On Mon, 29 Nov 2004 15:28:16 EST, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Travis Pahl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> asked: > > >> Yes, as I wrote previously. Some legislative votes are just playing to > the > >> audience, not about legislative content. > > >So the republicans are playing to what audience when they vote to > >increase the debt limit? And how can you say that it did not matter? > > When the votes are undertaken to increase the debt limit, a vote of "no" is > playing to the audience, a vote of "yes" is getting on with business.
And what business specifically is being moved forward by this yes vote? Is it the business of limited government or big government? I agree the democrats are playing to an audience. As the minority party they know they have no say in the outcome of the vote. However the Republicans are the majority party and would not be playing to an audience by voting no. They would in fact be stopping business as usual in Washington, which I would think anyone calling themselves a libertarian would be happy about. I am surprised to find 'libertarians' defending the republicans vote to increase spending limits. > Everybody knows spending will not be stopped by such a vote -- that the > ways to limit spending are in the individual appropriations measures (which > in some cases are packed into omnibus bills, in which case the real action > is the amendments), not by this routine vote. No. Everybody does not know anything. What is supposed by most is that they will pass these debpt limit bills every year and then they increase spending every year. What would happen if the debt limit is not increased is not known because the republicans keep voting yes. As many have tried to explain to you before, if you keep supporting the people that increase the size of government, you will keep getting bigger government. You seemed to have not only accepted that they will bring us bigger government, but you are now trying to claim that they have no choice but to do it. Pathetic. > If a "no" vote were ever to carry, what would be the effect? The excess > spending isn't stopped by it, because it's already law. What would happen > in effect would be that the Treasury account would be overdrawn. Are such > checks likely to bounce? Congress would be forced to pay for their spending in some other way than increasing debt. In other words they would be forced to cut spending or increase taxes. In other words they would be forced to show their true colors and stop taxing people invisibly through inflation that comes with their debt spending. Now I am seeing why you are happy with their yes vote. You do not want the republicans true colors shown. > > Had they voted no, would the government not be forced to reduce > >spending? > > No. In the 1980s & 1990s there were indeed some votes and vetos that had > the purported effect of shutting down fedgov. What kept fedgov in business > were emergency bills that shut down everything deemed unnecessary, > including stopping payment to personnel. When Reagan did it by veto, the > major media reported it as shutting down fedgov, and the Republicans were > vilified, deluged with opprobrium by mail, etc. Eventually the spigots > were turned on with the result that the reputation of the GOP was massively > tarnished while they got hardly any result in reduction of the ultimate > spending. When the GOP did it by vote when prez Clinton wanted more > spending, AGAIN the GOP was vilified by the media and ultimately acceded > with nothing good to show for it. And people that do not reduce spending and try to pass themselves off as limited government people SHOULD be villified. Perhaps if they voted no and then also voted against huge increases in spending, they would not be villified. But that will not happen because they are villians and they like spending our money. hence we get back to my original point, they are not a party for smaller government. > So the lesson was that as long as the major media are in their current > state of "left" domination (i.e. for the foreseeable future), any great > show like that of fiscal restraint -- holding the mass of programs hostage > in order to bargain for cuts -- will redound massively to the ill of the > party of fiscal restraint. Had the GOP held fast, they would've massively > been replaced at the next election by bigger-spending candidates, whether > of their own or the other party. The way to achieve spending cuts is > instead bill by bill, program by program, which as you can see (by the way > you began this thread) is very difficult! But at least it has a CHANCE of > succeeding even while the major media plump for big $. I am not sure if you noticed, but the strategy you claim the republicans are using to decrease spending has resulted in the largest spending increases in decades. When the GOP 'shut down the government' during the clinton years, in what you view as a failure the spending was increasing much slower. In other words your supposed plan not only is a failure, but I seriously doubt that it is what the GOP politicians are really planning by voting yes. > OTOH, the party out of power can always vote symbolically against raiing > the debt limit, as long as they're secure in the knowledge that "yes" will > carry. However if the republicans all voted yes, they would be voting along side democrats. How would the blame be placed just on the republicans? Travis _______________________________________________ Libnw mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] List info and subscriber options: http://immosys.com/mailman/listinfo/libnw Archives: http://immosys.com/mailman//pipermail/libnw
