|
|
Quote:
The 2010 election was about a rejection/reaction to the health care plan and the fact that the young voting group that voted Obama in, didn't bother to vote in the midterm elections. (probably because they didn't realize the importance) |
Quote:
And this is different than any other midterm election because??????? That's a given in a midterm election. Anyone who didn't see that coming simply doesn't know how midterm elections work. |
Quote:
Look at the ads run in competitive districts. The 500 billion in Medicare cuts from Obama care was front and center in nearly all of them. That's why seniors turned out in big numbers and voted for the GOP. Core GOP voters might have been voting about other issues, but the swing voters that broke for the GOP were largely concerned with keeping their Medicare benefits. There were all sorts of ads like this: http://www.flickr.com/photos/davecjohnson/5330494309/ |
Quote:
Seniors turn out in those numbers all the time. As rowech said, the tipping point was the midterm disappearance of the under-25 crowd, which is very common in midterm elections. |
No, seniors don't. They accounted for 24% of the electorate, the highest percentage since 1992. And the Dems had the lowest percentage of the 60+ vote in at least 30 years.
edit: Should say 34% not 24%. |
Missouri, as do many states, have a constitutional amendment that states that the state will have a balanced budget at the end of every year. Why dont we do that for the United States?
|
Quote:
I used to be a proponent of this idea actually, but then I read a bunch of articles about why it's not feasible on the national level. Let me see if I can pull up any of them with a google search. Well here's something off mediamatters where both liberal and conservative economists across the board say it's a bad idea: Fox News Lobbies For Balanced Budget Amendment That Economic Experts Say Would Hurt The Economy | Media Matters for America Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Basically it would make the hard times much worse and tip recessions into depressions easily, and is also a convenient "smokescreen" for the end goal of trying to end Medicare/Medicaid/Social Security entirely. |
I thought Social Security was supposed to be a self-sustaining entity that was not part of the budget, thus not available to be cut. Oh wait, nevermind.
|
Quote:
No it wouldn't, if done right. For example, North Carolina maintained a rainy day fund with its budget surpluses once upon a time to cover major disasters or economic downturns. If you use your surpluses to cover your down economic times, you'll be fine. You know, like most people, corporations, and others with actual economic sense. The problem is that "education" became a buzzword, the politicians started spending a lot more to cover it, we got hit by a hurricane or two, and not only was it gone but we were hopelessly in debt. So the problem here is not the concept, it's the implementors. Again. |
The bigger problem is enforcement. Who stops Congress if the budget isn't balanced? How would any enforcement work when we wouldn't know if it was balanced until the money was already spent? Would a judge have the power to order cuts to the budget?
It's an unworkable mess of an amendment that is nothing more than a bone to the Tea Party. |
Quote:
+1 It really isn't oversimplification to say that the government should (basically) do the same as most of us do. Save money in reserve (or savings if you will) for the rainy days. Then, if a truly temporary tax (i.e. not the type we have historically done) is needed to cover a shortfall...then so be it until such time we catch back up. But we don't put money into "savings" as a country...instead we simply spend every last dollar we earn, borrow more as we gamble & hedge bets on the future, and then pay interest on the borrowed money for the debt we couldn't pay in the first place. And I agree with JPhillips on the complications of enforcement...which is why I say you don't need to enforce that which can't be violated(or much). So you defer more things to the states so that deficits ONLY run to support things that are considered highest need such as defense. |
Quote:
For your idea to be workable (saving more than we spend as a country) the effective tax rate on everybody would have to go up (I don't have numbers, but I can't imagine this not being the case). |
And you still haven't addressed the "economics" argument against it, which is agreed upon by economists on both sides.
Forget that it's the "common sense" thing to do. Just because it's the right thing for a family to do doesn't mean that it scales up to be the right thing for a federal government to do. |
But hasnt the Federal Government way overstepped its original boundaries? Isnt this the root cause of the economic problems? Big government?
|
Quote:
You'd have an extremely difficult time proving that theory. I can't see any evidence that shows varying levels of democratic governments have a decisive impact on the economy. |
Quote:
:lol: Big government?? Hardly. Not saying the government isn't big or anything, but that's not even close to the root cause of the current economic problems. In fact, in the case of these economic problems it's that the government wasn't doing its job (in terms of regulation and oversight largely). |
Quote:
|
Quote:
Not sure I understand your point. It's not a viable long-term solution for the economics reasons discussed in all of those reports (again - from economists on both sides of the aisle). Passing it into law (let alone as an amendment to the Constitution) means that it will never be taken off the books, so it will just be waiting there as a landmine for people to play political games with in the future, when the stakes are equally as high. I'd rather give neither side a "hostage" that they can take in the future. Maybe if they don't have so many "hostages" they will actually behave like fucking grownups and solve problems (which is ya know...a part of the reason they're supposedly elected). |
Quote:
??? I thought we pointed out the fallacy in those economics arguments, although maybe it's a key point of the law that needs to change. You spend less / take in more during the good times, save the overage, and use it when you are spending more / taking in less during the bad times. The economist argument above was "you need to deficit spend during the bad times" which I agree with, but as long as you are willing to save the overages during the good times you break even. The key is not to pile up a huge national debt like we have now by deficit spending during good times, let alone bad times. |
Quote:
So are you willing to see higher EFFECTIVE tax rates on everybody even during the good time in order to stockpile that money? Where are the votes for that going to come from - let alone the continued votes to not roll it back the second the party in control of the legislative branch changes? Taxes are already largely a campaign-gimmick, so how is that going to get anything but worse under this proposed system? Furthermore, our political setup doesn't encourage that type of long-term thinking by elected officials (one place where monarchies have an advantage). Reluctant votes for higher taxes, protection of "pork", unwillingness to take "hard votes." Nobody's going to vote to spend less when that will result in them getting tossed out of office and them losing their cushy job and cushy salary. Plus you have situations where (and yes, you knew we'd get there) you get someone like Clinton who balanced the budget (on the back of a booming economy) and left us with a SURPLUS and then that surplus got eaten up by 8 years of Bush thanks to both the tax-cuts and the foreign wars entered into during those times. It's also not workable. You can't dial-up and dial-down government spending like that for things like infrastructure say (which doesn't respond to economic timelines for needing repair/rebuilding), or other programs. You can't have say educational funding bouncing around like that. Just stop and think about it for a moment. You'd have massive waves of layoffs/hirings based on what government educational spending flowing to the states was (to use just that one example). There's no long-term accountability for it. We're not flexible enough and willing to accept the changes that it would entail. It's not workable. It's "feel good" and it makes sense for families, and yeah...even for states to a degree, but it's not feasible. |
Quote:
Might as well just pack it in...we're screwed. :D |
Quote:
That's a mischaracterization - any solution to the current debt requires more taxes, but it's not the only way. There also have to be spending cuts - I acknowledge that. Any solution that doesn't involve more taxes is a joke, and isn't a serious, adult solution. |
Quote:
I don't see how it's hard to come to that conclusion given the current political situation and the willingness of politicians to actually make the tough decisions needed to solve it on both sides of the aisle. Maybe I'm just being pessimistic but really, what situation do you envisage in the next couple of election cycles that could possibly get us out of this that actually has a snowballs chance in hell of being agreed on? |
Quote:
That gets back to the whole argument about how insane those of us who were willing to let the debt ceiling crash go through, since it seemed to be the only way to force some real change. All the "reasonable" approaches are doomed to failure in our current political setup. |
Quote:
Alright, this is getting a bit silly. Are we arguing the situation at hand or are we arguing political points? I, along with several others who tend to fall on the conservative side of things, have repeatedly said that we're not inherently opposed to tax increases. What we are opposed to is increasing taxes without first cutting much of the spending 'fat' that exists in the government entities. Let's stop pretending that all Republicans or conservative-minded individuals are against increased taxes in any form. That's simply not the case. |
I guess it comes down to do we want the cataclysm now or do we want to see increasingly bad recessions over the next 20-30 years with the time in between greatly reduced until eventually everything is irreversably ruined? Neither seems very appealing.
And even if we do take the cataclysm now, do we trust the system we have in place to actually fix things for the better afterwards? Not a chance. I think we've backed ourselves into a corner where there isn't a right answer. God I'm cheerful this afternoon. |
Quote:
"All the reasonable approaches are doomed to failure...might as well just push the 'Armageddon' button over there and launch Global Thermonuclear War." That makes no sense. I honestly don't think you understand the potential ramifications to YOU if we were to default. Quote:
Don't overlook the little "cities and states won't be able to borrow money to fund themselves" line in there either. Because that's all those other services - education, police & fire, snow removal, pothole repair, electricity for the traffic lights and streetlights, trash pickup, etc. that we see as the normal "background" type parts of our lives. So add on top of that that you'll be paying more out of pocket for loans on anything - at a time when the economy is ALREADY sputtering and not really restarted...not a good idea. |
Quote:
Not viable long term because the economists assume the government continues to operate as it does today. Reckless, careless, and without the discipline to do what is right in the face of politics & bribery. |
Quote:
That's not the case, true. But it seems to be the case as far as elected officials go, which is where the problem lies. |
Quote:
You assume differently? I have some oceanfront property in Arizona I'd like to talk to you about... |
Saxby better plan on staying in D.C., he's not going to be very welcome back in Georgia any time soon ... at least not anywhere he's been welcome before.
Sorry ass sellout son of a diseased whore. |
The problem isn't with educated rank and file conservative citizens. The conservatives to whom I speak all seem to agree that tax increases coupled with spending cuts is both acceptable and a good thing. You guys want more cuts, I want more revenue, but we are in the same ballpark.
The problem is that pretty much every GOP member of Congress has taken that stupid pinkie-swear with Norquist that somehow trumps any other oath they have ever taken in their life and makes it impossible to pass any sort of a comprehensive package that involves increasing revenue in addition to cutting spending. |
Quote:
For this immediate short-term crisis? Of course you raise taxes, but you cut spending as well. But that doesn't fix a dam thing...that just pushes things out because whatever deal our brilliant leaders come up with, will have the net effect of screwing over our kids. They just...can't..help themselves. You have to correct these fundamental government problems in more digestible chunks. And imo, it starts with diverting federal authority to states. This creates a more fault tolerant environment to bribery, recklessness, & sheer stupidity. |
I get that they're all afraid of Norquist's money, or the attack ads he'd bring, but why don't any of them have the guts to stand up in front of their districts and say "Listen...I took that pledge because I thought it was right. Clearly times have changed and we need tax increases of some sort. You all agree on that - my polls show you that. So I'm going to vote for them. And you're going to see a ton of nasty attack ads against me in the future because I did, but just remember that I voted for them because we all know that we need them."
I mean...don't get me wrong...I know why they DON'T - I'm not some starry-eyed idealist...I just wish one of them would show a little spine and ya know...actually do it. |
Quote:
More like a "hang up" ... Sellout Sax is going to be lucky if he isn't lynched if he comes back here & gets anywhere near an actual conservative. |
Quote:
You obviously have been too far removed from the rednecks. All he's gotta do is shout down gays, talk about God, and promise to do his best to repeal Roe v Wade. He hasn't passed (or even had anything out of committee) legislation in his entire career and he still won 54% of the vote...or whatever. Like you are going to vote for a democrat when Saxby runs for re-election. I get it, you will follow the nearest well funded teabagger who shouts about repealing health care and lowering taxes, but really Saxby gots the money. |
Quote:
|
Well, here's the "gang of six" cuts. I don't like that it's all "We'll cut this, but we don't know how".. but I think the AMT repeal and single corporate tax rate are good ideas.
According to a copy of a summary of the Gang of Six plan, the group would impose a two-step legislative process that would first make $500 billion worth of cuts immediately, then create a “fast-track process” that would propose a comprehensive bill aimed at dramatically restructuring tax and spending programs. The plan calls for changes to Social Security to move on a separate track, and establishes an elaborate procedure for considering the deficit reduction measures on the floor. The $500 billion in cuts would come from a range of sources, including shifting to a new consumer price index to make cost-of-living adjustments to Social Security. The plan would impose statutory spending caps through 2015, freeze congressional pay and sell unused federal property. To enact a comprehensive deficit plan, the group calls for existing congressional committees to report legislation within six months that would “deliver real deficit savings in entitlement programs over 10 years,” the plan says. The Senate Finance Committee would be instructed to deliver “real deficit savings” through simplifying the tax code and raising as much as $1 trillion in revenue. It would do this by establishing three tax brackets with rates of 8-12 percent, 14-22 percent and 23-29 percent. It would permanently repeal the $1.7 trillion Alternative Minimum Tax, which was initially enacted to prevent the wealthy from using tax loopholes to avoid paying income tax but has since affected millions of middle-income families. And it calls for establishing a single corporate tax rate, between 23 percent and 29 percent. The group punts many of the specifics to other committees, which would be asked to find savings in discretionary and mandatory spending. This includes: $80 billion out of Armed Services; $70 billion out of Health, Education, Labor and Pensions; $65 billion out of Homeland Security and Government Affairs; $11 billion out of Agriculture; $11 billion out of Commerce; and $6 billion out of Energy and Natural Resources. The Judiciary Committee would be asked to find savings through medical malpractice reform. |
No one gave a shit about Saxby Chambliss and him signing on to big spending over the years, but he works with a Democrat on actually cutting spending and he should be lynched apparently. Another case of not caring about the issue, just the game.
|
Quote:
I saw a chart recently that showed the dramatic growth in government employees over the past fifty years has come almost exclusively at the state and local levels. I'm not sure shifting the responsibility would get you any less government. |
Quote:
None of the tax part will become law with the current GOP. The spending part at least recognizes that any deal is going to have to go through the committee system. The House has to originate spending bills and the yearly budget has to go through committees. Any deficit deal has to be realistic enough to know the committee system will make alterations. |
Quote:
Disagree totally. The state and local levels are MUCH more reachable by citizens looking to make real change. You can nail down state and local officials and put their feet to the fire much easier. The national leaders are almost untouchable in that regard. Perfect example is some of the recent changes Missouri voters put into place. For years, our roads were rated amongst the worst in the U.S. The problem was that state officials were diverting funds for transportation improvements to everything except transportation improvements. Voters put an initiative on the ballot to ensure that all transportation funds were used only for that purpose. We now have some of the best roads in the nation. It's way easier to pull those kinds of initiatives at a state level. It's all but impossible at a national level. |
Quote:
As a whole, I imagine state & local would make up quite a chunk of the tax burden but that's how it should be. And if I (and enough members of my community) don't like it I have realistic options such as attending townhall events & voicing my opinion, voting them out, and I can also move if I am not in agreement with my other locality members. What is the honest alternative, though? You think this system works great if not for having Republicans in it? |
I don't think the system works great, I just don't think the magic bullet is moving things to more local control. As fucked up as the US may be, it functions better than the NY state government and that functions a whole lot better than the city of Newburgh government. In my life I haven't seen any reason to think my local government, regardless of the many places I have lived, will produce better outcomes or will be more responsive to my wishes.
|
Quote:
I agree with you as a fellow NY stater (now)...though I would submit if NY wanted different leadership, NY would vote that way, and get it. But while a lot of people move out of NY state (i.e. vote with their feet)...a lot still move in in hopes of prosperity and most newcomers don't tend to get heavily into local politics right away when moving some place(exceptions aside). But NY gets what it gets because the people vote for who they vote for. It really does not get any more democratic than that. Lots of cronyism, to be sure. But that's what local people accept. |
Quote:
A lot of it is likely related to a bunch of demographic factors too though. |
Sounds like the Senate R's are along.. the House R's want everything they've demanded, and a pony too (and they know they're not going to get it).. but it sounds like it wouldn't take many R defectors to pass the Gang of Six bill
Debt deal momentum builds as House resists - David Rogers - POLITICO.com |
Ugh. That's not a good deal.
|
I have a relative who works as an engineer for the Fed govt. Over the past 3 years he has received $21,000 in raises and bonuses. He is in his late 20s. Guy is making some scratch. More power to him. Bummer for us.
|
Quote:
|
The measure would impose statutory spending caps to wring $5.8 trillion in unspecified savings from the government over the next decade — twice the $2.4 trillion debt ceiling increase that is allowed.
-----does this sentence make as little sense as I think it does? |
Quote:
But aren't we getting what we vote for at the national level? Here in NY I only have a possibility of influence with one Rep and one Senator and if they are a different party than my registration I have zero influence. Even if I had influence the combined power of the NYC block would overrule most anything my district might want. There are things I think work better at a state or local level, but there are things I think work better at a federal level. I don't think shifting the power of government will make much of any difference. |
It's not black and white which I hate when people portray it as. States do some things better and the Federal government does some things better. I don't want each state to have it's own CDC, NTSB, FAA, FDA, and so on. We need a federal law enforcement agency for certain crimes.
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
You for one. Quote:
|
Quote:
Quote:
|
Quote:
Too much Huff, or MSNBC, or whatever makes you hear one thing...and immediately identify it with a talking point you've been trained to attack. |
Quote:
In theory, but I'm not sure in practice. As the number of votes needed to win decreases the size of the group with power and influence decreases. That corruption where only a small group has influence seems prevalent in a lot of local races. In the end what we need are people with more integrity, but I don't think local control automatically increases the level of integrity. |
You want examples of small groups run amok, look at HOAs. You can't get more local than that, and there are numerous examples of disasters at that level. Smaller does not automatically equal better.
|
Quote:
But in your example, you can organize the other HOA members and act against such silliness (if it exists & enough members agree with you). But if the rest of that small group does not agree with you, that doesn't mean you should now ask the federal government to regulate all HOAs...it wont be better as your unique local needs wont be considered. |
Quote:
Bzzt, wrong again. To coin a phrase, it's the tax increase stupid. |
Quote:
Well, short of ideal is optimal. Larger power & influence at the federal level will (tend to) meet the needs of the majority it serves. And the larger the pool is...the more likely your needs will be homogenized into something you aren't really looking for. |
But I may also be homogenized into something I can live with rather than being completely left out.
|
Quote:
Hmm ... I'm not so sure I'd go with it forcing accountability or even encouraging it. As I think about this a bit, I think I'm inclined to say that it makes accountability easier to achieve but that's about as far as I can go. My experiences have been that the actual amount of accountability that occurs, or even that seems to be desired, is marginally different & often as not it's less than at the larger levels. |
Quote:
He's got 5 years until reelection? If the economy turns around and he shouts enough anti-abortion, anti-gay rants out, he's sure to get re-elected (or at least your vote in a general election). |
Quote:
I guess I'm just going to have to say that I tried. :) |
Quote:
You underestimate how easy it is to find someone who gets the social issues right without fucking up on the economic issues. Then again, you also completely forget that I'm not only pro-choice but also often pro-abortion. It's just not a high enough priority that it's a litmus issue for me. |
Quote:
So what would you like to divert and what impact will this have on the massive deficit? Because when I look, most of our federal spending is tied up in departments and programs that need to be run on the Federal level. I'm sure there are programs that can be run more efficiently on the State level and I'm all for it, but in terms of it having a signifigant effect on the debt right now (which is what we are talking about), I don't see it. But I'd like to see some examples if you have them. I just get tired of seeing broad statements such as "cut spending" or "increase revenues" or "fix Social Security". But no one wants to actually say how they'd do it. You end up in situations like this where everyone wants spending to be cut but shits their pants when they find out that has to entail SS, Medicare, and Defense. It's like everyone thinks we have these super secret departments eating up huge chunks of our national debt that can just be wiped out without any repurcussions. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
It's odd to me that groups that call themselves "fiscal conservatives" are so in favor of running up as much debt as they can. I don't like taxes and I'd consider myself fiscally conservative, which is why I think it's bullshit to borrow a ton of money and then throw it on the lap of the next generation. |
Quote:
To answer your question about the short term...here is the paragraph directly above the snippet you quoted from me. Quote:
I have said over & over that the Bush/Democrat tax cuts for the rich should have been allowed to expire in December 2010. It would have had a negligible impact to the economy & likely would have been more helpful in the short term for government liabilities. Now, while I believe ALL tax rates should be lower, you absolutely have to completely remove the corporate loopholes that enable companies that profit to not pay taxes. Simplify the corporate tax structure & we'll get to personal income at some point as well. Obfuscation is the easiest way to ensure the indigent stay that way. Spending cuts. The first massive spending cuts have to increase retirement ages & reduce SS payouts for people under 50. Sorry, I fall into this as well, but it simply isn't viable at this time. That's easy. Hopefully that saves a trillion or so (of fake money anyway). Medicare...premiums will have to go up...but they should be scaled by age & means. Speaking of means...all Medicare & SS applicants should be means tested...no reason to hand out money to millionaires just because they are old. Time to end the wars...all of them...seriously. Reduce the presence we have around the world including places like Japan, Germany, etc. China is not our enemy unless we want to make them our enemy (competitor sure). And of course, Iraq & Afghanistan. Unfortunately, I think we'll have to hang around Afghanistan a little while but Iraq should be a priority to get out of. Those are all pretty obvious & unoriginal ways to cut spending & increase tax revenue in reasonable ways. I'm open to other cuts as well...but I'm less focused on the compromise that will be reached as I am on how we move forward as a country. Worrying about cutting teacher salaries & collecting from tax evaders will only get us so far. We have to innovate again & find ways to make us resource-agnostic. |
Quote:
My own experience, at the smallest/most local levels, is that a certain amount of corruption is often desired ... in the hopes that you can get it to swing in your favor. |
I absolutely loathe this whole 'Gang of Six' that we keep hearing about whenever 'compromise' takes place. Two thoughts come to mind......
1. Are we lead to believe that these are the only six people in Congress that can work these things out? 2. I think these six allow the others to hide in the background and avoid missteps or offering up their own options that may assist in a better bill. It seems the rest are intent on avoiding blame rather than being real leaders. Also, I was greatly amused by the Republican leadership voicing concerns that the savings estimate on the current proposal is 'overinflated because it assumes the Bush tax cuts will expire in 2012'. I may be an idiot, but I think that the tax cut bill says exactly that and anyone who says otherwise is the one making the assumptions, not vice versa. |
Quote:
I have helped overthrow both my local HOA and my local schoolboard when each went off the reservation and get new ones voted in to replace them (and the HOA one was essentially a vote of no confidence that let us re-elect all positions). At a federal level I can't do more than help install a new Representative and Senator, and my vote is pretty tiny for both, let alone a new President. |
Quote:
Quote:
ROFL |
Quote:
My point being that there is an inverse relationship between the work done on an individual level to change a small group versus a larger group. I'm sure that the HOA and school board fights took up a significant amount of your time. In a larger group, the fight is more spread out, and not as likely to devolve into personal grudge matches. There are definitely pros and cons, but just by transferring things to a local level isn't going to be a magic bullet that makes everything run smoother and more efficiently in government. |
Quote:
Coburn was pushing his option. That's the kind of things that should be happening. That's a much different concept than the 'Gang of Six' being the arbitrators for the entire nation, even with Coburn being one of those six. The two comments are not in any way mutually exclusive. |
First recall in Wisconsin was a resounding victory for Democrats. Though the tea party clown that the Republicans ran is a tax evader and wife beater. What did they expect?
|
Quote:
But let's say I think you're an idiot or corrupt. I'd be horrified that you were so easily able to take control of a body that has a considerable impact on my daily life. |
Quote:
I don't think smooth & efficient are the results one should be trying to accomplish by de-centralizing. It should be to distribute authority & increase the individual's ability to affect change, when needed/desired. |
Quote:
Maybe I'm misinterpreting. |
You're definitely misinterpreting. I'm saying smaller doesn't necessarily mean better. I think the people are more important than the structure. While smaller bodies allow more control, the people with control aren't always going to be more responsible.
|
Quote:
I am perfectly fine with communities, states, and even multi-state agreements collaborating on things that have some level of commonality & scaling efficiency. What I am suggesting is that at least, if that agreement is going to be entered, that as a voter I always have a maximized ability to hold people accountable for their good, bad, or corrupt decisions. As it stands today, I do not on many a topic. So, to reiterate for those who want to know how my HOA will fund our HOA air defense...many of the current & conventional federal government run programs remain where they are where practical. But moving more decision making to the state level (which, can in turn decide to enable the county or municipality level) is a start to fixing a lot of the corruption & accountability issues we have today which in turn drive us to the brink of financial Armageddon, imho. |
But I care far more about screwing up my ability to park where I want to than I do the national debt.
|
Quote:
Unless you live in California of course |
Quote:
But it's also much easier to limit their damage and kick them out. |
Quote:
Absolutely. It even goes to my argument concerning the Gang of Six. They've become an even smaller group of decision makers within a Congress that already is a body that is very distant from the public it's supposed to be serving. |
Quote:
This sounds similar to my concerns whenever I hear localization touted as a positive without proof of said claim in a specific case. Long story short is that it's easier to find competent people in a larger pool than it is a smaller pool. I'd much rather have someone in DC (or Minnesota or Timbuktu) get it right than someone in Athens or my neighborhood get it wrong. It's the "getting it right" that seems to be the tricky part. |
I think most of what irritates people about government on a daily basis are local and state issues. On any given day I'm much more likely to bitch about parking restrictions, permits, park maintenance, etc. than I am about any federal issue. I think most people do the same thing. If you're rich or dependent on government support you may have more federal issues, but the average person comes in contact with state and local government a lot more.
While Jon and I wouldn't agree on getting it right, I agree with him in general. I don't really care where the decision is made, I just want what I define as better decisions. |
Quote:
Regulation can still exist at the federal level for national policies which affect how the country interacts with the world. To me, this should be the basic foundation & guiding principle of a federal government. Everything from how you defend yourself/remain a sovereign nation, how you do business with other nations, what basic rights to all citizens have, national infrastructure, to what you allow to be imported (i.e. does it violate other federal laws), to how you allow immigration...all belong at the federal level. I think these are fairly self-evident. Social programs, public education, police/fire/health facilities, local infrastructure should basically all be localized to the degree that the state wishes to localize. But none of this means that the federal government cannot have general regulation & guidelines over all of these...it simply means that the state should have more authority on such topics as the citizens desire. This also doesn't preclude states from entering agreements with other states, providing they are not violating federal law, in order to maximize effective policy & scale. But it always comes back to checks & balances. Localizing allows more of that, and allows for communities & states to more closely adhere to what their citizens want. And if the citizens want things they cannot afford...and blow up their own economy...they can then ask the other states for assistance. No, they should not expect the federal government to do it...they will actually have to own up & stop living beyond their means. I guess I am basically describing the EU. :) |
Quote:
So they are allowed to unilaterally impose their plan? Interesting. I guess you haven't heard of the various committees that discuss matters before they are brought to the entire House/Senate. |
Quote:
And I apologize in advance for mis-characterizing Jon's utopia. :) |
Quote:
Lord only knows I'm not usually in the position of having jphillips back, but I really don't think that's even close to what he said, the key clue being his acknowledgment about the vast differences in what constitutes "getting it right". Quote:
No apology required, it was close enough for the purpose ;) |
Quote:
From my own experiences, I'd argue that neither the concept nor the implementation is where it breaks down: it's the talent pool. I've seen what passes for local elected officials, too often it's people who couldn't run a hot knife through warm butter but their ego & desire for control combines with their lack of overriding commitments elsewhere to provide both opportunity & motivation. |
Quote:
And getting it right for you is dramatically different than getting it right for JPhillips. So why can't you both "have it right" by having the ability to vote & hold accountable those people who determine such things. |
Quote:
My guess is Jon's federal utopia and his municipal utopia would both be intolerable to me. That's why I care more about the content of the decision than where the decision is made. |
Quote:
But if we both work in the same town or live under the same HOA we can't both get our dream. And I think it's more likely to go horribly wrong in a small group than a large group. |
Quote:
Which is why neither of us will be happy living in the same neighborhood. Quote:
But the absence of "horribly wrong" isn't the same as "happy" (or "satisfied" if you prefer). That's the kicker here I think, it's what level on the miserable --> giddy scale you can live with. I'm tired of being closer to the left than to the right (no pun intended) on the scale & am less willing than ever to be satisfied with the middle as an acceptable option. |
Some of this I think boils down to an idea of I shouldn't have to live under laws I don't like. In any group larger than 1, that's very unlikely. I expect there to be laws I disagree with and I can live with that. That doesn't mean I don't try to push towards my favored outcomes, but I don't expect to always get what I want.
|
Quote:
I also think some of this boils down to paying for things I do not like or more accurately, paying for more things I do not like. As a consumer, I get to choose what I want to pay for. Some times I make wrong choices but the responsibility is mine. On the same track, I also get to choose how much I spend and shared that with others when I used to teach personal financial responsiliblites. Extrapolating to governments, I feel I have more "choice" in how my local tax dollars are spent locally. This is pertinent in my city where elections are frequent and electees are ever-changing, as well as lots of coverage on what is being spent within their balanced budgets. On the federal level, I have such a distrust with the legislative process that it feels like a black hole. For decades, I have seen the exhorbant military and defense expenditures, only to get far worse. Also during these decades, I have seen the extremely low ROI regarding the War on [Fill-in-the-blank], plus the various Stimlus (non-bailout) packages. But I feel I have no representation, no voice or ability to affect change. The system has gotten too out of control (and self perpetuating, self sustaining) to believe that it is a representational government. |
| All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:25 AM. |
|
Powered by vBulletin Version 3.6.0
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.