Why can't "the solution" be LOWER taxes, NO deficits, SMALLER government...?

[Cutten]

Quote from gnome:

LOL... actually guys, it was a rhetorical question.

I KNOW the reason why... it's because The Powers WANT it that way.

No it's because people are ignorant and mainly follow their own self-interest. Most people have no problem robbing Peter to pay Paul as long as they are Paul. Politicians must answer to most people, thus they are forced to collude in robbing Peter so long as there are more Pauls - if they don't they don't get elected.

Politicians are no better or worse than you and I, on average. They all start idealistic. Their incentives are such that they become worse, otherwise they are out of a job.

The system is fucked, but so far no one has found a better one. Disenfranchising the poor has been tried and results in stagnant elitism/tyrrany/mercantilism followed by revolution.

 

[gnome]

Quote from libertad:

...Chavez is marching down the road of self destruction....and so is the US....

Things are not changing....because people are not changing them....

Why ?

1. Americans are not politically nor economically astute enough to understand the gravity of our situation and to hold Gummint accountable for what they've done and continue to do.

2. Gummint has things right where they want them and has no desire to change anything... Gummint does not see itself as "doing the people and country's business", but rather "exclusively important". The public and its resources are there to be used, tapped and consumed by Gummint as it pleases....

 

[Thunderdog]

Quote from gnome:

Actually, I'm fancifully hoping that everyone boycotts the election and NOBODY votes come November. At least that way the politicos would have to ask, "what's the matter"?

Even that wouldn't work because several states are going to be using electronic voting machines that cannot be made secure:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/30/AR2006113001637.html

So even if no one shows up, there will still likely be, however mysteriously, a winner. And even if the invariable rigging of voting machines that cannot be made secure does nothing more than result in a "draw," then, no doubt, the Supreme Court will weigh in and save the day.

So, what are ya gonna do, eh?

Seriously, this unsecured electronic voting machine thing is scary stuff.

 

[TGregg]

Quote from Cutten:

No it's because people are ignorant and mainly follow their own self-interest. Most people have no problem robbing Peter to pay Paul as long as they are Paul. Politicians must answer to most people, thus they are forced to collude in robbing Peter so long as there are more Pauls - if they don't they don't get elected.

Politicians are no better or worse than you and I, on average. They all start idealistic. Their incentives are such that they become worse, otherwise they are out of a job.

The system is fucked, but so far no one has found a better one. Disenfranchising the poor has been tried and results in stagnant elitism/tyrrany/mercantilism followed by revolution.

Spot on. Once citizens realize they can vote themselves money out of the government coffers, the days of democracy are numbered. As I've previously stated, the discussion about whether government should be bigger or smaller is over, kaput, finished. By an overwhelming majority, voters have shown that the only thing they want more than more government is even more government. And they don't care who pays for it, as long as it's not them. But in the end, we all pay.

It's not the politicos fault. Most everybody gets more government than they pay for, and most everybody is happy asking for even more. Nobody is going to win a national election on the "We need less government" platform, that's for sure. If somebody tried to run on that platform, it'd be a joke. People would laugh.

 

[gnome]

Quote from Thunderdog:

Even that wouldn't work because several states are going to be using electronic voting machines that cannot be made secure:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/30/AR2006113001637.html

So even if no one shows up, there will still likely be, however mysteriously, a winner. And even if the invariable rigging of voting machines that cannot be made secure does nothing more than result in a "draw," then, no doubt, the Supreme Court will weigh in and save the day.

So, what are ya gonna do, eh?

Seriously, this unsecured electronic voting machine thing is scary stuff.

Geez Tdog... you missed my point.

It wasn't that there wouldn't be a winner declared "somehow", but rather a gesture to make the politicos wake up and take notice.

Until there is a large public clamor by the people for the federal politicians to STOP HOSING US, OUR KIDS AND THEIR FUTURE... the Gummint will just keep on, keepin' on.

Wifey was lamenting just the other day.... "...Obama is going to get elected and confiscate MORE of my efforts in taxes? What incentive do I have to keep working like I do? Perhaps we should just quit working and go on an extended vacation... spend everything we have, then go on the dole like everyone else...?"

How can America thrive (or even survive) with such disenchantment from the productive?

 

[Thunderdog]

Quote from gnome:

Geez Tdog... you missed my point.

It wasn't that there wouldn't be a winner declared "somehow", but rather a gesture to make the politicos wake up and take notice.

I didn't miss your point. I was just commenting that even if no one votes for the very reason you mentioned, the latest reincarnation of Karl Rove (the Jack Grubman of politics) will find a way to get those unsecured electronic voting machines to declare a winner. And should that Trojan effort fail, the Supreme Court can always be relied on to act as a backstop and appoint a president. So, you see, even if everyone becomes a conscientious objector come election time, their efforts will be circumvented.

 

[Thunderdog]

Quote from gnome:

...Wifey was lamenting just the other day.... "...Obama is going to get elected and confiscate MORE of my efforts in taxes?

The choice is hers. If she earns more than $250k per year, then she would pay more taxes under an Obama administration. Alternatively, she can vote for McCain and pass on that obligation, along with the current buildup, to your grandkids.

 

[gnome]

Quote from Thunderdog:

The choice is hers. If she earns more than $250k per year, then she would pay more taxes under an Obama administration. Alternatively, she can vote for McCain and pass on the obligation, along with the current buildup, to your grandkids.

That's the problem... a choice between "Giant Douche" and "Turd Sandwich" is no choice at all.

The best vote in November is for, "none of the above".

Of course, she does have the choice to give up her career, quit working and "spend it all... then go on the dole"

Yeah, we need more of that....

 

[jonbig04]

Quote from gnome:

and ZERO INFLATION... Instead of the opposite?

Probably because de-regulation and just letting the free markets "do their thing" has been a huge factor in this mess.

 

[Thunderdog]

Quote from gnome:

That's the problem... a choice between "Giant Douche", and "Turd Sandwich" is no choice at all.

I'm not sure I agree. I think that the only way to address the exisitng national debt is through taxation for two reasons. First, legitimate social programs should be in place in a modern, civilized society. That's a given that should not even be called into question. Second, I think there is little dispute among objective observers that "trickle-down" economics simply does not work. The country's debt obligations need to be addressed without fucking over the disenfranchised. Otherwise it would be a dangerous game of chicken. Just my opinion, of course.