Balanced Budget Amendment

[RobAnybody]

If by experts you mean the American voter, then I think I do.

If by ‘ideology driven’ you mean heed the wishes of the voters who put them in office as their public servants, I would not think ill of them if they succumbed to that temptation.

If by 'changing people's meaning' you mean make it easier for you, then maybe post more cat pictures?

 

[Cutlass]

This is, at its core, a very, very positive thing.

So we agree we should do it then?

Anything that makes congress do LESS is a positive in my mind

That's because you have zero understanding of what is going on in the world. we have countless problems that can't be dealt with until Congress gets off it's ass and does something.

 

[bugwar]

That's because you have zero understanding of what is going on in the world. we have countless problems that can't be dealt with until Congress gets off it's ass and does something.

I am pretty sure that his understanding of the world's issues is adequate to the task.

Perhaps his view encompasses the idea that some of the 'countless problems' are those that should be outside of the purview of Congress.

It might even be that those issues are those that he doesn't WANT action on, preferring to allow time to take care of the issue.

Could be that his worldview includes the concept that the less you regulate, the more you can innovate.

In short, there are many reasons that inactivity on the part of Congress is a good thing, legislating your way to Utopia might not be a valid paradigm.

Heck, even on the deficit issue, inaction is not a total waste, since sequestration will start the ball rolling without further input from the politicians. Not the best solution, but it gets the job done.

 

[Leoreth]

The less you do, the more that gets accomplished

We should applaud the unemployed then.

 

[bugwar]

We should applaud the unemployed then.

Interesting. And the source of your quote is?

 

[Cutlass]

I am pretty sure that his understanding of the world's issues is adequate to the task.

You don't know him.

Perhaps his view encompasses the idea that some of the 'countless problems' are those that should be outside of the purview of Congress.

That's usually the worldview of people who like the problems because they profit at the expense of others.

It might even be that those issues are those that he doesn't WANT action on, preferring to allow time to take care of the issue.

And when the real world shows the problem constantly getting worse while people sit there with their thumbs up their ass?

Could be that his worldview includes the concept that the less you regulate, the more you can innovate.

The real world begs to differ. Regulation is a major spur to innovation.

In short, there are many reasons that inactivity on the part of Congress is a good thing, legislating your way to Utopia might not be a valid paradigm.

No one is looking for utopia. We're just trying to rein in the predators and give people a chance.

Heck, even on the deficit issue, inaction is not a total waste, since sequestration will start the ball rolling without further input from the politicians. Not the best solution, but it gets the job done.

And every American is going to be poorer in the long run because of it. If your goal is to drive the nation into poverty, then good job. But no one who wants to live in a rich country would do that crap.

 

[GhostWriter16]

You don't know him.

At least I don't generally throw cheap insults and similar crap into debates.

Cutlass' world is essentially that anyone who isn't a liberal is either evil or detached from reality.

 

[bugwar]

At least I don't generally throw cheap insults and similar crap into debates.

Well, unlike you (cough), I have been known to indulge in that behavior from time to time. I try to minimize it, but it happens. I look at it as an excess of conviction on the part of the poster.

Cutlass' world is essentially that anyone who isn't a liberal is either evil or detached from reality.

And there are many world's out there, all equally valid to their holders.
One use of the Internet is to allow communications between those worlds.
The recipients may not like the messages, but at least they are trying to get some (to them) valid, and deeply held beliefs, across to the others without using a club.
Doesn't always work, but I applaud the effort anyway.

 

[Core Imposter]

Absolutely I support it. It gives the President the ability to deal with huge omnibus bills containing a million things that have nothing to do with one another. This leads to issues where a President feels constrained to pass it because it has several critical items that ARE important, but also a buttload of riders that are just porky fat fluff.

I think this, more than anything short of an actual balanced budget amendment, would do wonders in our attempt to cut excess spending.

First, you'd need a president who does more than pay lip service to fiscal responsibility.

 

[bhsup]

Yeah well, the world isn't ready for me yet.

 

[Leoreth]

Interesting. And the source of your quote is?

Um, it's the title of your post right above mine?

 

[Cutlass]

At least I don't generally throw cheap insults and similar crap into debates.

Cutlass' world is essentially that anyone who isn't a liberal is either evil or detached from reality.

And how is that wrong?

 

[bugwar]

Um, it's the title of your post right above mine?

Thanks for clearing that up.

Now be so kind as to look at the CONTENT of the post with that title.
Once you do that, please continue with your critique of that post.

Thank you.

 

[Leoreth]

Thanks for clearing that up.

Now be so kind as to look at the CONTENT of the post with that title.
Once you do that, please continue with your critique of that post.

Thank you.

No thanks, I'm not interested in the content of your post.

 

[GhostWriter16]

Well, unlike you (cough), I have been known to indulge in that behavior from time to time. I try to minimize it, but it happens. I look at it as an excess of conviction on the part of the poster.




And there are many world's out there, all equally valid to their holders.
One use of the Internet is to allow communications between those worlds.
The recipients may not like the messages, but at least they are trying to get some (to them) valid, and deeply held beliefs, across to the others without using a club.
Doesn't always work, but I applaud the effort anyway.

I'm not saying I've never done it. I have. But I at least try not to. Cutlass always posts like that.

Yeah well, the world isn't ready for me yet.

I'd probably vote for you

And how is that wrong?

Because its absurdly absurd. Your philosophy would make EVERY action somehow affect someone else and thus would throw "Freedom" out the window in exchange for the security of loving big brother. As if such a benevolent state could exist anyway.

You act like government is the highest good in the world, almost as if it were a god, and you act like every person outside the government is evil, unless they worship it.

You are the thesis as to why "Liberal" has become synonymous with "Authoritarian" these days, and with darn freaking good reason. You want government intervention in every area of every persons life. The only time when you do NOT want government intervention is if it involves killing people or ticking off social conservatives.

Liberal philosophy would be good if it still meant what it did when Jefferson was using it. Now its just a codeword. And it is with the clear intent to take away liberty from each and every person in the country and instead make them dependent on the government.

And I think its hillarious how you think "Conservatives" are the ones who want the huge, bloated state.

TLDR: Its wrong to say that everyone who believes in freedom is either evil or detached from reality

 

[Cutlass]

Because its absurdly absurd. Your philosophy would make EVERY action somehow affect someone else and thus would throw "Freedom" out the window in exchange for the security of loving big brother. As if such a benevolent state could exist anyway.

You act like government is the highest good in the world, almost as if it were a god, and you act like every person outside the government is evil, unless they worship it.

You are the thesis as to why "Liberal" has become synonymous with "Authoritarian" these days, and with darn freaking good reason. You want government intervention in every area of every persons life. The only time when you do NOT want government intervention is if it involves killing people or ticking off social conservatives.

Liberal philosophy would be good if it still meant what it did when Jefferson was using it. Now its just a codeword. And it is with the clear intent to take away liberty from each and every person in the country and instead make them dependent on the government.

And I think its hillarious how you think "Conservatives" are the ones who want the huge, bloated state.

TLDR: Its wrong to say that everyone who believes in freedom is either evil or detached from reality

Clearly you've never read a word I've written....

 

[GhostWriter16]

Clearly you've never read a word I've written....

That would be extremely difficult considering I've been quoting you ad verbatim this entire time.

I've "Never read a word you've written?"

How do I keep quoting you?

I've been reading your conversations. You constantly, repetatively advocate in favor of government intervention, and the logical conclusion to most of what you've been posting is that EVERY action has a victim and so the government can ban EVERYTHING if it wants to. No, you didn't say that, but I think I can prove the logical connection.
What's worse, you claim that free markets are "Evil" and that the government is "Good" which is simply laughable.

Honestly, I'd rather NOT deal the low blows. I'm interested to understand precisely why you think the way you do. But I can't see it behind the "Conservatives and Libertarians are evil" rhetoric.

 

[Cutlass]

That would be extremely difficult considering I've been quoting you ad verbatim this entire time.

I've "Never read a word you've written?"

How do I keep quoting you?

I've been reading your conversations. You constantly, repetatively advocate in favor of government intervention, and the logical conclusion to most of what you've been posting is that EVERY action has a victim and so the government can ban EVERYTHING if it wants to. No, you didn't say that, but I think I can prove the logical connection.
What's worse, you claim that free markets are "Evil" and that the government is "Good" which is simply laughable.

Honestly, I'd rather NOT deal the low blows. I'm interested to understand precisely why you think the way you do. But I can't see it behind the "Conservatives and Libertarians are evil" rhetoric.

The difference is that you personally are for 0 liberty for 99% of the population. While I am for the maximum possible liberty for everyone that is consistent with everyone having the same liberty. Now that does not happen without a government to protect the liberty. But when you have a government protect the liberty, you have to accept that the 1% does not have absolute freedom to harm others in whatever way they see fit.

You do not get liberty without paying some price for it.

 

[GhostWriter16]

The difference is that you personally are for 0 liberty for 99% of the population. While I am for the maximum possible liberty for everyone that is consistent with everyone having the same liberty. Now that does not happen without a government to protect the liberty. But when you have a government protect the liberty, you have to accept that the 1% does not have absolute freedom to harm others in whatever way they see fit.

You do not get liberty without paying some price for it.

How on earth do I advocate for that at all? When I believe everyone should have the same rights?

I agree that we do need a government to protect the liberty, but right now we go far, far beyond that.

 

[Cutlass]

How on earth do I advocate for that at all? When I believe everyone should have the same rights?

I agree that we do need a government to protect the liberty, but right now we go far, far beyond that.

Nothing you say indicates that. 100% liberty for the 1% inherently means 0 liberty for everyone else. What you fundamentally ignore is that government is not the only, or even the primary, restriction on liberty. Poverty and desperation restrict liberty far more. Being compelled to stick in a job where your employer harms or endangers you, because to leave means being homeless and starving, that means no liberty for anything. Once you have completely unlimited liberty for the elite, everyone else must do exactly what they are told at all time, or be very servery punished, up to and including death.

On every subject you chime in on on this board, you are against liberty. That's why everyone laughs at you when you claim to be a libertarian. There is no liberty until there is a force to protect that liberty. And for better or for worse, in the majority of US history that force has been the US federal government. The states have a terrible record on liberty, which is why the states rights movement is correctly seen as an anti-liberty movement. The private sector has an even worse record on liberty.