ApolloHoax.net
Off Topic => General Discussion => Topic started by: Andromeda on October 02, 2013, 06:19:46 AM
-
Can anyone explain how this has happened? I don't really understand the US system. I understand why there is an argument (healthcare) and I understand some of the repercussions of this (US govt employees losing pay and benefits), but I don't understand why or how a shutdown occurs or how it is supposed to make things better.
Can anyone explain please?
-
My understanding (an Aussie here, so not necessarily better equipped to answer) is that the House of Representatives has failed to pass the President's budget. The budget is both the decisions on where to spend the money and the laws to appropriate the money to allow it to be spent. With no budget passed, eventually the government's departments run out of money, so they have to shut down and send most of their staff on leave without pay.
The reason the House failed to pass the budget is that the House is dominated by the Republican Party, and the Tea Party part of the Republicans wanted to delay the introduction of Obama's health care legislation. So they voted in favour of an altered budget which removed funding for Obamacare, and this budget was rejected by the Senate, which is dominated by the Democrat Party.
With a stand-off like this, it comes down to which party (or individuals within a party) blinks first and agrees to some amount of compromise. The problem is that although public support seems to be more behind Obama than the Tea Party people, the Tea Party people seem determined not to give way.
I find this sort of situation scary, particularly as neither side seems willing to change the rules by which Congress operates, such as allowing filibusters. On top of that, the House of Representatives is stacked in favour of the Republican Party thanks to outrageous gerrymandering of electoral boundaries; states which have a solid majority of Democrat support nevertheless return more Republican Representatives because their Republican state governments draw the boundaries.
The more I watch politics in the USA, the more I'm reminded of the Roman Republic in the first century BC. I don't think the USA will turn into an empire like the Roman Empire, but the system is unsustainable in the long run.
-
We are supposed to be admiring the House Republicans' intestinal fortitude. In point of fact, even many within their own party think they are acting like spoiled children. They have passed legislation to repeal health care over forty times, knowing it won't pass the Senate and would be vetoed by the President anyway. They have treated this as more important than, you know, passing laws that have a chance of finishing the process and helping the country.
In practical effects, we're kinda screwed right now. I got my Social Security this month, but a lot of my friends are hurting. I have friends who are working at the submarine base up north of here as civilian contractors, and they are either furloughed or allowed to come in and work for IOUs. Their job is keeping the submarine fleet going. I have a friend who is sailing home from the Bay of Alaska right now, because the oceanographical studies she was participating in are government-funded. Another friend's husband is an engineer for NIST; he and their daughter whose daycare is through the government are both home right now. Graham is going to college in part on VA benefits, because that year he spent in a war zone ought to be good for something--and it is. Sixty percent of the possible post-9/11 GI Bill benefits. (You have to spend three tours in a war zone to qualify for one hundred percent.) But the quarter started Monday, and the VA doesn't pay out until ten days into the quarter. It may or may not get paid on time. Fortunately for us, the rest of his financial aid was disbursed before the end of the fiscal year and is unaffected.
I'm not entirely happy with the health care legislation myself, I must say. I want employers out of the insurance game altogether. I want the US to have universal health care like a civilized country. This is better than we had--in other words, for most of the people I know, better than nothing!--but not ideal. It was also about what we could get, and I'm aware that politics involves compromise. The issue is that we've reached the point where certain people are no longer willing to compromise, and they've come up against people who don't believe they themselves should ever have to.
-
The budget is both the decisions on where to spend the money and the laws to appropriate the money to allow it to be spent. With no budget passed, eventually the government's departments run out of money, so they have to shut down and send most of their staff on leave without pay.
Since I'm an administrative/budget professional who is currently on furlough, I have more than a little time to chime in here! Here are a few nuts and bolts:
Congress has the exclusive power to appropriate funds. A central tenet of Federal appropriation law is that funds must not be used except as appropriated by Congress...or otherwise provided for by law. Expenditures must be correct as to purpose, amount, and time. The last test is the sticky part here.
It is unlawful to use funds from one single-year appropriation (multi-year appropriations are another animal) for expenditures in a subsequent fiscal year (FY). So, with no appropriation for FY14, the Government 'ran out of money' when the FY13 appropriation expired on September 30th.
Of course, we're not completely shut down because the law allows for certain expenditures in the absence of an appropriation. For instance, my air traffic controllers are still on the job doing their part to maintain safety of the National Airspace System. I'm furloughed because my duties, while essential, don't have that immediacy. However, I can be called in for critical requirements on an as-needed basis.
-
Political crisis in America. A dream for Stewart and Colbert. I can't wait to see tonight's episodes (which is Tuesday's. Naturally OSN air them a day late because at evening in the Middle East, the day's episode hasn't been made yet).
Shame I'm going home at the weekend.
-
How long is this expected to last?
-
I was furloughed yesterday afternoon from the Puget Sound Naval Shipyard. This morning I got a phone call ordering me back due to emergent work on 12 hour shifts. I'm debt free and have Tricare Prime insurance at less than $600 a year for family coverage, so the heath care debate doesn't affect me very much right now. I would like to see better overall health care coverage though. What steams me is the fact that politicians can't agree enough to keep the government running; and we are still paying them to do that while shutdown. Contitutional protection (27th amendment) against changing pay until the next term.
I was told to expect it to last from one to thirty days. It will end when one side blinks before the other.
Ranb
-
I want the US to have universal health care like a civilized country.
In civilised countries, one writes 'civilised'.
-
I want the US to have universal health care like a civilized country.
In civilised countries, one writes 'civilised'.
And also writes dates day-month-year. I mean what sense in month-day-year? (sorry for the mini-rant but I spent ages yesterday problem solving a spreadsheet where the dates had been converted to text because someone opened it on a machine set to US English and it didn't understand the dates as written)
-
Gillianren's partisanship aside, we are living in a time when there are significant divisions in what our elected leaders believe they are elected to do. Or at least how they are supposed to implement it. In specific we are deeply divided over the desirability of the Obama care health care plan. So despite the fact it was made law, the plan does not have widespread popular support among the electorate and the ongoing discussion is currently playing out through this budget debate and government shutdown.
-
One other feature of our system that has an effect on the process. Spending and budget bills must originate in the House of Representatives. Once passed by the House, the bill is sent to the Senate where it is modified and amended. If the amended bill is passed, it then goes to a conference committee where the differences between the House and Senate version are negotiated and the result is sent to both houses for an up or down vote, with no further amendments.
At the moment, the House and Senate versions are so different that some legislative leaders see no point in negotiating in committee. President Obama has been reluctant to step into the process and chosen to comment from the side rather than propose a compromise solution. He has followed this style in some other highly controversial debates and prefers to let Congress work it out.
So part of understanding the workings of the process is that the Senate cannot originate its own Federal spending bill. That power is constitutionally assigned to the House.
-
In specific we are deeply divided over the desirability of the Obama care health care plan. So despite the fact it was made law, the plan does not have widespread popular support among the electorate and the ongoing discussion is currently playing out through this budget debate and government shutdown.
Actually, this isn't true. Or anyway, its truth depends a great deal on how you word your polls. It seems that "Obamacare" has been so vilified that referring to it as such returns very different results than just asking people what they think of the legislation itself. And, heck, one of the most frequent problems people have with it is that it doesn't go far enough. Though of course you also get the idiots who are so unaware of how the government actually works that their problem is that they want the government out of their Medicare. Some people disapprove of government health care on principle, and they're entitled to that. But they should not, then, have anything to do with Medicare, either, and it bugs the bejeezus out of me that they don't seem to know that.
One of the reasons I care so passionately on this subject is that most of my friends are poor, or anyway most of my local friends. I've seen the practical effects of not having health care. None of my friends are in that odd group that has the money for insurance but doesn't bother because they obviously won't get sick. My friends have hubris, a lot of them, but not that specific kind of hubris. I have a friend with several serious untreated medical problems, including bipolar disorder worse than mine. I have a friend who was lucky that her gallbladder flared up a few days earlier rather than later, because she managed to get her surgery just a day or two before she lost her insurance. Graham doesn't have insurance, because he's out of the military now. But there's a new plan being offered for veterans which we're going to look into, because his problems didn't go away just because he was honorably discharged.
I am not trying to say, "It's the law of the land, so suck it up." I'm trying to say, "Don't play chicken like this; what are you, children?" As it happens, the law is popular enough so that servers have been flooded with people trying to get insurance from the new exchanges. If they do manage to pass a budget that defunds it, I'm not sure their obvious gerrymandering (have you seen the shape of some of those districts?) will save them next November--because I think they'll be replaced by different Republican candidates in the primaries. We like returning our incumbents in this country; it's one of the reasons that I'm opposed to term limits, actually. But people do still have limits.
-
In specific we are deeply divided over the desirability of the Obama care health care plan. So despite the fact it was made law, the plan does not have widespread popular support among the electorate and the ongoing discussion is currently playing out through this budget debate and government shutdown.
Actually, this isn't true.
The law passed the House with a vote of 220–215 vote. At the legislative level that is about as deep of a division as it can be. How far that goes in representing voters is certainly more of a question but is is clear there is no unity within the country on the desirability of Obamacare or any national health plan. Its what I call a deep division.
Some people disapprove of government health care on principle, and they're entitled to that. But they should not, then, have anything to do with Medicare, either, and it bugs the bejeezus out of me that they don't seem to know that.
Trying to put a rationale like this on others (if you believe this you shouldn't do that) is kind of a silly strawman that people attach to opponents for political reasons. Not really an sound argument.
-
"If you don't believe in governmental health care, you shouldn't use governmental health care" is a silly strawman?
-
The most ironic part of this little game/fiasco is that the way ACA/Obamacare is funded, shutting down the gov't will have no real effect on it for some time. Meanwhile, hundreds of thousands of federal workers are left in limbo, wondering when they'll go back to work and get another paycheck. Then there's the knock-on effects to private businesses that serve these people, affecting millions more.
-
In specific we are deeply divided over the desirability of the Obama care health care plan. So despite the fact it was made law, the plan does not have widespread popular support among the electorate and the ongoing discussion is currently playing out through this budget debate and government shutdown.
Actually, this isn't true.
The law passed the House with a vote of 220–215 vote. At the legislative level that is about as deep of a division as it can be. How far that goes in representing voters is certainly more of a question but is is clear there is no unity within the country on the desirability of Obamacare or any national health plan. Its what I call a deep division.
Some people disapprove of government health care on principle, and they're entitled to that. But they should not, then, have anything to do with Medicare, either, and it bugs the bejeezus out of me that they don't seem to know that.
Trying to put a rationale like this on others (if you believe this you shouldn't do that) is kind of a silly strawman that people attach to opponents for political reasons. Not really an sound argument.
I agree with you that the divisions are great, but I fear the underhanded blackmail-ish type tactics being pushed by a minority of GOP members of congress, enabled by a "tea-party whipped" Speaker, are a genie best left in the bottle. The President must not flinch on this one (or at most give them the repeal on taxes of medical equipment they want, as a face saving but minor compromise). Once this genie is out, both parties will be pulling this shit when they are in the minority, and nothing will ever truly be settled.
-
"If you don't believe in governmental health care, you shouldn't use governmental health care" is a silly strawman?
Yes.
One may not "believe" that a law should be a law but one may still follow it or take advantage of the offerings provided by it without being unethical, immoral or illogical. Also You are equating Obamacare and Medicare as if they are the exact same thing, which they are not.
ETA
To modify my statement, it is not a strawman because it does not try to say another is making that argument. It is a politically motivated but illogical argument. And my apology for calling it "silly." I take you seriously even if we disagree.
-
Once this genie is out, both parties will be pulling this shit when they are in the minority, and nothing will ever truly be settled.
Our real problem here is that the Republicans are the majority in the House. And lets face it, nothing is ever truly settled in politics.
-
One may not "believe" that a law should be a law but one may still follow it or take advantage of the offerings provided by it without being unethical, immoral or illogical. Also You are equating Obamacare and Medicare as if they are the exact same thing, which they are not.
Which is one of my problems with it, as it happens--Medicare for all, and if you want expensive private insurance (and it is expensive), have at. There are too many people without insurance, and the way insurance is handled in the country drives up prices for everyone. But I'm not actually talking about the ACA here. I'm saying that the people who are complaining about it because it is government healthcare often take advantage of government healthcare on their own.
As it happens, I think that's hypocritical. It's not the same as obeying a law with which you disagree, because no one is forcing people to use their Medicare benefits. However, a lot of people insist that Medicare is essentially their God-given right, but they still go to political rallies with signs demanding that the government get out of healthcare. It's either hypocrisy or ignorance of the system. If you are opposed to a system, don't use it. If you use it, don't try to take it away from other people. This seems like basic sense--and decency--to me, but I'd love to know how I'm wrong about that.
-
If you are opposed to a system, don't use it.
If you are opposed to a system, but still forced to pay taxes to support it, as we all are, there is nothing hypocritical about using what you pay for. You are entitled to it by law. I am, for instance, opposed to being forced to pay into Social Security, but I do pay as required by law and intend to collect as I am entitled to. That is not hypocritical.
Think back to when we had federally mandated 55 MPH speed limits. Today, someone can believe we should reinstitute the mandate and still drive above 55 without being a hypocrite. If for no reason other than road safety.
-
I was told to expect it to last from one to thirty days. It will end when one side blinks before the other.
Ranb
-
It's pure gold some of these quotables.
One Congressman justified his obstinate stance by saying this bill is the worst law ever passed by man.
-
Things that baffle me about health care in the USA:
1. It's so expensive. I understand that the US govt spends twice as much per person on healthcare as the Australian govt, yet our system seems to work so much better.
2. Conservatives rail against Obamacare as socialist and therefore bad, yet it's basically the same concept as is used in countries like Australia and the UK which are (a) close American allies and (b) not socialist.
-
I'm currently a contractor working for a government department in payroll (my job involves calculating and processing payments for people who've been made redundant).
I've been trying to imagine what it'd be like doing payroll work in the US government. While it's probably easy enough these days to get the systems people to prepare a program to stop everyone's pay, I also imagine the job would get that little bit trickier when you have to exclude certain groups of people, and when people's pay has to be cut off part way through a pay period. Then, whenever the shutdown stops, you'd have to reverse it all to restart everyone's pay.
On top of that, there's the timing issue of the pay cycle; whatever the payday is, there's a period before that of up to a week which is required to prepare the pay and disburse the funds to everyone's banks, and in that period of time it's essentially impossible to change someone's pay; all you can do is let it go through or stop it altogether. So depending on where in the pay cycle you're up to, stopping everyone's pay could involve a heap of last-minute work, as could restarting it.
But given I'm a payroll person, other little questions occur to me. Does being stood down without pay affect how much leave you accrue? Does it count as service for calculating severance pay for people who are later made redundant? What happens if someone's already signed up to be made redundant on a particular day, and that day now falls within the shutdown period?
It's easy for the politicians to play these games, but it must be terribly demoralising for the thousands of people who work for the government who are the collateral damage in these events.
-
It's pure gold some of these quotables.
One Congressman justified his obstinate stance by saying this bill is the worst law ever passed by man.
Err, really? What an ignorant prat?
I wonder if he has ever heard of "Apartheid" or the "Nürnberger Gesetze"?
-
It's not the same as obeying a law with which you disagree, because no one is forcing people to use their Medicare benefits.
It's good to know that critics of government-provided health care have the same freedom to refuse benefits from a system they don't support, that critics of employer-provided health care have.
-
But given I'm a payroll person, other little questions occur to me. Does being stood down without pay affect how much leave you accrue? Does it count as service for calculating severance pay for people who are later made redundant? What happens if someone's already signed up to be made redundant on a particular day, and that day now falls within the shutdown period?
All interesting.
I wonder if there were people who had accepted new jobs starting October 1. If they quit up until the time this is all over, maybe they'll get paid retroactively, without ever having shown up for the job at all. That would be a good one.
-
Things that baffle me about health care in the USA:
1. It's so expensive. I understand that the US govt spends twice as much per person on healthcare as the Australian govt, yet our system seems to work so much better.
2. Conservatives rail against Obamacare as socialist and therefore bad, yet it's basically the same concept as is used in countries like Australia and the UK which are (a) close American allies and (b) not socialist.
Is it the government or just everyone? I have heard that the American healthcare system is more expensive as a whole than the UK's, but I think that was how much Americans pay directly and through government funding.
I don't think Obamacare is similar to the UK's NHS. AIUI, it is basically heavier regulation and subsidising of the existing insurance based system to allow more people to get covered. The NHS on the other hand is a giant government body that provides healthcare directly.
It's pure gold some of these quotables.
One Congressman justified his obstinate stance by saying this bill is the worst law ever passed by man.
Err, really? What an ignorant prat?
I wonder if he has ever heard of "Apartheid" or the "Nürnberger Gesetze"?
Jon Stewart pointed out that even within the US, it's going up against laws like the Jim Crow laws.
-
Jon Stewart pointed out that even within the US, it's going up against laws like the Jim Crow laws.
FATCA is the one which got me to tear up my membership card. But it was really just the straw that broke the camel's back.
2. Conservatives rail against Obamacare as socialist and therefore bad, yet it's basically the same concept as is used in countries like Australia and the UK which are (a) close American allies and (b) not socialist.
You could tell them that Australia and the UK are not socialist, and let us know what they say to that.
-
Is it the government or just everyone? I have heard that the American healthcare system is more expensive as a whole than the UK's, but I think that was how much Americans pay directly and through government funding.
Our cost per procedure is higher. See, in our system, it's expected that your insurance company will wrangle the price down. And they do. Routinely. However, if you don't have insurance, or you've run out of what your insurance will cover in a year, or some other variant on having to pay for it out-of-pocket, there's no one to wrangle it down for you. You just pay what they charge you. I'm not sure if it's possible to negotiate directly with the hospital or not. But it means that Americans end up getting charged insanely high prices for things that they could literally walk down the block and buy themselves for a tiny, tiny fraction of the price--the amount you're charged for even simple things like gauze pads and aspirin in a hospital results from the usual practice of the hospital and the insurance company negotiating for a more sensible price.
I actually had an employer who provided health care once, when I still had a job. It was officially designated as "supplemental" insurance. It paid up to $300 a year for office visits, and no more than (as I recall) $40 per visit. As I was trying to calculate how much therapy that would cover in a year (just enough to trigger my abandonment issues, was what I worked out), I was told this wouldn't cover mental health. Which, for the record, is one of the changes in the new health care laws. Insurance must cover mental health care. Because it's an illness. Oh, and of course no one where I worked could afford insurance to supplement; the only people who had insurance were either young enough to still be on their parents' insurance (and under the new laws, the age where you can do that has gone up!) or poor enough, despite working a full-time job, to qualify for Medicaid.
-
I don't think Obamacare is similar to the UK's NHS. AIUI, it is basically heavier regulation and subsidising of the existing insurance based system to allow more people to get covered. The NHS on the other hand is a giant government body that provides healthcare directly.
Fair enough. I meant in the sense of a universal health care system, which I suppose could be a statement so generic as to be not particularly meaningful.
Nevertheless, the visceral hatred these Tea Party types seem to be expressing, their utter certainty of their rightness, makes me wonder just how far they'd be willing to go. An article in the newspaper today (not sure where it came from) pointed out that giving in to them this time will just encourage them to shut down the government each year over their next hot-button issue, like say abortion.
-
The shutdown seems to be an almost exclusive feature of the US style of governance. It wouldn't happen in parliamentary governments because a disagreement at this level would trigger an election, leaving a caretaker government in charge until a new elected government could be formed. The parliamentary version of our situation is what happened in Belgium, where they went 589 days without an elected government. It is somewhat less drastic, but the same in some ways as the current U.S. situation.
Nor would a shutdown occurs in a government dominated by one party or with a semi-dictatorial president, such as in Russia.
I also see plenty of visceral frothing from Democrats and others on the left along with an appearance of unquestioning self righteousness and "rightness." It is a feature of politics and nothing new.
-
...I also see plenty of visceral frothing from Democrats and others on the left along with an appearance of unquestioning self righteousness and "rightness." It is a feature of politics and nothing new.
Fair enough. But in this case the Republicans are holding the entire government to ransom on the grounds of a single piece of legislation they don't like. Is that reasonable? Ethical? Moral?
Having said that, I understand that all sorts of activities can be prevented from happening (like the appointment of judges) simply by a single member of Congress threatening to filibuster it to pieces. Is that so? And is there any reason why Congress members haven't done anything to change this system (apart from each side wanting to have that shot in their locker for when they're in the minority)?
As I said above, the more I watch what's going on the more I'm reminded of what happened to the Roman Republic in the 1st century BC - the rewards available for being the First Man in the Republic were colossal and each man ambitious enough to try for that prize was willing to exploit the system just a little more than the last. The result was the slide from a chaotic Republican government to an Empire. I can highly recommend Tom Holland's book "Rubicon" which covers this period.
-
I recall a wise person (can't remember who, exactly) who said that the most pivotal role in a democracy was the party that lost. Because to preserve democracy, they must accept that they have lost and behave accordingly. If they don't, they are denying the power of the vote.
-
Having said that, I understand that all sorts of activities can be prevented from happening (like the appointment of judges) simply by a single member of Congress threatening to filibuster it to pieces. Is that so?
If I understand the system correctly, it is the senate which has filibusters, the congress having eliminated them well over a century ago. Furthermore, a filibuster can be overcome by a vote of 60% of the members of the senate, which, having 100 members, would come to a total of 60. So it is a tactic that can be used to prevent something from happening, when you don't have 51 votes against it, but you do have 41.
And is there any reason why Congress members haven't done anything to change this system (apart from each side wanting to have that shot in their locker for when they're in the minority)?
The two houses each make their own rules, and could choose to strengthen, weaken, enact, or abolish the filibuster. A rules change proposal itself could be - yes, that's right, you guessed it - filibustered.
In 2005, Republican senators proposed a measure to eliminate the filibuster. I was living in the US at the time, and recall protests. Whether the protesters would have felt the same away about the proposal, had the position of the two parties been reversed, is something we can only speculate about. I suspect each party wants to have it, since they only use it for goodness and justice, whereas their opponents only use it to subvert the will of the majority.
As I said above, the more I watch what's going on the more I'm reminded of what happened to the Roman Republic in the 1st century BC
I certainly hope the fall of the US doesn't take another 500+ (or 1500+, depending on how you look at it) years.
-
I certainly hope the fall of the US doesn't take another 500+ (or 1500+, depending on how you look at it) years.
I'm confused by this. Yes, I'd like my country to be a bit less meddlesome, but why do you want it to stop being a country?
-
But in this case the Republicans are holding the entire government to ransom on the grounds of a single piece of legislation they don't like. Is that reasonable? Ethical? Moral?
They did propose to a continuing resolution to fund everything but Obamacare. The idea was shot down by the Dems. It is a bipartisan mess and will take some time to resolve.
Ultimately, I believe, it will put us on a path towards true acceptance or rejection of OC, now that we know what it looks like. It was just pie in the sky that no one really understood when it was made law. If OC is really widely accepted by the public, it will get going, but it may take until after the next Congressional election. One thing about the OC law, is that it can be discontinued by reducing the subsides until no one needing a subsidy can afford to use the system. The government has done this in the past with other open ended medical reform packages once the true cost of what is promised in vague laws has become apparent. We are a long way from a permanent system.
-
Having said that, I understand that all sorts of activities can be prevented from happening (like the appointment of judges) simply by a single member of Congress threatening to filibuster it to pieces. Is that so? And is there any reason why Congress members haven't done anything to change this system (apart from each side wanting to have that shot in their locker for when they're in the minority)?
The Senate has an open ended debate policy while the House has a time limited debate, with the time set by the Speaker. Debate in the Senate can be ended by a parliamentary motion, cloture, that requires a super majority of members. The Senate changes the speaking rules from time to time, to give more or less power to filibusters.
From recollection it is something like this.
At one time, it was required for one speaker to stay at the lectern. The senator could stop speaking while a question was being asked but had to stand there the whole time. This pretty much limited the filibuster. Some years back the rule was changed to allow the speech to stop for the night, that is when it became a more powerful tool. The cloture vote requires a 2/3 super majority. So pretty much any law had to have 2/3rds of the Senate to pass.
I remember watching a debate on a Republican, newly in the majority, proposal changing the cloture requirement to 50%. Democrats, now the minority party, were "frothing" over this proclaiming the Republicans were trying to stifle the rights of the minority, or similar. While before the change of control the majority Democrats had proposed various similar changes and were met with Republican froth.
The rules have changed somewhat since then and I am not sure what they are are now. But in general one Senator cannot exclusively by himself indefinitely hold up legislation or nominations. It can only be done with support of his party. But for high ranking Senators, the party will generally not go against them for nominations approvals.
I've always felt the Senate should be time limited on how long it can hold up an appointment. The Senate makes its own rules, only a constitutional amendment can change the way things work.
-
As I said above, the more I watch what's going on the more I'm reminded of what happened to the Roman Republic in the 1st century BC - the rewards available for being the First Man in the Republic were colossal and each man ambitious enough to try for that prize was willing to exploit the system just a little more than the last. The result was the slide from a chaotic Republican government to an Empire. I can highly recommend Tom Holland's book "Rubicon" which covers this period.
This kind of thing is one of the driving ideas behind my general philosophy of limiting government power. Particularly the power to borrow and provide subsidized credit to private borrowers. Restricting the purse makes personal and group plundering much more difficult. We are just recovering from the disaster caused by the US government policy of promoting and subsidizing home mortgage lending.
-
I'm confused by this. Yes, I'd like my country to be a bit less meddlesome, but why do you want it to stop being a country?
Why people wish for the end of repressive regimes is truly one of life's great mysteries.
-
Repressive to whom? Yes, as I said, I want us to be less meddlesome--like not interfering in other countries' free elections to put the guy we want in charge in office instead--but that doesn't mean I want the country to go away. Do you not understand the difference? And what do you want in its place?
-
Yes, as I said, I want us to be less meddlesome--like not interfering in other countries' free elections to put the guy we want in charge in office instead--but that doesn't mean I want the country to go away.
That's what you want. I am not you. I am a different person than you. I don't have to want the same thing you want.
Do you not understand the difference?
Obviously that's the problem, how else could I possibly want something different than what you want?
-
Yes, as I said, I want us to be less meddlesome--like not interfering in other countries' free elections to put the guy we want in charge in office instead--but that doesn't mean I want the country to go away.
That's what you want. I am not you. I am a different person than you. I don't have to want the same thing you want.
Do you not understand the difference?
Obviously that's the problem, how else could I possibly want something different than what you want?
Still, just out of curiosity, what would you like to see our "repressive regime" replaced by?
Not that the US is likely to fall, either soon, or in the next 500 years. The system's weathered much worse storms than this one in the last 240 years - this latest little spat is just a hiccup in historical terms.