[NGTM-1R]

I blame both parties.

I'll let you in on a secret.

The debt ceiling has been raised for years without comment from either party. It's normally a part of the budget bills and goes totally unremarked.

The Republicans moved to sever those things this year.

What play? That continuing to side with "Democrats" or "Republicans" is foolish? Because that's really all I'm saying.

The deliberate gridlock of the government with the objective of destroying its ability to function in the hopes of causing it to collapse so that the Tea Party can create their dream Christolibertarianwhateverthe**** state that the current system will not allow.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with the current US system of government. There is everything wrong with the desire of one of the parties to be able to do things that are unconstitutional in nature and only by bringing down the government from the inside, by artificially creating a crisis, can they hope to accomplish it.

[Unknown Target]

What play? That continuing to side with "Democrats" or "Republicans" is foolish? Because that's really all I'm saying.

What I see as foolish is recognizing (correctly) that both of our parties are flawed, but refusing to recognize that one party is much, much, more deeply flawed than the other. It's a highly unfortunate tendency that I see in a lot of Americans.

I never said that one party wasn't more deeply flawed than the other.

It's pretty obvious that one party has lost the plot while the other one is at least reading the cliff notes.

I just don't care. Both of them are messed up, neither of them really deserve all the power they say they should wield. They both need to go.

Endlessly bickering and trying to point out that "oh, well, this side is so much worse than that side" accomplishes what, exactly?

EDIT: as for NGTM-1R;

There is absolutely nothing wrong with the current US system of government.

I agree. Mostly. There are a few too many laws and loopholes, but on the whole the original concept is quite sound. That is why I put in parenthesis before "our current government (Democrats and Republicans)". I was making a point that our current government really is just Dems vs. Repubs.

The Republicans moved to sever those things this year.

...and the other option is what, exactly? Continue to raise the debt limit and spending beyond our means, never really tackling the problem?
Like I said before

There is everything wrong with the desire of one of the parties to be able to do things that are unconstitutional in nature and only by bringing down the government from the inside, by artificially creating a crisis, can they hope to accomplish it.

This crisis isn't exactly new. It's just finally being brought about. It was going to happen sooner or later; unless you'd like to say that we could have continually spent way above our income forever? In which case I would be seriously interested in your theories as to how that is possible?

[roaddog_665]

The only fools are the ones who think either party gives a damn about "We The People". The GOP only cares about giving tax breaks to the big corps because that's where they get their votes. The Dems only care about keeping people dependent on the gov and giving them more entitlements because that's where they get their votes.

America used to be the land of opportunity where you could work hard and make a good life for yourself. Now its the land of "give me what I want because I deserve it and will give my vote to whoever gives me the most stuff."

I'm sorry to say that many of my fellow Americans have become lazy and think that they should be successful just because they live in America. We went from Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness to Life, Liberty, Free Health Care, Housing, Food, Monthly Check, Free Education, Designer Cloths, TV, Cellphone, Big Car, and No Responsibility. Oh yeah, and somewhere in there we became the World Police Force and Foreign Aid Center too.

Still amazes me that we have to borrow money but still hand it out to other countries like its growing on a tree in the back yard.

[LordPomposity]

It's pretty obvious that one party has lost the plot while the other one is at least reading the cliff notes.

More that one has lost the plot while the other is burning the book.

From where I'm standing, siding with the party that isn't actively trying to destroy the country seems like a much better idea than trying to replace the entire government. Hell, the Democratic Party's main flaw is that they lack the resolve and political smarts to call the Republicans out on their bull**** and do something about it.

[Unknown Target]

It's pretty obvious that one party has lost the plot while the other one is at least reading the cliff notes.

More that one has lost the plot while the other is burning the book.

From where I'm standing, siding with the party that isn't actively trying to destroy the country seems like a much better idea than trying to replace the entire government. Hell, the Democratic Party's main flaw is that they lack the resolve and political smarts to call the Republicans out on their bull**** and do something about it.

Why do you think that is?

I think it's because it's a system of duality; one can't exist without the other. They play off each other and just go back and forth - there's no compromise, really, one just offers what the other says is bad.

In America, that same sort of idea of "well, we'll choose the lesser of two evils" is really what got us into this mess. It's just a back and forth - everytime the elections roll around, we're presented with this dichotomy of one side vs the other, and whoever seems to be the least crazy gets the votes. Nothing really gets done, because no one really wants to make things work - they want to get "theirs and their own".

The original idea of Congress was that legislation would be debated on the floor towards an open compromise. Now, and for a long time (since the early to mid 70s), bills are decided long before they ever come to the floor; inside the halls of the Capitol, people run around securing votes so that they can be assured of the bills passage. Americans complain about pork, or at least, politicians like to make a big deal out of it come election season. Where does that pork come from? Well it comes from practices like these; you want the Senator from Delaware to say yes to your bill? Well he wants $300,000 for a new bridge in his district so the voters will vote for him again. Extrapolate from there, times 545 people.

[NGTM-1R]

I just don't care. Both of them are messed up, neither of them really deserve all the power they say they should wield. They both need to go.

Endlessly bickering and trying to point out that "oh, well, this side is so much worse than that side" accomplishes what, exactly?

If you are unable to select the lesser evil, then you're not going to make it far in life.

For that matter advocating the collapse of the two party system...ahahahahaha you're joking right? Do you have any idea what that would do? The current issues would be as nothing to the issues that would cause in trying to accomplish anything.

...and the other option is what, exactly? Continue to raise the debt limit and spending beyond our means, never really tackling the problem?

All governments spend beyond their means. Your ignorance of the usefulness of a national debt to the maintenance of good government does you no credit.

Your ignorance of why we spend beyond our means also does you no credit. This crisis is Republican in genesis from beginning to end. It's artificial, manufactured, made up, born of tax breaks and loopholes meant for the rich brought by the party which now wants a balanced budget amendment, created by their insistence the system they manufactured is not working.

It's slight of hand, a show put on whose elements are trickery and deceit.



If you want to live in the Tea Party State, by all means, continue in your apathy. Pretend that all are equally evil and equally undeserving. Pretend that this doesn't have predictable consequences and pretend that it will not only serve the purposes of the reactionary.

You declare, in every word, every breath, that you simply don't actually give a **** what happens to the United States of America. You are dead weight to this discussion, this country. You have no interest in either preserving it or in substantive change for the better. The system, as much as you like to crap on it, works and has worked in the timeframe you propose.

Or do you honestly mean that things have gotten worse since the mid-'70s? I suppose that whole Gay Rights/repeal of DADT thing never happened. I suppose we never won the Cold War. I suppose we never greatly reduced the threat of ending the world in nuclear fire. I suppose the economy tanked in 1970 and never recovered. I suppose that Compton and similar neighborhoods are still full of underprivileged blacks; I suppose that the underprivileged Latinos who apparently never existed haven't started clawing their way up. I suppose the debate on illegal immigration never actually became, y'know, a debate.

You don't like the iterative process of becoming less wrong? Too bad, it's the only one that works. You want to solve everything in one grand revolution? That didn't work for the founding of this country, it didn't work for the Civil War either, and certainly hasn't worked anywhere else.

Now as you have nothing substantive to contribute and no concept of how anything actually got this way or even how it actually works, get out.

[Unknown Target]

I just don't care. Both of them are messed up, neither of them really deserve all the power they say they should wield. They both need to go.

Endlessly bickering and trying to point out that "oh, well, this side is so much worse than that side" accomplishes what, exactly?

If you are unable to select the lesser evil, then you're not going to make it far in life.

For that matter advocating the collapse of the two party system...ahahahahaha you're joking right? Do you have any idea what that would do? The current issues would be as nothing to the issues that would cause in trying to accomplish anything.

How well are things being accomplished now?

And you're right - if I am unable to select the lesser evil, then I am not going to make it far in life. The lesser evil of evil and lesser evil would be no evil. I don't think anyone these days is right to say that they are able to choose the third option if they stay within the confines of the two party system.

If you want to live in the Tea Party State, by all means, continue in your apathy. Pretend that all are equally evil and equally undeserving. Pretend that this doesn't have predictable consequences and pretend that it will not only serve the purposes of the reactionary.

I don't see how I'm apathetic, and I don't see where I said that we are all equally evil and "equally undeserving". I don't believe I ever made such a claim.

You don't like the iterative process of becoming less wrong? Too bad, it's the only one that works. You want to solve everything in one grand revolution? That didn't work for the founding of this country, it didn't work for the Civil War either, and certainly hasn't worked anywhere else.

I don't think I ever called for a grand revolution, at least, not in the way you're describing. I believe I've been ridiculed by you in other threads for advocating only peace.

As for this;

You declare, in every word, every breath, that you simply don't actually give a **** what happens to the United States of America. You are dead weight to this discussion, this country. You have no interest in either preserving it or in substantive change for the better. The system, as much as you like to crap on it, works and has worked in the timeframe you propose.

Or do you honestly mean that things have gotten worse since the mid-'70s? I suppose that whole Gay Rights/repeal of DADT thing never happened. I suppose we never won the Cold War. I suppose we never greatly reduced the threat of ending the world in nuclear fire. I suppose the economy tanked in 1970 and never recovered. I suppose that Compton and similar neighborhoods are still full of underprivileged blacks; I suppose that the underprivileged Latinos who apparently never existed haven't started clawing their way up. I suppose the debate on illegal immigration never actually became, y'know, a debate.

I never ever said any of what you allude to in the first paragraph. Indeed, honest criticism is what I believe is the best medicine for correcting a problem. As for the second paragraph, I never said any of that, either.

Now as you have nothing substantive to contribute and no concept of how anything actually got this way or even how it actually works, get out.

Is my idea of breaking away from two perpendicularly opposed parties that threatening?


Ugh, sorry for multiquoting like that.

[mxlm]

I'm old and nostalgic

Fixed that for you.

[MP-Ryan]

On the plus side for you Americans sick of the Tea Party bull****, Canada is always looking for skilled immigrants =)

[NGTM-1R]

Is my idea of breaking away from two perpendicularly opposed parties that threatening?

Oh, it's plenty threatening, but you missed the point entirely.

You manifestly don't understand the problem, or why we have the problem. Any solution you come up with is perforce both dangerous and stupid.

You are proposing political solutions, but you are very clearly unable to comprehend a political environment, or to function in one. Indeed, the longer this thread goes on the more I am convinced in your inability to comprehend or function in actual reality rather than whatever idealized world lives in your head.

You're not right; you're not even wrong, because you don't understand the questions. Calling you dead weight is painfully apt, as you don't even have a neutral effect on the discussion: the methods you propose would be actively harmful and play into the hands of the enemies of both your idealized idea of government and my more realistic one. And yet even when this is pointed out, you fail to grasp not only the danger to a realistic concept, but the danger to your own concept. It's an incredible, shocking display of what I sincerely hope is willful ignorance.

[achtung]

On the plus side for you Americans sick of the Tea Party bull****, Canada is always looking for skilled immigrants =)

Implying the crap won't spill over into Canada if the **** hits the fan.

[Bob-san]

Where the hell do you get off with this drabble?

I just don't care. Both of them are messed up, neither of them really deserve all the power they say they should wield. They both need to go.

Endlessly bickering and trying to point out that "oh, well, this side is so much worse than that side" accomplishes what, exactly?

If you are unable to select the lesser evil, then you're not going to make it far in life.

For that matter advocating the collapse of the two party system...ahahahahaha you're joking right? Do you have any idea what that would do? The current issues would be as nothing to the issues that would cause in trying to accomplish anything.

The problem is the seesawing between two extremes. The parties in practice are little different. I would prefer to have multiple parties and a bit of politician chaos where relevant issues can be discussed and coalitions formed to do something about those issues. It represents the various issues for debate without effectively having to follow party lines. Where's a gay marriage supporter to fit in the Republican party? Where's a fiscal conservative to fit in the Democratic party? Someone pro or against gun control? Et cetera; for every issue there are multiple viewpoints. Taking a slice down the middle and calling one half Republican and the other half Democrat doesn't really work. A three-or-more-party system is more representative of the population.

...and the other option is what, exactly? Continue to raise the debt limit and spending beyond our means, never really tackling the problem?

All governments spend beyond their means. Your ignorance of the usefulness of a national debt to the maintenance of good government does you no credit.

Your ignorance of why we spend beyond our means also does you no credit. This crisis is Republican in genesis from beginning to end. It's artificial, manufactured, made up, born of tax breaks and loopholes meant for the rich brought by the party which now wants a balanced budget amendment, created by their insistence the system they manufactured is not working.

It's slight of hand, a show put on whose elements are trickery and deceit.

I was unaware that spending beyond one's means is a requirement of government. The problem is that, at least in my opinion, governments are formed for the long term. As part of that, you try to protect the future viability of the government by upkeeping every aspect. National debt is important so that the government receives funds prior to receiving tax revenues. Look at how towns and cities fund themselves; they frequently issue revenue or general obligation bonds so that they can operate year round. The issue is that spending has been out of control since 2001. George Bush inherited a good portion of the debt and added a significant portion of his own over his 8 years in office. The issue now is that President Obama has, in nearing 3 years now, spend far more than President Bush did. It's out of control and that's a major issue as the USA won't be financially viable if this trend continues. The Tea Party representatives are perhaps the true roadblock in Washington; they have little interest in reelection and stick to their guns. The more stereotypical Republicans need to cater to the fiscal conservatives to show party unity. Frankly, I think that the Tea Party should either join the Libertarian Party or form a Fiscal Conservative party.

I can hardly believe that you're trying to tack the entire debt on a single party. Last I checked, there are two parties who are both responsible for some aspect of the revenue issue and expenditure issue. In fact, if I remember my history correctly, it was during President Clinton's administration that taxes were cut and the budget balanced--and the national debt reduced.

If you want to live in the Tea Party State, by all means, continue in your apathy. Pretend that all are equally evil and equally undeserving. Pretend that this doesn't have predictable consequences and pretend that it will not only serve the purposes of the reactionary.

You declare, in every word, every breath, that you simply don't actually give a **** what happens to the United States of America. You are dead weight to this discussion, this country. You have no interest in either preserving it or in substantive change for the better. The system, as much as you like to crap on it, works and has worked in the timeframe you propose.

I disagree with this quite a bit. As a cursory, you're getting into personal attacks. I was unaware that the population of the USA was to be of a single mind about all issues. The interest that seems to be UT's is that the government can continue to operate without increasing the debt burden. The debt as it stands, regardless of what Moody's, S&P, & other rating houses say, unruly and unsustainable. A balanced budget would be a substantial change for the better presuming it was done intelligently. That means increasing tax revenues as well as substantial cuts. It'd be like giving a teenager that you don't even know a large line of credit. They're going to use it. They'll be a little cautious and, with each time it works, get a little bit more thoughtless. Pretty soon, they'll rack up a substantial debt that they have no ability to pay off. It's free money with which to do what they wish. The problem with that viewpoint lies in both parties; Republicans who reduce taxes to get elected and Democrats who increase spending faster than revenue. And the same is true in opposite.

Or do you honestly mean that things have gotten worse since the mid-'70s? I suppose that whole Gay Rights/repeal of DADT thing never happened. I suppose we never won the Cold War. I suppose we never greatly reduced the threat of ending the world in nuclear fire. I suppose the economy tanked in 1970 and never recovered. I suppose that Compton and similar neighborhoods are still full of underprivileged blacks; I suppose that the underprivileged Latinos who apparently never existed haven't started clawing their way up. I suppose the debate on illegal immigration never actually became, y'know, a debate.

You don't like the iterative process of becoming less wrong? Too bad, it's the only one that works. You want to solve everything in one grand revolution? That didn't work for the founding of this country, it didn't work for the Civil War either, and certainly hasn't worked anywhere else.

Now as you have nothing substantive to contribute and no concept of how anything actually got this way or even how it actually works, get out.

In some ways, yes they have. The issue is that the economy has changed significantly. The USA is no longer a manufacturing powerhouse. We're no longer competing with Asia; we've quite literally capitulated that battle.

"We can't compete with that cheap Chinese steel! They sell it so cheap!"
"But steel is heavy and bulky--they gotta ship it here to sell it here. Hey--that means we have a head start! We don't have to pay to ship it overseas!"

Less wrong is the only method. I happen to think it's less wrong to reduce spending and the public debt. What would be more wrong is to uphold the status quo and allow the debt to continue at an exponential rate while actual spending continues to be greater than government revenue.

[NGTM-1R]

Congratulations, you completely missed the point as well.

[Drogoth]

The collapse of the two party system now would be apocalyptic.

The collapse of the two party system 50 years ago would have created many different political views that would have to learn to compromise. As it was, the two party system has provided either party with the capacity to get their way when they want to. Now that need to follow a rampant extreme ideology is to entrenched, and if there were more then two parties, the bickering would multiply, not cease.

As for these things spilling over the border... the economic issues, yes. The social and political issues that CAUSED them, I find it unlikely that they would spill over. Might not matter though, provided that the economic woes are significant enough.

And Unknown, you keep mentioning that dealing with this now is the desirable outcome. It isn't. Much of the world should have realized by now that  America is headed for financial collapse (or the tax burden on the next 3-4 generations will be truly crushing). The world needs to be prepared and ready to take that blow, which means amuch more diversified economy and a much more economically sound Asia and Europe, with markets large enough and significant enough to rival America. This is growing in asia, but isnt near ready yet. If the world can be stable enough to take that blow, we can lift America up into the global market again after collapse.

If we aren't, we collapse to, and it becomes a domino effect. Economic deathspiral, no one is in a position of strength. Upping the borrowing limit buys the rest of the world time to act. Everything is damage control now, I personally believe America has dug itself into a hole that it cannot escape from, to many issues confronting the nation, not just overspending.

[Bob-san]

Congratulations, you completely missed the point as well.

Then what was the point? That we should continue doing the same bull**** we've always done because it's easier than balancing a budget? The former through Democratic and Republican administrations has gotten us into this mess and the latter has been done before. Run that budgetary surplus so that we can pay our obligations and improve the strength of our currency. It's not your father's or grandfather world; a lot of **** has changed.

[Sushi]

Graph time (just because I didn't see these earlier):



Measured as percent of GDP, so it's effectively adjusted for inflation.

If measuring as percent of GDP is misleading for some reason, please let me know why, because AFAICT it's the most meaningful measure.

[Dragon]

I can see WWII and the latest economic crisis clearly on that graph. I don't recall what could have caused a drop near 1997, but I'm sure something important happened near that date.

[MP-Ryan]

I can see WWII and the latest economic crisis clearly on that graph. I don't recall what could have caused a drop near 1997, but I'm sure something important happened near that date.

Late-90s economic boom.  Clinton's administration and the Houses at the time made a point of balanced-ish budgets.  Bush screwed that idea, and started the bailout process when the recession came (as a result of Republican de-regulation, I might add) which Obama was forced to continue.  Hence the current rising proportion.

[Bob-san]

Graph time (just because I didn't see these earlier):

Debt as percent of GDP

Measured as percent of GDP, so it's effectively adjusted for inflation.

If measuring as percent of GDP is misleading for some reason, please let me know why, because AFAICT it's the most meaningful measure.

It's misleading because GDP growth is not constant and does indeed fluxuate from year to year. The same goes for population.


And that's why the old system won't work. The almighty trade deficit.

[redsniper]

Wtf happened between '08-'09 there?