Travis Pahl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >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'd be happy temporarily, but unhappy after the next election when they >> turned out all those in favor of fiscal restraint, because they'd >> over-reached by trying to shut the whole thing down.
>All those in favor of fiscal restraint would be everybody. Or are you >saying that the democrats would have voted in favor of the increase if >the Republicans voted against? Or are you saying that they democrats >vote would be ignored and republicans would be critizied even though >they voted for the same thing? I'm saying the federal gov't would "shut down" again (operate under some emergency bills to keep necessary offices open), those who voted for the shutdown would get the blame again, and the voting public would vote them out of office at the next election, replacing them with bigger spenders. What makes you think the result would be any better now than it was the previous times? >> A majority of voters >> elected them to (in part) spend less than the minority of voters would, but >> given a choice between spending a little more and having all the checks >> bounce from the federal gov't, the people would take spending a little >> more. >Checks would not bounce IF THEY SPENT LESS. If they do not send >less, then they deserve to lose in the next election. But in order for them to spend less, they have to vote for lower authorizations. By the time it gets to a vote on raising the debt limit, that opportunity has passed; it's all-or-nothing by then. >Republicans are irresponsible. They spend money they do not have >(debt) and expect tax payers to pay in interest later all the while >pretending they are for smaller government byu slightly lowering our >income tax. And I'm sure you think Democrats and most independents are irresponsible too. Which leaves as responsible only some tiny fraction of the population. >> Radical and moderate libertarians alike would have better >> bargaining position if the mass media were on our side, but the mass media >> are overwhelmingly against us. >Yep. But media is not a branch of government. The legislature and >executive branch are. They can reduce the spending of the federal >government, and they do not. But they're not dictators, so they can do so only during their terms of office. The voters keep them on a leash that has some, but only a finite amount of, slack. And the news media have enormous influence on how representatives and their issues are portrayed. In effect the media move the voters, and the voters move gov't. And it's not as if legislators are some special breed of people who have this problem. Games have been played with volunteer participants to model legislative budgeting processes. Result? Damn near the same thing the actual legislators vote for. When Clinton "shut down" fedgov by veto, bargaining for more spending, I was hoping the public would blame POTUS the same way they did when it was Reagan. They didn't. They blamed Republicans in both cases, and it was because of the media. >> Pathetic? Experience proved it! Weren't you around when the shutdown >> incidents occurred? And didn't you see the results? >Experience proved that they cave under pressure. That's their job description -- representative! >Experience has not shown that a political >party in power in both the leg. and executive branch that wants to >limit government can not limit it. Experience shows leg. will spend as much as the people want, plus some extra to account for media bias. >I look at the budgets in those decades and I never saw a smaller >spending. Every year in fact it got larger. That's what I wrote already. >If you noticed and still support them, How do you infer whom I support and to what degree? All I'm doing is pointing out that your criticism is naive. I'm in the position of judging and grading people all the time, as a college prof. There are certain significant things by which to judge performance, and other insignificant features. For instance, I make clear to my students that I don't grade based on classroom participation, which I encourage but which is for show. In this case you've been suckered into judging politicians based on show -- votes on raising the debt limit. Other than that, in politics as opposed to college one has the additional matter of choosing. "Support" for a politician has nothing to do with overall judgement of that politician per se, but rather on the effect of choosing that person versus any other person likely to fill an office, tempered by the realization that I don't get my own choice but am only one of many interested in politics, who have widely varying purposes. King Canute demonstrated effectively that one should not attempt to resist a tide, once one realizes that it is indeed a tide. Instead, you should realize the tidal limits and build your dock accordingly. >> >However if the republicans all voted yes, they would be voting along >> >side democrats. How would the blame be placed just on the >> >republicans? >> It would not. But if they voted "no", the Republicans would get the blame, >> as they did in the 1980s & 1990s. >Oops. I meant to say no above. Anyways why do you think they would >get the blame when they voted the same as teh D's, where as in the >past they got the blame because they were voting against the D's? They would not get the blame if they voted the same as the Ds, but if the Ds realized the Rs would vote "no", THEY would vote "yes". It's just a show, you see. In Your Sly Tribe, Robert in the Bronx _______________________________________________ Libnw mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] List info and subscriber options: http://immosys.com/mailman/listinfo/libnw Archives: http://immosys.com/mailman//pipermail/libnw
