How to stop government, a NY Times op-ed piece

Mxylplyx

Diamond Member
Mar 21, 2007
4,197
101
106
http://takingnote.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/05/10/how-to-stop-government/?hp

Excellent opinion piece in the NY Times discussing various Republican tactics being used to hold up legislation and exert their influence in the minority. Particularly troubling was them trying to maintain a favorable political tilt on the DC district court by refusing every single one of Obama's nominees. 4 of 11 seats vacant? What are they going to do WHEN Hillary gets elected, go another 8 years without accepting a nominee?

This is no way to run a government. Our system of government does not work with this level of irresponsibility going on in Washington, and we will all pay for it.
 

Anarchist420

Diamond Member
Feb 13, 2010
8,645
0
76
www.facebook.com
The Republicans aren't causing enough "gridlock"; they've gone along with Obama's proposed tax hikes, they put up someone who was just like him for President, they've gone alone with his spending when they have the oppurtunity to balance the budget, etc., etc.

What are they going to do WHEN Hillary gets elected, go another 8 years without accepting a nominee?
No, they'll simply vote for single payer or even socialized medicine... then they'll vote for the VAT that will be needed to fund it.
 

ivwshane

Lifer
May 15, 2000
32,537
15,417
136
Good luck OP, as you have already seen by the first response, it's a "my team" versus "your team" mentality. They will only care about the disgusting behavior when the "other side" does it.

You can thank American schooling and their overwhelming support and priority of sports and the team mentality.
 

Mxylplyx

Diamond Member
Mar 21, 2007
4,197
101
106
The Republicans aren't causing enough "gridlock"; they've gone along with Obama's proposed tax hikes, they put up someone who was just like him for President, they've gone alone with his spending when they have the oppurtunity to balance the budget, etc., etc.

No, they'll simply vote for single payer or even socialized medicine... then they'll vote for the VAT that will be needed to fund it.

You do realize being in the minority technically means you are not in the majority, right?
 

Mxylplyx

Diamond Member
Mar 21, 2007
4,197
101
106
A majority has no inherent right to take away the rights of any individual. Ruling other people is a privilege, not a right.

I fail to see how that statement has anything to do with the topic at hand, or the article in question.
 

Lithium381

Lifer
May 12, 2001
12,452
2
0
I fail to see how that statement has anything to do with the topic at hand, or the article in question.

It's implying that democrats / liberals are trying VERY hard to reduce our individual rights as citizens and the republicans, even in the minority, are trying EVERYHING they can to stop them from taking advantage of the People.
 

sandorski

No Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
70,231
5,806
126
It's implying that democrats / liberals are trying VERY hard to reduce our individual rights as citizens and the republicans, even in the minority, are trying EVERYHING they can to stop them from taking advantage of the People.

That's BS.

Very early on the Republicans vowed to thwart Obama, regardless what he actually proposed. That is what they did and continue to do. Tyranny of the Minority.
 

Anarchist420

Diamond Member
Feb 13, 2010
8,645
0
76
www.facebook.com
Very early on the Republicans vowed to thwart Obama, regardless what he actually proposed. That is what they did and continue to do. Tyranny of the Minority.
Speaking of minoritarian tyranny... Obama didn't even get 52% of the popular vote and only ~30% of eligible voters expressly consented to being governed by him for another four years.
 

Mxylplyx

Diamond Member
Mar 21, 2007
4,197
101
106
Speaking of minoritarian tyranny... Obama didn't even get 52% of the popular vote and only ~30% of eligible voters expressly consented to being governed by him for another four years.

So what does that say about the mandate granted to republicans?
 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
350
126
The Republicans aren't causing enough "gridlock"

You are on the fringe in opposing government - I'd guess over 99% of citizens support more government than you do. No, they're causing too much gridlock.

they've gone along with Obama's proposed tax hikes

No, they didn't. The tax rate expirations were already in the law - they could do nothing to stop them. The only way for any of the borrowed Bush tax cuts not to expire was if Democrats decided to vote for renewing them - and Democrats voted for about 99% of them to get renewed, thanks to Obama. While will increase our debt by trillions.

they put up someone who was just like him for President

You're a bit like a person of one race who thinks every person of another race looks exactly the same.

Romney and Obama might both support some amount of the same interests and policies too much, but the bottom line is they are *extremeley* different.

Romney is a child of the Wall Street venture capital hugely wealthy group who wants to shift wealth off of 99% of Americans to the 1% far more than Obama does - even though Obama is still friendly to the idea. There are hundreds of policy areas Obama would support the poor and middle class interests Romney would do the opposite.

So your assertion is just bizarre.

they've gone alone with his spending when they have the oppurtunity to balance the budget, etc., etc.

None of them 'have the opportunity to balance the budget' because none of them have the votes to just pass their own spending priorities. Just block each other.

About the only spending policy that comes to mind they did pass is the Sequestration, which is a terrible policy they all said they didn't want to get implemented.

But which I have to guess you cheer?

But in the meantime - in the economic recovery Obama has more than halved the deficit.

Every modern recession the government has helped recover by creating government jobs - I recall a figure 1.7 million created is typical - Obama's recovery from an even bigger recession has cut over a million government jobs. So, ya, he's pretty strongly Republican - but Romney's policies would be far to the right even of those.


No, they'll simply vote for single payer or even socialized medicine... then they'll vote for the VAT that will be needed to fund it.

If only - but Obama killed those excellent programs. Hope you don't get sick and need help.
 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
350
126
Speaking of minoritarian tyranny... Obama didn't even get 52% of the popular vote and only ~30% of eligible voters expressly consented to being governed by him for another four years.

Not voting is implicitly conenting to be government by anyone.

Democracy doesn't require a majority, it requires a plurality.

Bush didn't even get that, but that's another issue.

Obama's 52% of the popular vote doesn't represent 'minoritarian tyranny'. By the way, the constitution's protections for individual and minority right are in place.

And somewhat better enforced, such as for gays, who are finally getting some equality.
 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
350
126
It's implying that democrats / liberals are trying VERY hard to reduce our individual rights as citizens and the republicans, even in the minority, are trying EVERYHING they can to stop them from taking advantage of the People.

What are you talking about?

About the only right that comes to mind Democrats are reducing is the right for criminals to evade background checks and get guns.

They're sure not violating people's rights by fighting for the middle class economic interests, by wanting to protect the country from financial industry disaster, gay equal rights etc.
 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
350
126
A majority has no inherent right to take away the rights of any individual. Ruling other people is a privilege, not a right.

Do you realize that the minority rights to free speech and due process are not the same as the minority right to block the majority from passing any legislation, to win votes?

That having 55 votes for requiring gun sale bakc ground checks in the Senate is supposed to mean the bill passes, but it lost because the minority abused the filibuster?
 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
350
126
Good luck OP, as you have already seen by the first response, it's a "my team" versus "your team" mentality. They will only care about the disgusting behavior when the "other side" does it.

You can thank American schooling and their overwhelming support and priority of sports and the team mentality.

To your first point, you're not only correct, it's a vicious cycle. The more that one side is able to 'grab power' at the expense of the other unfairly, the more each party wants to do so.

It's a cycles that feeds on itself, until each side wants to GUARANTEE the other side can't take power from them - screw the 'will of the people'.

To your second point, I recognize the excessive 'team' mentality and am no fan of spectator sports, but I think you greatly exaggerate the role it plays.
 

John Liberty

Junior Member
Mar 20, 2013
16
0
0
Good, let's stop government more. I would argue that the Departments of Homeland Security, Education, Commerce, Health and Human Services, and Agriculture should be eliminated. The tax laws should be chopped down to almost nothing. The EPA should be put on hold, no new regulations. The Department of Defense should withdraw all troops and equipment from Europe, let them defend themselves, the office corps should be at least halved. Foreign aid to the Middle East should be contingent upon effort to oppose terrorism, no effort, no aid.

Comments?
 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
350
126
Good, let's stop government more. I would argue that the Departments of Homeland Security, Education, Commerce, Health and Human Services, and Agriculture should be eliminated. The tax laws should be chopped down to almost nothing. The EPA should be put on hold, no new regulations. The Department of Defense should withdraw all troops and equipment from Europe, let them defend themselves, the office corps should be at least halved. Foreign aid to the Middle East should be contingent upon effort to oppose terrorism, no effort, no aid.

Comments?

And I'd argue that we should get rid of all federal, state and local government, all laws, and we should each live by our own guns and forming groups of tribes.

If I wanted to follow the sort of logic that I think is not much different from your anti-government hysteria, which would kill all kinds of very important benefits for the country.

The one area we'd agree more on is excessive security spending.
 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
350
126
Company officer #1: we're in debt! Cut the sales force!

Company officer #2: we did as you said. Sales are down 25%. Debt is up.

Company officer #1: Oh crap, I didn't want that. Restore the sales force, cut manufacturing!

Company officer #2: we did as you said. With less product to sale sales are down 25%. Debt is up.

Company officer #1: Oh crap! I didn't want that. Restore manufacturing, close stores.

Company officer #2: we did as you said. Stores were closed, sales are down 25%. Debt is up.

Company officer #1: Oh crap! I didn't want that. Re-open the stores, cut salaries 25%.

Company officer #2: we did as you said. Workers resigned. Sales are down 25%. Debt is up.

In other news, we're taking out a loan to buy more stores.

Company officer #1: Are you nuts? We're in debt and you're borrowing?

Company officer #2: we did what you opposed - and our sales are up 25%, and we've started paying down debt. And you're fired.

Now, the above just takes the 'balance the budget like a business' approach at face value, when in fact the issues are very different between debt for our government and for a business.

This is why the austerity advocates are long on propaganda and emotion in their arguments appealing to easy to fall for myths, but are against the evidence.
 
Last edited:

chucky2

Lifer
Dec 9, 1999
10,016
36
86
36243-Heath-Ledger-Joker-clapping-gi-9fgv.gif
 

Anarchist420

Diamond Member
Feb 13, 2010
8,645
0
76
www.facebook.com
No, they didn't. The tax rate expirations were already in the law - they could do nothing to stop them. The only way for any of the borrowed Bush tax cuts not to expire was if Democrats decided to vote for renewing them - and Democrats voted for about 99% of them to get renewed, thanks to Obama. While will increase our debt by trillions.
That's a solid argument, but the Republicans never got rid of the Byrd Rule when they had the chance. But then Republicans want to raise more revenue by ending deductions so they can't be trusted not to raise taxes. They also favored the internet tax mandate by a large margin if I'm not mistaken.
There are hundreds of policy areas Obama would support the poor and middle class interests Romney would do the opposite.
A poll was taken in which most respondents thought Dr. Paul would've done a significantly better job than obama or romney for the middle class... it was from CNN if I'm not mistaken. I also believe that Obama's inflationary measures hurt the middle class.

None of them 'have the opportunity to balance the budget' because none of them have the votes to just pass their own spending priorities. Just block each other.
The Republicans control the House of Representatives, they can shut down the govt enough to eventually balance the budget.
Every modern recession the government has helped recover by creating government jobs - I recall a figure 1.7 million created is typical - Obama's recovery from an even bigger recession has cut over a million government jobs. So, ya, he's pretty strongly Republican - but Romney's policies would be far to the right even of those.
Not necessarily, because Reagan and Bush were Republicans and they set records for number of govt employees. We can't know what Romney would've done. He may have hired more govt employees, he may have fired some, he may have kept the same number... I'd guess the first since he wanted to increase military spending and didn't propose abolition of any departments.
Not voting is implicitly conenting to be government by anyone. Democracy doesn't require a majority, it requires a plurality.
I said expressly. :) Let's say 50% consented to being governed by the President... that probably would not make Jefferson happy since he was always looking for large majorities.
 
Last edited:

wirednuts

Diamond Member
Jan 26, 2007
7,121
4
0
It's implying that democrats / liberals are trying VERY hard to reduce our individual rights as citizens and the republicans, even in the minority, are trying EVERYHING they can to stop them from taking advantage of the People.

lol, thanks for the laugh. neither side cares about individual rights.. they dont even care about people in general. whatever they can individually do to make more money is what they do, and if it helps to side with a team to get more money then they do that.

theyre career politicians. scum of the earth. the party they belong to is meaningless.
 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
350
126
A poll was taken in which most respondents thought Dr. Paul would've done a significantly better job than obama or romney for the middle class... it was from CNN if I'm not mistaken. I also believe that Obama's inflationary measures hurt the middle class.

I remember some polls that were taken about Ron Paul... elections.:)

Obama is a lot better for the middle class than Republicans, but he's no progressive.

We're gonna disagree but Libertarians are the worst. They're the 'sorry you starved to death under our policies but you have no one to blame but yourself' party.

They'd let the wealthy and powerful run absolutely wild over everyone else in the name of a misguided 'freedom' that only benefits those few generally.

Forget the EPA, forget Medicare, forget public education, I'm not going to even bother trying to point out the issue, everyone should know it by now.

The Republicans control the House of Representatives, they can shut down the govt enough to eventually balance the budget.

My theory of government is that the federal government has two main reasons to spend.

One is for economic-improving investments, the other are epxenses to benefit people (moral issues). Of course there's overhead cost to these.

The thing with austerity - as my recent austerity post described - is that cutting cutting spending harms both of these - you can cut spending and go more into debt.

I'll say Craig234's Rule #2 is: cuts to government spending generally cut the good spending before the bad.

That rule kind of kills the plan to cut the 'bad' spending.

Not necessarily, because Reagan and Bush were Republicans and they set records for number of govt employees.

That's what I said - that in previous recessions (under Republicans mostly) we added a ton of government jobs for recovery.

We can't know what Romney would've done. He may have hired more govt employees, he may have fired some, he may have kept the same number... I'd guess the first since he wanted to increase military spending and didn't propose abolition of any departments.

He did advocate aboloshing departments, but he wanted to skyrocket the military.

It's hard to say how it'd have balanced. Going by what he said, he'd have cut, but that doesn't mean much - Reagan ranted against debt while shooting it up. Bush's campaign talk was close to the opposite of what he did - he promised to use PART of the SURPLUS for some tax cuts - in fact, he wiped out the surplus and every cent of his tax cuts for the rich was borrowed.

I said expressly. :) Let's say 50% consented to being governed by the President... that probably would not make Jefferson happy since he was always looking for large majorities.

Well, Jefferson noither gave us a solution for the two-party situation nor any alternative to the guy who gets 51% being elected, so not much to do about that.

Obama really should have got a lot more of the vote, but that's another issue.

What crazy elections we have - Romney being a cartoon rich guy with policies that shift trillions of Americans' money to the top isn't a problem, but his 47% speech was.
 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
350
126
lol, thanks for the laugh. neither side cares about individual rights.. they dont even care about people in general. whatever they can individually do to make more money is what they do, and if it helps to side with a team to get more money then they do that.

theyre career politicians. scum of the earth. the party they belong to is meaningless.

Wow, that's a rant.

I'm going to challenge you on it.

I'll grant you there are some pretty bad Democrats - for example, Max Bachus.

But there are others you are completely inaccurate about.

I'll give you a few, you point out to me SPECIFICS about THESE PEOPLE to back up your points, please.

Bernie Sanders, Henry Waxman, Sherrod Brown, George Miller, Barbare Lee.

I'll not comment on the rest of your post this post.
 

wirednuts

Diamond Member
Jan 26, 2007
7,121
4
0
Wow, that's a rant.

I'm going to challenge you on it.

I'll grant you there are some pretty bad Democrats - for example, Max Bachus.

But there are others you are completely inaccurate about.

I'll give you a few, you point out to me SPECIFICS about THESE PEOPLE to back up your points, please.

Bernie Sanders, Henry Waxman, Sherrod Brown, George Miller, Barbare Lee.

I'll not comment on the rest of your post this post.

if you wont even acknowledge republican fault then im running away from this conversation. liberals are idiotic pussies, and republicans are crazy assholes. i really have no desire at all to go any deeper into it then that. it would be like trying to explain how a black hole works.