BF2S Forums Where's the motivation? [Debt Ceiling]

FEOS wrote:

Jenspm wrote:

Jay wrote:

I'm probably just not going to vote at all.

But meh, if it's what American wants it's what America wants. I'm just sayin', I guess. Besides, changing this would require a complete restructuring of the voting system.

I wouldn't require a restructuring of the voting system at all. What non-Americans seem to misunderstand is that the US system isn't a "two party system." It's a n-party system where two parties dominate. Just like nearly everywhere else. No restructuring of anything would be required for any other party(ies) to emerge...except for them to emerge. The thing that prevents them from emerging is that they are generally one or two-issue parties, so those issues--if they are large enough to attract national attention--get absorbed into the platforms of the Democrat and Republican parties, thus making those smaller parties essentially moot.

Dilbert_X wrote:

Jay wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

So you want to see govt employees who manage social security and Medicare fired, but not the military.

'Increased efficiency' invariably means fewer people for the same amount of work.

Your reading comprehension skills are subpar. I'm not lowing. My opinions don't come out of the Republican playbook so you can't parrot Maddow and come across as coherent. Think for yourself, I know it's difficult.

I asked who you wanted fired and you gave a vague, rambling answer filled with buzzwords and theories which don't work.
That and accusing Greece of being socialised when the US has the largest socialised spending budget in the world.
Now you're just being insulting.

GG

You want cuts, put your money where your mouth is and say what should be cut and who should lose their jobs.
Applies to spending too, cancelling the F22 would mean taxes wouldn't have to rise so much. Would that be a cut which cost no jobs?

Jenspm wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Jenspm wrote:

But meh, if it's what American wants it's what America wants. I'm just sayin', I guess. Besides, changing this would require a complete restructuring of the voting system.

I wouldn't require a restructuring of the voting system at all. What non-Americans seem to misunderstand is that the US system isn't a "two party system." It's a n-party system where two parties dominate. Just like nearly everywhere else. No restructuring of anything would be required for any other party(ies) to emerge...except for them to emerge. The thing that prevents them from emerging is that they are generally one or two-issue parties, so those issues--if they are large enough to attract national attention--get absorbed into the platforms of the Democrat and Republican parties, thus making those smaller parties essentially moot.

I disagree - your voting system, as with the one in the UK, favours large parties, and thus converges to a two-party system. Duverger's Law. (I don't mean to be a pretentious dick throwing around PoliSci theories, but it's relevant, and I cba to type it out)

You'd need to move closer to proportionate representation for it to work. Take a look at Denmark, for example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Danish_parliament

Yes, some parties are larger than others, but they're not the only ones that are relevant. Voting for smaller parties isn't a "wasted vote".

FEOS wrote:

Jenspm wrote:

FEOS wrote:

I wouldn't require a restructuring of the voting system at all. What non-Americans seem to misunderstand is that the US system isn't a "two party system." It's a n-party system where two parties dominate. Just like nearly everywhere else. No restructuring of anything would be required for any other party(ies) to emerge...except for them to emerge. The thing that prevents them from emerging is that they are generally one or two-issue parties, so those issues--if they are large enough to attract national attention--get absorbed into the platforms of the Democrat and Republican parties, thus making those smaller parties essentially moot.

I disagree - your voting system, as with the one in the UK, favours large parties, and thus converges to a two-party system. Duverger's Law. (I don't mean to be a pretentious dick throwing around PoliSci theories, but it's relevant, and I cba to type it out)

You'd need to move closer to proportionate representation for it to work. Take a look at Denmark, for example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Danish_parliament

Yes, some parties are larger than others, but they're not the only ones that are relevant. Voting for smaller parties isn't a "wasted vote".

Sorry, but that's BS. We're getting a bit OT here, but the voting system isn't what makes it difficult for other parties to gain traction here. It's the nature of the "third" parties themselves that does. They are (generally) one or two issue parties, and fringe issues, at that. They attract very small numbers of adherents because of that. Again, if their message/platform gains sufficient traction (a la the Tea Party or environmental aspects of the Green Party), that message gets incorporated into one of the mainstream parties to increase the base of that party. The parties still exist on their own, but many of their target audience will go to one of the two large parties because the key issue they are concerned about is now being addressed there, along with many others they care about that weren't being addressed by the fringe party.

You could change the voting system here and we'd still end up with either a D, an R, or an occasional I (maybe an L) after the election--just like we do now. Because of the nature of the American public and the nature of the political parties. It has nothing to do with the political system or voting system.

We'll chalk it up to people not being familiar with how things actually work in the US, I suppose. Theory =/= reality in all cases.

Jay wrote:

Shocking wrote:

one million? isn't that a bit excessive

Department of Defense. Defend the borders and stop playing in other peoples backyards.

Jaekus wrote:

Jay wrote:

Shocking wrote:

one million? isn't that a bit excessive

Department of Defense. Defend the borders and stop playing in other peoples backyards.

How many different countries are US troops in active service, and how many should have those troops returned home, either entirely from those countries or a reduced presence?

Jenspm wrote:

That's fair enough. Can't really say I'm entirely convinced, but can't say I'm an expert on US politics either.

Question though. Don't you think the Tea Party and other "fringe parties" incorporate themselves into the Rs or Ds because it's the only way they can get sufficient leverage? Because voting Tea Party in a presidential election is viewed as a wasted vote because there's no way they'll beat either party to a seat?

And could you not also argue that these parties are one or two issue movements precisely because they don't see themselves beating the big two and thus aim to push one or two issues, gain popular interest, and try to incorporate them in the big parties?

Anyways, don't get me wrong, I'm not saying changing voting systems would abolish the absolute dominance of the two parties over night (or even at all), or that the (only) reason you have a system like that is because of your voting system, I'm just saying that I think it's necessary to change the system if you want a multi-party system to be possible.

FEOS wrote:

Jenspm wrote:

That's fair enough. Can't really say I'm entirely convinced, but can't say I'm an expert on US politics either.

Question though. Don't you think the Tea Party and other "fringe parties" incorporate themselves into the Rs or Ds because it's the only way they can get sufficient leverage? Because voting Tea Party in a presidential election is viewed as a wasted vote because there's no way they'll beat either party to a seat?

And could you not also argue that these parties are one or two issue movements precisely because they don't see themselves beating the big two and thus aim to push one or two issues, gain popular interest, and try to incorporate them in the big parties?

Anyways, don't get me wrong, I'm not saying changing voting systems would abolish the absolute dominance of the two parties over night (or even at all), or that the (only) reason you have a system like that is because of your voting system, I'm just saying that I think it's necessary to change the system if you want a multi-party system to be possible.

Call it the American point of view that each must stand on its own merit. If a party is going to win, they need to win in a winner-take-all competition for the seat that is up for election. There's only one seat, and we're not going to have runoff after runoff. Elections take long enough and are expensive enough as it is already. If the candidate/party can't win given the chance they have, then too bad. This isn't teeball where everyone gets a trophy for participating.

As to the idea of strategy regarding incorporating with other parties: Of course, that could always be an option for smaller parties. Rand Paul is an example of a Tea Party candidate who ran as a Republican. Not necessarily because he knew he couldn't win as a third party candidate (or rather, not just because of that), but because he was concerned if he did, it would split the conservative vote and give the election to the Democrat--a situation your voting system revision would not resolve, btw. In fact, that is the primary reason "fringe" party issues/candidates get adopted by the larger parties: to prevent fratricide amongst the base. It's why the two parties' platforms cover such a broad variety of issues at this point.

Jay wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Jaekus wrote:

How many different countries are US troops in active service, and how many should have those troops returned home, either entirely from those countries or a reduced presence?

How many of those countries would scream blue murder if we did? They would take a massive economic hit in many cases (not to mention there would be treaty violations in some cases if we did).

@ Jay: We've already got about 1.5M reserves...

In order to cut our active (and reserves) that much, there would have to be a massive overhaul of our National Security Strategy, which would also require massive expectation changes on the part of the rest of the world regarding how much (or how little, tbh) we would be participating/contributing to various operations globally.

It's what needs to be done. We're not Rome or the British, we don't have a far flung network of colonies to support via our military. We have our home nation. Let the rest sort themselves out.

FEOS wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

Jay wrote:

Your reading comprehension skills are subpar. I'm not lowing. My opinions don't come out of the Republican playbook so you can't parrot Maddow and come across as coherent. Think for yourself, I know it's difficult.

I asked who you wanted fired and you gave a vague, rambling answer filled with buzzwords and theories which don't work.
That and accusing Greece of being socialised when the US has the largest socialised spending budget in the world.
Now you're just being insulting.

GG

You want cuts, put your money where your mouth is and say what should be cut and who should lose their jobs.
Applies to spending too, cancelling the F22 would mean taxes wouldn't have to rise so much. Would that be a cut which cost no jobs?

Wrong. US is 9/175. Remove military, and we're 12/175. That would mean that military (for those who've been arguing it) isn't the biggest driver of government expenditures.
Total govt expenditures:
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_2SW2_lbrxgY/S … +2009.jpeg
From OECD, focused on "social expenditures":
http://i.imgur.com/tA7QV.jpg
Still not the highest.

Weird. Once again, the data don't match your hyperbole, Dilbert.

Dilbert_X wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

I asked who you wanted fired and you gave a vague, rambling answer filled with buzzwords and theories which don't work.
That and accusing Greece of being socialised when the US has the largest socialised spending budget in the world.
Now you're just being insulting.

GG

You want cuts, put your money where your mouth is and say what should be cut and who should lose their jobs.
Applies to spending too, cancelling the F22 would mean taxes wouldn't have to rise so much. Would that be a cut which cost no jobs?

Wrong. US is 9/175. Remove military, and we're 12/175. That would mean that military (for those who've been arguing it) isn't the biggest driver of government expenditures.
Total govt expenditures:
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_2SW2_lbrxgY/S … +2009.jpeg
From OECD, focused on "social expenditures":
http://i.imgur.com/tA7QV.jpg
Still not the highest.

Weird. Once again, the data don't match your hyperbole, Dilbert.

Nice graphs, except I said largest, not per capita.