavior for the most important currency in the world. The showdowns aren't policy, they're grandstanding. I don't like politicians playing chicken with the global economy because they find some things distasteful. If they cared that much about debt, they could actually, you know, raise taxes.
      - EdSharkey 11y ago
        I never know if responses like yours are the political party-line machined outrage response or what you truly believe. If you're just spouting some party line, then happily ignore the following and get back to sleep - outrage successful. But your last sentence makes me think you actually believe, so I'm going to burn some time on you and perhaps get past the emotion here. Like you said, just tax everyone more! A 100% tax on earnings is reasonable in some cases; Norway does it, just tax like madmen until the debt is paid. Well, you could do that, you could even seize everyone's property to pay down the debt, (and I don't see why that isn't a reasonable proposal either.) The problem with that plan is, even if you did those things, the growth in social security and Medicare is too fast for even asset seizure to catch. All these trust funds "running out of money" you hear about are simply the growth of those programs outstripping the IOU's owed AND the amount congress allocates extra for additional growth. You'll get to a point where the growth spirals as lives are extended, etc Debt is the place that you can start to install some controls. That is why our media and congress always describe it as a "showdown" or "battle". The battle is quite lopsided because the vast majority of politicians in all parties don't want to touch this and hate any boat rocking, and there's a lot of lobbyists to pay back. Can you honestly tell me what the spending priorities are for congress? There are none! Everything is important, and all budgets for every department may only grow based on their rules for baseline budgeting in the face of increasing divides between parties and people in government - in other words, the stalemate we've seen over the past 18 years results in budgets each year that are simply last year's budget + 5% with occasional huge jumps in new spending whenever a crisis arises and everyone temporarily agrees to authorize new spending. As I said, debt is the place to begin the place to begin debate about our spending priorities. Why? Because any new debt must be _authorized_, hence voted on. It's annoying to confront tough issues! Hence all the acrimony. Okay, so just look at your life, your security. You think the system we have here is stable? Its so fragile and full of corruption, look at what happened in 07-08 with the fraudulent loan scams the big banks were running. And congress is the flashpoint for these crises every time. So, I'm agreeing with you that there is potential for damage if we try to rein in the spending and get some priorities. What's the alternative that you are suggesting? Don't deal with it, let the instabilities grow, and eventually have an unmanaged collapse. Do you disagree?

by beat 11y ago

JoshTriplett 11y ago

> The Republican Party is pro-business and, more importantly, anti-government That's the theory, but often not the practice. The Republican Party often favors bigger government, they just disagree about what to spend it on. Neither party is particularly small-government anymore.

beat 11y ago
Yeah, I can agree with that. I think it's a matter of interpretation. While they latch on to big-government things, the language is a phrasing of hostility, and the governing is borderline sabotage and hostage-taking. The shutdown crises suck.
- EdSharkey 11y ago
  Yeah, they sortof suck, but we're 20T in the hole and 9% of the federal budget goes to debt service. That sucks more! When do the rabble on the right who instigate these debt showdowns get to be the righteous good guys instead of demons? Do we really need to spiral down to some catastrophe before we wake up and make a change here? It's the banksters accumulating most of the power with this debt here. I suspect the left will do the opposite of what should be done and install more growth-slowing policies and spend even more rapidly than the establishment republicans have.
  - beat 11y ago
    Because a debt showdown would do FAR more damage to the economy than debt servicing. Default due to petulance is NOT appropriate behavior for the most important currency in the world. The showdowns aren't policy, they're grandstanding. I don't like politicians playing chicken with the global economy because they find some things distasteful. If they cared that much about debt, they could actually, you know, raise taxes.
    - EdSharkey 11y ago
      I never know if responses like yours are the political party-line machined outrage response or what you truly believe. If you're just spouting some party line, then happily ignore the following and get back to sleep - outrage successful. But your last sentence makes me think you actually believe, so I'm going to burn some time on you and perhaps get past the emotion here. Like you said, just tax everyone more! A 100% tax on earnings is reasonable in some cases; Norway does it, just tax like madmen until the debt is paid. Well, you could do that, you could even seize everyone's property to pay down the debt, (and I don't see why that isn't a reasonable proposal either.) The problem with that plan is, even if you did those things, the growth in social security and Medicare is too fast for even asset seizure to catch. All these trust funds "running out of money" you hear about are simply the growth of those programs outstripping the IOU's owed AND the amount congress allocates extra for additional growth. You'll get to a point where the growth spirals as lives are extended, etc Debt is the place that you can start to install some controls. That is why our media and congress always describe it as a "showdown" or "battle". The battle is quite lopsided because the vast majority of politicians in all parties don't want to touch this and hate any boat rocking, and there's a lot of lobbyists to pay back. Can you honestly tell me what the spending priorities are for congress? There are none! Everything is important, and all budgets for every department may only grow based on their rules for baseline budgeting in the face of increasing divides between parties and people in government - in other words, the stalemate we've seen over the past 18 years results in budgets each year that are simply last year's budget + 5% with occasional huge jumps in new spending whenever a crisis arises and everyone temporarily agrees to authorize new spending. As I said, debt is the place to begin the place to begin debate about our spending priorities. Why? Because any new debt must be _authorized_, hence voted on. It's annoying to confront tough issues! Hence all the acrimony. Okay, so just look at your life, your security. You think the system we have here is stable? Its so fragile and full of corruption, look at what happened in 07-08 with the fraudulent loan scams the big banks were running. And congress is the flashpoint for these crises every time. So, I'm agreeing with you that there is potential for damage if we try to rein in the spending and get some priorities. What's the alternative that you are suggesting? Don't deal with it, let the instabilities grow, and eventually have an unmanaged collapse. Do you disagree?