5 ms·

> “There’s going to be a generation of voters that can’t get anything they want, because all the money has been spoken for.” Interesting to hear an expert tak

> “There’s going to be a generation of voters that can’t get anything they want, because all the money has been spoken for.” Interesting to hear an expert take from someone with decades of experience show some empathy to what likely will be GenZ or Gen Alpha. I've been saying for a long time now that govt debt is a very problematic tool because it allows today's leaders to create obligations for folks who didn't vote for them (likely couldnt vote at all). Even in perfect intentions it's not consensual to burden future generations with debts they had no voice in choosing.

starkd 4y ago
I'm still waiting to see the results of the massive infrastructure package that was passed in 2008. We've had a few more rounds of such spending, supposedly because of outdated infrastructure. You have to wonder how many more times they are going to get away with that trick. Whenever they pass massive spending, its clear they are not talking to American people. They are talking to the corporations that are going to benefit.
- MollyRealized 3y ago
  This heavily decayed rusty bridge support [1] is under the Chicago Metra Union Pacific Track UP-N line that has 34,000 passengers riding across this bridge on 70 scheduled trains at 50-70 mph each weekday. While it is admittedly just a single example, everyone else's experiences seem equally as anecdotal. [1] - https://www.reddit.com/r/TIHI/comments/u4inmp/thanks_i_hate_this_bridge_support_on_the_active/ https://www.reddit.com/r/TIHI/comments/u4inmp/thanks_i_hate_...
- bitsnbytes 4y ago
  This. Some of my clients are in the transportation industry and they were scratching their heads on where that money went.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
fundad 4y ago
The minimum voting age is as ridiculous as a maximum voting age. The system exists to deliver what older voters want.
- slily 4y ago
  At the risk of offending a neo-Marxist, children have underdeveloped brains and lack life experience or wisdom. They are not equivalent to adults and the minimum voting age is not arbitrary. Unfortunately, young adults, not unlike children, don't seem to have much awareness about the issue of this unsustainable ballooning debt, and as a group, are happier to demand more entitlements (such as UBI) than to call for austerity to get it under control. It's the opposite of what you want, unless your plan is to milk the country dry and leave it to die. Older voters are actually more likely to favor lowering spending, though of course they wouldn't vote against their own interests (e.g. cutting social security benefits).
  - fundad 4y ago
    I’m not offended that we act as if someone aged 17 and 11 months is definitely unfit in a way that could never be the case after age 18. If that were true then only a minimum voting age is required. In reality I can drag my great grandfather to the polls and vote for him so you should be able to vote for your kids. Who is more impacted by government than parents or people caring for ailing parents?
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
    - candiodari 4y ago
      Perhaps it's more to the point that your problem wouldn't be solved by lowering the voting age, as that would still not give you a perspective tens, hundreds ... thousands of years into the future. You'd have to get people to vote 1000s of years before they're even born.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
hirundo 4y ago
> Even in perfect intentions it's not consensual to burden future generations with debts they had no voice in choosing. Lysander Spooner's classic "No Treason: The Constitution of No Authority" is the application of that criticism to the whole state.
thunky 4y ago
> it allows today's leaders to create obligations for folks who didn't vote for them It's not practically possible for a person of any age to have voted to prevent the massive spending and subsequent debt created by it. Unpopular opinion: after politicians reach the level that you recognize their name, they're all the same.
- shrimp_emoji 4y ago
  I think that opinion is unpopular for the same reason that flat Eartherism is unpopular.
  - thunky 4y ago
    It's no coincidence that the US is perennially split down the middle, 50/50 red/blue, swinging back and forth between the two. The whole idea is to keep the country divided and to motivate you to vote. You need to pick a team and stay on it. With all the "we can't let <the other team> ruin the country" rhetoric, you would think the swings back and forth would be like a wrecking ball. But no, for the most part, nothing meaningful changes. Each team gets their small window of power and starts airdropping money on their doners...ahem voters. Rinse, repeat. What else can these politicians do? If they actually tried to reform something, they might goof it and it'll cost them their career. Gotta play it safe. After all, the status quo is that everyone already thinks they're all a bunch of corrupt boobs anyway, so nothing to lose really. Just go on CNN or Fox and talk shit about the other team; tell everyone that the other team is a bunch of corrupt boobs. That's money in the bank. Let's say they actually pull one out of their butt and get some meaningful reform accomplished: well now there's one less thing they can scream about to rally you up to vote for the team the next time. So best to stick to the script. They all look the same to me.
    - dragonwriter 4y ago
      > It's no coincidence that the US is perennially split down the middle That's true, but its not a conspiracy either. Supermajority is unstable because the faction of the supermajority party closest to the main opposition gains power to draw policy closer to its preference by joining the opposition, so the split between the main parties has a strong force driving toward rough parity. > The whole idea is to keep the country divided and to motivate you to vote. It’s literally not, demotivated voters on the other side (or, in extreme cases, tricking them into failing to vote) is a strategy central to, and incentivized by, the electoral system. > With all the "we can't let <the other team> ruin the country" rhetoric, you would think the swings back and forth would be like a wrecking ball. They usually aren’t because our system is designed with lots of veto points, and the “swings” usually don’t swing all of them.
avnigo 3y ago
That's honestly not too far from the definition of odious debt.

starkd 4y ago

I'm still waiting to see the results of the massive infrastructure package that was passed in 2008. We've had a few more rounds of such spending, supposedly because of outdated infrastructure. You have to wonder how many more times they are going to get away with that trick. Whenever they pass massive spending, its clear they are not talking to American people. They are talking to the corporations that are going to benefit.

MollyRealized 3y ago
This heavily decayed rusty bridge support [1] is under the Chicago Metra Union Pacific Track UP-N line that has 34,000 passengers riding across this bridge on 70 scheduled trains at 50-70 mph each weekday. While it is admittedly just a single example, everyone else's experiences seem equally as anecdotal. [1] - https://www.reddit.com/r/TIHI/comments/u4inmp/thanks_i_hate_this_bridge_support_on_the_active/ https://www.reddit.com/r/TIHI/comments/u4inmp/thanks_i_hate_...
bitsnbytes 4y ago
This. Some of my clients are in the transportation industry and they were scratching their heads on where that money went.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

fundad 4y ago

The minimum voting age is as ridiculous as a maximum voting age. The system exists to deliver what older voters want.

slily 4y ago
At the risk of offending a neo-Marxist, children have underdeveloped brains and lack life experience or wisdom. They are not equivalent to adults and the minimum voting age is not arbitrary. Unfortunately, young adults, not unlike children, don't seem to have much awareness about the issue of this unsustainable ballooning debt, and as a group, are happier to demand more entitlements (such as UBI) than to call for austerity to get it under control. It's the opposite of what you want, unless your plan is to milk the country dry and leave it to die. Older voters are actually more likely to favor lowering spending, though of course they wouldn't vote against their own interests (e.g. cutting social security benefits).
- fundad 4y ago
  I’m not offended that we act as if someone aged 17 and 11 months is definitely unfit in a way that could never be the case after age 18. If that were true then only a minimum voting age is required. In reality I can drag my great grandfather to the polls and vote for him so you should be able to vote for your kids. Who is more impacted by government than parents or people caring for ailing parents?
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - candiodari 4y ago
    Perhaps it's more to the point that your problem wouldn't be solved by lowering the voting age, as that would still not give you a perspective tens, hundreds ... thousands of years into the future. You'd have to get people to vote 1000s of years before they're even born.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]

hirundo 4y ago

> Even in perfect intentions it's not consensual to burden future generations with debts they had no voice in choosing. Lysander Spooner's classic "No Treason: The Constitution of No Authority" is the application of that criticism to the whole state.

thunky 4y ago

> it allows today's leaders to create obligations for folks who didn't vote for them It's not practically possible for a person of any age to have voted to prevent the massive spending and subsequent debt created by it. Unpopular opinion: after politicians reach the level that you recognize their name, they're all the same.

shrimp_emoji 4y ago
I think that opinion is unpopular for the same reason that flat Eartherism is unpopular.
- thunky 4y ago
  It's no coincidence that the US is perennially split down the middle, 50/50 red/blue, swinging back and forth between the two. The whole idea is to keep the country divided and to motivate you to vote. You need to pick a team and stay on it. With all the "we can't let <the other team> ruin the country" rhetoric, you would think the swings back and forth would be like a wrecking ball. But no, for the most part, nothing meaningful changes. Each team gets their small window of power and starts airdropping money on their doners...ahem voters. Rinse, repeat. What else can these politicians do? If they actually tried to reform something, they might goof it and it'll cost them their career. Gotta play it safe. After all, the status quo is that everyone already thinks they're all a bunch of corrupt boobs anyway, so nothing to lose really. Just go on CNN or Fox and talk shit about the other team; tell everyone that the other team is a bunch of corrupt boobs. That's money in the bank. Let's say they actually pull one out of their butt and get some meaningful reform accomplished: well now there's one less thing they can scream about to rally you up to vote for the team the next time. So best to stick to the script. They all look the same to me.
  - dragonwriter 4y ago
    > It's no coincidence that the US is perennially split down the middle That's true, but its not a conspiracy either. Supermajority is unstable because the faction of the supermajority party closest to the main opposition gains power to draw policy closer to its preference by joining the opposition, so the split between the main parties has a strong force driving toward rough parity. > The whole idea is to keep the country divided and to motivate you to vote. It’s literally not, demotivated voters on the other side (or, in extreme cases, tricking them into failing to vote) is a strategy central to, and incentivized by, the electoral system. > With all the "we can't let <the other team> ruin the country" rhetoric, you would think the swings back and forth would be like a wrecking ball. They usually aren’t because our system is designed with lots of veto points, and the “swings” usually don’t swing all of them.

avnigo 3y ago

That's honestly not too far from the definition of odious debt.