On Tue, 30 Nov 2004 19:49:08 EST, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Travis Pahl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> >However the > >> >Republicans are the majority party and would not be playing to an > >> >audience by voting no. They would in fact be stopping business as > >> >usual in Washington, which I would think anyone calling themselves a > >> >libertarian would be happy about. > > >> I'd be happy temporarily, but unhappy after the next election when they > >> turned out all those in favor of fiscal restraint, because they'd > >> over-reached by trying to shut the whole thing down. > > >All those in favor of fiscal restraint would be everybody. Or are you > >saying that the democrats would have voted in favor of the increase if > >the Republicans voted against? Or are you saying that they democrats > >vote would be ignored and republicans would be critizied even though > >they voted for the same thing? > > I'm saying the federal gov't would "shut down" again (operate under some > emergency bills to keep necessary offices open), Which is a great demonstration to people that most things are not necessary. > those who voted for the > shutdown would get the blame again, Which would be nearly all of congress if the republicans had voted correctly this time. > and the voting public would vote them > out of office at the next election, As they rightly should if congress does not decrease spending. > replacing them with bigger spenders. Based on what? You cliam republicans were elected because they promised to cut spending. Why would these same voting populace vote in bigger spenders if what they want was smaller spenders and they were upset because they got bigger spenders. What you are saying does not make sense. > What makes you think the result would be any better now than it was the > previous times? It should be better because we SUPPOSEDLY have both a congress and a prsident that want to cut spending. Thus the government does not need to be shut down just because the debt limit is not increased. But to be honest I do not think it would be different. I think we would still end up with a bunch of republicans and demcorats in office increasing our spending. > >> A majority of voters > >> elected them to (in part) spend less than the minority of voters would, > >> but > >> given a choice between spending a little more and having all the checks > >> bounce from the federal gov't, the people would take spending a little > >> more. > > >Checks would not bounce IF THEY SPENT LESS. If they do not send > >less, then they deserve to lose in the next election. > > But in order for them to spend less, they have to vote for lower > authorizations. By the time it gets to a vote on raising the debt limit, > that opportunity has passed; it's all-or-nothing by then. You are claiming the republican congress not had plenty of oppurtunities to pass lower authorizations? > >Republicans are irresponsible. They spend money they do not have > >(debt) and expect tax payers to pay in interest later all the while > >pretending they are for smaller government byu slightly lowering our > >income tax. > > And I'm sure you think Democrats and most independents are irresponsible > too. Which leaves as responsible only some tiny fraction of the > population. ACtually i think most of the population is responsible. It is a tiny fraction of politicians that are responsible. Unfortunately people like you keep convincing others that their only choice is two groups of irresponsible people. > >> Radical and moderate libertarians alike would have better > >> bargaining position if the mass media were on our side, but the mass > media > >> are overwhelmingly against us. > > >Yep. But media is not a branch of government. The legislature and > >executive branch are. They can reduce the spending of the federal > >government, and they do not. > > But they're not dictators, so they can do so only during their terms of > office. True. So why have they not attempted to do so? > The voters keep them on a leash that has some, but only a finite > amount of, slack. I think you would be surprised what percentage of people and in particular republicans actually want the govenment spending to decrease. Instead the republican congress and president are pulling the leash as far as they can the opposite direction. > And the news media have enormous influence on how > representatives and their issues are portrayed. In effect the media move > the voters, and the voters move gov't. And there is plenty of media that calls for smaller spending bills. in fact this media is the same media that most republicans love to listen to. But the republicans contnue to increase spending anyhow. > And it's not as if legislators are some special breed of people who have > this problem. Games have been played with volunteer participants to model > legislative budgeting processes. Result? Damn near the same thing the > actual legislators vote for. Did these people playing the games be told they are supposed to represent people that want less spending and have a duty to do their best to do that, or where they just told make a budget. > When Clinton "shut down" fedgov by veto, bargaining for more spending, I > was hoping the public would blame POTUS the same way they did when it was > Reagan. They didn't. They blamed Republicans in both cases, and it was > because of the media. Who cares. The media try to influence people, but the people voted for republicans which you are claiming is a vote for smaller government. The politicians should respond to the people, not the media. > >> Pathetic? Experience proved it! Weren't you around when the shutdown > >> incidents occurred? And didn't you see the results? > > >Experience proved that they cave under pressure. > > That's their job description -- representative! Representatives should represent the peopel that voted for them, not the media. > >Experience has not shown that a political > >party in power in both the leg. and executive branch that wants to > >limit government can not limit it. > > Experience shows leg. will spend as much as the people want, plus some > extra to account for media bias. Experience shows republicans do that. That is why i do not vote for them. > >I look at the budgets in those decades and I never saw a smaller > >spending. Every year in fact it got larger. > > That's what I wrote already. > > >If you noticed and still support them, > > How do you infer whom I support and to what degree? All I'm doing is > pointing out that your criticism is naive. Did you not vote for bush? Pataki? Bloomberg? > I'm in the position of judging and grading people all the time, as a > college prof. There are certain significant things by which to judge > performance, and other insignificant features. For instance, I make clear > to my students that I don't grade based on classroom participation, which I > encourage but which is for show. In this case you've been suckered into > judging politicians based on show -- votes on raising the debt limit. Once again, the vote was not for show but has real world effects. It is in fact a very important detail in the republicans agenda. They lower taxes and claim to be for smaller government based on this act. That they do not stop spending and instead raise debt limits is however costing americans far more than their tax decrease saves us. I am judging them based on their actions rather than their rhetoric. This is similar to how you grade your students based on their performance in papers/tests/homework rather than what they say in class. > Other than that, in politics as opposed to college one has the additional > matter of choosing. "Support" for a politician has nothing to do with > overall judgement of that politician per se, but rather on the effect of > choosing that person versus any other person likely to fill an office, So you are now suggesting that republicans increase of the debt limit has no effect on you? It does. More effect than their teeny tax break they gave us a few years ago. In fact i would rather have high taxes and no debt than what these republicans are giving us. That is what the democrats are offering. > tempered by the realization that I don't get my own choice but am only one > of many interested in politics, who have widely varying purposes. King > Canute demonstrated effectively that one should not attempt to resist a > tide, once one realizes that it is indeed a tide. Instead, you should > realize the tidal limits and build your dock accordingly. Ah, the wasted vote syndrome. I expected more from you. > >> >However if the republicans all voted yes, they would be voting along > >> >side democrats. How would the blame be placed just on the > >> >republicans? > > >> It would not. But if they voted "no", the Republicans would get the > blame, > >> as they did in the 1980s & 1990s. > > >Oops. I meant to say no above. Anyways why do you think they would > >get the blame when they voted the same as teh D's, where as in the > >past they got the blame because they were voting against the D's? > > They would not get the blame if they voted the same as the Ds, but if the > Ds realized the Rs would vote "no", THEY would vote "yes". It's just a > show, you see. whatever... _______________________________________________ Libnw mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] List info and subscriber options: http://immosys.com/mailman/listinfo/libnw Archives: http://immosys.com/mailman//pipermail/libnw
