On Wed, 1 Dec 2004 15:40:03 EST, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Travis Pahl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in part: > > >> 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. > > Which you & I understand, and a few mostly wise guy columnists pointed out. > Other than us, however, there was a clamor to re-open the Wash. Monument, > etc., i.e. return to gov't business as usual. The clamor was vastly > magnified by the mass media, which painted the shutdown in highly negative > terms. In fact, one might say the clamor WAS the mass media, in that > without them no such clamor would've been heard...but it moved the issue!
They might have convinced people of the pro government position as they certainly have the right to do. But that does not mean politicians should cave. They were elected to do something they beleived and if they truly beleived it they should hold to their guns. > >> 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. > > Assuming, naively, that the vote was meaningful and not just a chance for > Dems & Reps to posture opposition. Look it is quite simply.... if people elect someone to lower spending and instead they increase spending do they deserver to be re-elected. I think the answer is obvious regardless of how they vote on the increase to debt limit. > >> 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. > > "I voted for X to restrain gov't spending. I didn't want the whole goddamn > gov't shut down! So now I'm voting for Y, who won't pull that stunt." Translation: I got more than I asked for so next time I am going to ask for the opposite of what I truly want. you do realize that what you are suggesting the voting populace thinks is highly irrational. Do you truly beleive people on average are this irrational? > >> 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? > > They sure did. That's the time to complain, not over some silly show vote > regarding the debt limit. Look at individual spending measures, and point > out what you'd cut & why, and hope to persuade others. It is not a silly show vote. If they voted they way the SHOULD HAVE VOTED, at best they will vote for more cuts later, at worst they will have to fund their spending in a more visible way and thus anger voters who rightly should be angry. > >ACtually i think most of the population is responsible. It is a tiny > >fraction of politicians that are responsible. > > What makes you think representatives aren't representative, at least in > general terms? Anyone can be a politician. There's no religious test for > office. By what freakish bad luck did this irrepresentative sample get in > office? And the irrepresentative sample that preceded them, etc., all the > way back to ancient Greece? 1/4 of it is that power currupts. The other 3/4 can be accounted for the fact that power attracts the currupt. > >> 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. > > They were just volunteers interested in civics. They were told, here are > various desiderata (possible spedning items), confer and make a budget > based on whatever values you have. So then they have none of the responsibility of representing people that have specifically chosent them to reduce spending as real representatives do. They also were in a hypothetical world where income was not really coming from anyone. They could increase spending and no one complains. Of course you end up with big budgets if you have none of the pressures that real ones have to keep budgets small. > In some cases in round 2 they were told they were over some spending limit > (not in balance with revenues, for instance), and told they had to come up > with another budget that was within that overall limit. But of course > having a balanced budget is but one desideratum; without that as an > absolute rule, they didn't come up with one. > > >> 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 > > Sure, but often by very slight pluralities or majorities. It doesn't take > much to swing many swing voters to the other side, and a dramatic show of > "shutting down" fedgov (dramatized by the media) can produce just such a > swing. "Can?" It DID! Polls very quickly started swinging away from > confidence in the Republican Party. In your opinion, what is the point of getting elected to office? > >> 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? > > In 2004, yes. For reasons I've already posted, I wouldn't vote for the > Libertarian Party nominee, and Bush is much better than Kerry. However, if > I thought I could organize to swing a bunch of others to vote, I'd've tried > to swing them towards Nader, to encourage him to keep running and help > smash the Democrats. But I already posted about all this. So why are you questioing my inference that you voted for bush, if you had already admited and still admit that you voted for bush? > >Once again, the vote was not for show but has real world effects. > > Then you were suckered. So you are still denying that the vote has real world implications? You are still trying to blame the democrats for the republicans problem? > >So you are now suggesting that republicans increase of the debt limit > >has no effect on you? It does. > > No it doesn't. What would a vote of "no" actually do? Everybody would > honor Treasury checks as if the account weren't overdrawn. In effect, > they'd be borrowing from their creditors. Why do you beleive that banks would dispence money to people with checks from the Treasury when they got no money from the treasury to do so? Do you really think banks do not care about being compensated? > Perhaps there would be a "shut down" as when omnibus authorization bills > were vetoed or voted down. But as we've seen, the result would be > temporary and ineffectual at best; probably it would wind up costing more. > Indeed, I recall at the time that the net DID wind up costing more because > somehow shutting down & starting up again incurred extra costs. It would not cost more IF THE REPUBLICANS CUT SPENDING to keep the government running as they continually insist is what they want to do. Travis _______________________________________________ Libnw mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] List info and subscriber options: http://immosys.com/mailman/listinfo/libnw Archives: http://immosys.com/mailman//pipermail/libnw
