Pages: 1 … 7 8 9 10 11 … 24

 

2011-07-19 05:42:50
FEOS
Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate
+1,182|6403|'Murka

Jenspm wrote:

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.
Yeah, I definitely see those points. Just different cultures as to what's desirable I guess. Pros/Cons on both sides, but you won't be surprised to hear that I prefer the pros of proportionate voting systems and multi-party parliaments..

(Also, RE: Tea party ruining vote for Republicans: they would have the chance to create a coalition government and thus maintain a majority over the Dems in "my voting system revision". But nevermind, it's a bit OT anyway).
Don't forget: we're talking about elections for single seats. This isn't a parliamentary system.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
2011-07-19 06:19:46
Jaekus
I'm the matchstick that you'll never lose
+957|5171|Sydney

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.
What do you expect from a country that has the largest GDP by more than double the second largest, which is China?
Pretty sure the US budget is going to be largest in many different ways.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_co … _(nominal)

Last edited by Jaekus (2011-07-19 06:20:34)

2011-07-19 06:24:52
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5350|London, England

Jaekus wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

FEOS wrote:


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.
What do you expect from a country that has the largest GDP by more than double the second largest, which is China?
Pretty sure the US budget is going to be largest in many different ways.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_co … _(nominal)
Hence the "Lol."
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
2011-07-19 06:29:36
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,810|6098|eXtreme to the maX

Jay wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

Jay wrote:


Once again you are clueless. Please stop talking out of your ass in regards to American politics. Stick to buggering sheep.
Kindly refer to Jenspm's post. There is more than one form of freedom in the world.
That two parties have dominated for the last 200 years just shows how poor a system it is.
And what they represent has stayed static amirite? The republican party is only 160 years old, the country is 230. What did we have for the other 1/3 of our history?
Dunno, some other set of clueless dunces?

Really, a system which is static for 200 years is not good.

Hence the "Lol."
Its not my fault FEOS wasn't paying attention.
Русский военный корабль, иди на хуй!
2011-07-19 08:04:05
eleven bravo
Member
+1,399|5251|foggy bottom
republicans used be the the bleeding heart liberals
Tu Stultus Es
2011-07-19 09:32:44
RAIMIUS
You with the face!
+244|6707|US

Dilbert_X wrote:

Jay wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:


Kindly refer to Jenspm's post. There is more than one form of freedom in the world.
That two parties have dominated for the last 200 years just shows how poor a system it is.
And what they represent has stayed static amirite? The republican party is only 160 years old, the country is 230. What did we have for the other 1/3 of our history?
Dunno, some other set of clueless dunces?

Really, a system which is static for 200 years is not good.

Hence the "Lol."
Its not my fault FEOS wasn't paying attention.
FEOS actually gave the relevant statistics.  You asked for statistics which would make it look like you were right.  You have to compare via per capita or percentage when comparing budgets that different from each other, if you want an accurate idea of priorities.

The US system has not been static for 200 years.  Things changed a lot in the early 1800s (federalist/anti-federalist), mid-1800s (end of the Whigs), early 1900s (rise of progressives), and 1960s (major shift in regional politics).  Those are only a couple points.  Of course, there were also things like changing how we elect Senators!.
2011-07-19 09:58:41
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5350|London, England

RAIMIUS wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

Jay wrote:


And what they represent has stayed static amirite? The republican party is only 160 years old, the country is 230. What did we have for the other 1/3 of our history?
Dunno, some other set of clueless dunces?

Really, a system which is static for 200 years is not good.

Hence the "Lol."
Its not my fault FEOS wasn't paying attention.
FEOS actually gave the relevant statistics.  You asked for statistics which would make it look like you were right.  You have to compare via per capita or percentage when comparing budgets that different from each other, if you want an accurate idea of priorities.

The US system has not been static for 200 years.  Things changed a lot in the early 1800s (federalist/anti-federalist), mid-1800s (end of the Whigs), early 1900s (rise of progressives), and 1960s (major shift in regional politics).  Those are only a couple points.  Of course, there were also things like changing how we elect Senators!.
Correct. They used to be appointed by the governors.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
2011-07-19 19:51:01
FEOS
Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate
+1,182|6403|'Murka

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.
When you're talking about spending for people and among differing budget sizes, per capita is all that matters.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
2011-07-19 19:54:10
FEOS
Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate
+1,182|6403|'Murka

Jay wrote:

RAIMIUS wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:


Dunno, some other set of clueless dunces?

Really, a system which is static for 200 years is not good.


Its not my fault FEOS wasn't paying attention.
FEOS actually gave the relevant statistics.  You asked for statistics which would make it look like you were right.  You have to compare via per capita or percentage when comparing budgets that different from each other, if you want an accurate idea of priorities.

The US system has not been static for 200 years.  Things changed a lot in the early 1800s (federalist/anti-federalist), mid-1800s (end of the Whigs), early 1900s (rise of progressives), and 1960s (major shift in regional politics).  Those are only a couple points.  Of course, there were also things like changing how we elect Senators!.
Correct. They used to be appointed by the governors.
Nope. Everything stayed the same for 200+ years, you two.

Move along now with your "facts" and whatnot.

Silly colonials.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
2011-07-19 20:47:14
Jaekus
I'm the matchstick that you'll never lose
+957|5171|Sydney

Dilbert_X wrote:

Jay wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:


Kindly refer to Jenspm's post. There is more than one form of freedom in the world.
That two parties have dominated for the last 200 years just shows how poor a system it is.
And what they represent has stayed static amirite? The republican party is only 160 years old, the country is 230. What did we have for the other 1/3 of our history?
Dunno, some other set of clueless dunces?

Really, a system which is static for 200 years is not good.

Hence the "Lol."
Its not my fault FEOS wasn't paying attention.
Admission of trolling right there ^
2011-07-19 21:02:16
Kmar
Truth is my Bitch
+5,695|6593|132 and Bush

eleven bravo wrote:

republicans used be the the bleeding heart liberals
True. The civil rights party.

And dems used to be the party of national defense.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
2011-07-19 21:48:04
War Man
Australians are hermaphrodites.
+563|6706|Purplicious Wisconsin

Jay wrote:

Nothing is wrong with the voting system aside from the fact that people generally are clueless about politics and vote for whatever party their parents voted for (See: War Man).
Wrong, I will not vote for the Republicans just because my parents usually vote for them. If I vote for them, it's because I prefer them.
The irony of guns, is that they can save lives.
2011-07-20 00:44:17
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,810|6098|eXtreme to the maX

FEOS wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

FEOS wrote:


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.
When you're talking about spending for people and among differing budget sizes, per capita is all that matters.
So US govt expenditure per capita is higher than Greece, Germany, Ireland Canada etc - all actual socialist countries, and you still claim the US isn't socialist?

You'd think with all that GDP and freedom no social spending would be needed at all.
Русский военный корабль, иди на хуй!
2011-07-20 01:59:21
mr.hrundi
Wurstwassereis
+68|6430|Germany

mr.hrundi wrote:

I have a question related to the OP:

As far as I am informed it seems that the approach to the debt problem is the following: Obama will raise the debt ceiling pretty much by himself using his veto while the Republican party will vote against it. This way the US will have more time.
I mostly get my information from German news sources (I'm not studying politics, so I don't have too much time to read through different news sources). What my sources say is that no one really knows how to solve the problems properly. The GOP seems to be blocking most suggestions because their primary target is to make the Obama administration look bad in public.
With voting against raising the debt ceiling all results (which will probably be bad) are Obama's fault, meaning that his chances to get reelected are getting smaller and smaller.

Now (finally) to my question: is it a viewpoint that's only represented in Europe that all the GOP seems to do is to try and prevent the Democrats from winning any elections in the next few years or is this opinion represented in the American media and public as well?
anybody?
2011-07-20 03:19:36
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,810|6098|eXtreme to the maX
Pretty sure Obama can't use a veto to enact legislation.

Otherwise seems right, GOP have always been crybabies who just can't deal with not being in power.
Русский военный корабль, иди на хуй!
2011-07-20 03:37:28
Kmar
Truth is my Bitch
+5,695|6593|132 and Bush

mr.hrundi wrote:

mr.hrundi wrote:

I have a question related to the OP:

As far as I am informed it seems that the approach to the debt problem is the following: Obama will raise the debt ceiling pretty much by himself using his veto while the Republican party will vote against it. This way the US will have more time.
I mostly get my information from German news sources (I'm not studying politics, so I don't have too much time to read through different news sources). What my sources say is that no one really knows how to solve the problems properly. The GOP seems to be blocking most suggestions because their primary target is to make the Obama administration look bad in public.
With voting against raising the debt ceiling all results (which will probably be bad) are Obama's fault, meaning that his chances to get reelected are getting smaller and smaller.

Now (finally) to my question: is it a viewpoint that's only represented in Europe that all the GOP seems to do is to try and prevent the Democrats from winning any elections in the next few years or is this opinion represented in the American media and public as well?
anybody?
The point of the thread was seeing through the smoke of "for the love of country" bullshit. The official GOP position however is to take this opportunity to prevent a tax hike and reduce overall spending. However, most Republicans eagerly line up to take stimulus money if it serves their own constituents. Then when it's time for re-election they can brag about all of the nice things they got them.
"Not to be rude, but it's one of the dumbest things," Mr. Hoekstra said of the notion that there is a contradiction. "The only people who are supposed to get money in an omnibus bill are the ones that vote for it?...I don't see any inconsistency at all."
Of course he wouldn't see it. That would require at least a smidgen of leadership potential.

"Washington needs to stop spending money that it doesn't have," Michigan Republican Rep. Pete Hoekstra said in attacking the $410 billion omnibus-spending bill, which funds the government through September. But once it passed, he touted its benefits for his district, which stretches along Lake Michigan.
Rep. Mary Bono Mack (R., Calif.), who denounced the stimulus bill as wasteful, soon announced that it provided a $4.2 million grant for her district to prevent families from becoming homeless. "This funding will provide much-needed assistance," she said.
Rep. Cliff Stearns (R., Fla.) voted against the spending bill. When it passed, he announced that he had "secured" $1.7 million in the legislation for a citrus-research project and a mental health program.
The Dems have their own set of contradictions.

The President can push legislation through with his proxies in Congress.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
2011-07-20 04:34:25
FEOS
Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate
+1,182|6403|'Murka

Dilbert_X wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:


Nice graphs, except I said largest, not per capita.
When you're talking about spending for people and among differing budget sizes, per capita is all that matters.
So US govt expenditure per capita is higher than Greece, Germany, Ireland Canada etc - all actual socialist countries, and you still claim the US isn't socialist?

You'd think with all that GDP and freedom no social spending would be needed at all.
Someone needs to re-read his graphs, apparently.

The table is overall government spending (2009 includes massive govt "stimulus spending"), not just "social spending". The graph is actually the more relevant to what you're saying.

And people have been claiming Obama is trying to move the US to a European-style socialist model for a while, yet most here scoff at that. It appears you agree with lowing et al now?
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
2011-07-20 04:35:38
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,810|6098|eXtreme to the maX
Govt spending is social spending.
Русский военный корабль, иди на хуй!
2011-07-20 04:42:00
FEOS
Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate
+1,182|6403|'Murka

Dilbert_X wrote:

Govt spending is social spending.
No. Welfare spending is social spending. Domestic spending in certain sectors is social spending. Foreign aid is not social spending. Defense spending is not social spending. Paying Congressional salaries is not social spending. Look more than a millimeter deep, ffs.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
2011-07-20 04:59:01
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,810|6098|eXtreme to the maX
Any govt spending has a social imperative.
Think about it.
Русский военный корабль, иди на хуй!
2011-07-20 05:51:05
Kmar
Truth is my Bitch
+5,695|6593|132 and Bush

Would that apply to corruption? That happens to be a big deal in some countries.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
2011-07-20 09:25:17
RAIMIUS
You with the face!
+244|6707|US

Dilbert_X wrote:

Any govt spending has a social imperative.
Think about it.
So, you are now arguing the anarchist perspective?  That's surprising.
2011-07-20 10:36:28
nukchebi0
Пушкин, наше всё
+387|6316|New Haven, CT

War Man wrote:

Jay wrote:

Nothing is wrong with the voting system aside from the fact that people generally are clueless about politics and vote for whatever party their parents voted for (See: War Man).
Wrong, I will not vote for the Republicans just because my parents usually vote for them. If I vote for them, it's because I prefer them.
And why do you prefer them? It clearly had nothing to do with you being exposed to your parents' preferences during your formative years...
2011-07-20 10:41:56
Uzique
dasein.
+2,865|6463
he reads 3 different papers every day and has a lifetime subscription to the economist, so he reasons out every political decision by himself.
libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual. http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/
2011-07-20 16:37:07
FEOS
Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate
+1,182|6403|'Murka

Dilbert_X wrote:

Any govt spending has a social imperative.
Think about it.
Social imperative =/= social spending. And you damn well know it.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular

 

Pages: 1 … 7 8 9 10 11 … 24

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2024 Jeff Minard