My question is this... If both parties are at fault and they all just work together to continue maintaining the status quo then how do we do anything about it? Who do we vote for?
There's one party that wants to raise taxes and, admittedly, also wants to spend money; and the other party wants to lower taxes and, of course, still continue to spend money. It seems to me that one party does seem to have some semblance of fiscal responsibility in mind. They just got walloped in the election.
In my opinion, our smartest vote, when we are able to do it is for non-incumbents.
Mr. Smith Goes To Washington isn't all that farfetched in my view. People generally, I believe, seek office because they want to do good, to make a positive difference.
But, then they are captured by the establishment. The staffs, the lobbyists, the special interest groups, their own leadership. So they forget, because they never spend time out in the normal world.
They aren't bad people, they are just getting bombarded by people with something to gain, and that distorts their perspective. So, that's my view, vote for new people, when possible.
Personally, I don't believe either party's talking points about taxes and spending. In my view we haven't had anyone serious about proper budgeting since President Clinton.
The elephant in the room is, of course, so-called Federal so-called Reserve System. If it were to stop suppressing interest rates, the government would would default in somewhere between 1 and 6 months. This alone makes government a hostage. Even if «End the Fed» would somehow succeed, the interest rates would still need to be manipulated to avoid paying the true price of the debt.
I've followed the push by Ron Paul and others to bring an end to the Federal Reserve for a long time, but even with that, I fear that I don't have enough knowledge to comment on it. I don't see a way out of what has been created, without unimaginable destruction. But, perhaps others know a way.
To be fair, we don't have the opportunity to vote for the best, we are give two choices to pick from. So votes tend to be based on the less of two evils. Not sure if it was the first time in history or not, but the Democratic party didn't even get a choices to who they wanted as president. Kamala, was just who they told rhier party was going to be.
The amount of taxes we pay are absurd. And frankly the money the federal collects is spent on thinks the majority of Americans would not vote for Such as the military industrial complex, endless wars, and more government, more survalence on its citizens, and more irs to make sure we all pay for thier lifestyles.
We often have third party candidates on the ballot, and sometimes those candidates are really popular. But, no one believes that they can win. So, they don't vote for them, choosing instead from the 'lesser of two evils' so as to not somehow 'waste their vote.' But, when that happens, if people voted for the person they actually wanted, they could win. It's a fallacy supported by the two party system to retain power.
We would do very well to remember that the Republican party was a little ol' third party. Until it wasn't.
For sure. I would have voted for RFK, as the third party, but as it turned out, him dropping out and joining Trumps team was ingenious. Votes would have been split enough for Harris to win. I'm actually happy with how it all turned out, with Trump being President. I think he is a man of good character.
Studies suggest the cost of the Biden administration has racked up $400 billion, to fly in immigrants, transportation and housing. The lion's share of that cost is borne by state and local governments. State and local governments can't borrow or print money like the federal government, so they have to balance their budgets by either absorbing this cost through raising taxes or they have to cut services to their citizens.
On war efforts- an estimated $20 Billion has gone to a war criminal (Benjamin Netanyahu). Another estimated $225 Billion has gone to (Volodymyr Zelenskyy), who couldn't join NATO membership because of it known corruption.
Heinlein, in The Moon Is a Harsh Mistress (it’s brilliant and funny, read it!), proposed two chambers of government.
In the first, you need a 2/3 vote to pass a new law.
In the second, you need only a 1/3 vote to repeal an existing law.
Useful laws would tend to stay while the harmful and less popular are more easily weeded out.
Think of the things we could get rid of!
It is a fascinating idea, and would tend towards extreme protection of liberty I imagine. Would be certainly interesting to see.
Not sure it will happen in my lifetime but a fella can daydream.
Yes indeed!
My question is this... If both parties are at fault and they all just work together to continue maintaining the status quo then how do we do anything about it? Who do we vote for?
There's one party that wants to raise taxes and, admittedly, also wants to spend money; and the other party wants to lower taxes and, of course, still continue to spend money. It seems to me that one party does seem to have some semblance of fiscal responsibility in mind. They just got walloped in the election.
>>>Who do we vote for?
In my opinion, our smartest vote, when we are able to do it is for non-incumbents.
Mr. Smith Goes To Washington isn't all that farfetched in my view. People generally, I believe, seek office because they want to do good, to make a positive difference.
But, then they are captured by the establishment. The staffs, the lobbyists, the special interest groups, their own leadership. So they forget, because they never spend time out in the normal world.
They aren't bad people, they are just getting bombarded by people with something to gain, and that distorts their perspective. So, that's my view, vote for new people, when possible.
Personally, I don't believe either party's talking points about taxes and spending. In my view we haven't had anyone serious about proper budgeting since President Clinton.
The elephant in the room is, of course, so-called Federal so-called Reserve System. If it were to stop suppressing interest rates, the government would would default in somewhere between 1 and 6 months. This alone makes government a hostage. Even if «End the Fed» would somehow succeed, the interest rates would still need to be manipulated to avoid paying the true price of the debt.
There's no easy way out.
I've followed the push by Ron Paul and others to bring an end to the Federal Reserve for a long time, but even with that, I fear that I don't have enough knowledge to comment on it. I don't see a way out of what has been created, without unimaginable destruction. But, perhaps others know a way.
Most likely through parallel circulation of at least two currencies — «old bad» and «new good», similar to the chervonets of early Soviet Russia.
* commenter at Reason.com
Greatest magazine ever! It and the New Yorker have long been my faves.
One commenter had an elegant, concise, and effective response to every government proposal:
F*ck you, cut spending!
Let’s all chant that relentlessly.
https://open.substack.com/pub/raywillings/p/its-the-engineering-of-consent?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android&r=2rhgvv
Thank you for sharing this essay! I really appreciate it.
To be fair, we don't have the opportunity to vote for the best, we are give two choices to pick from. So votes tend to be based on the less of two evils. Not sure if it was the first time in history or not, but the Democratic party didn't even get a choices to who they wanted as president. Kamala, was just who they told rhier party was going to be.
The amount of taxes we pay are absurd. And frankly the money the federal collects is spent on thinks the majority of Americans would not vote for Such as the military industrial complex, endless wars, and more government, more survalence on its citizens, and more irs to make sure we all pay for thier lifestyles.
We often have third party candidates on the ballot, and sometimes those candidates are really popular. But, no one believes that they can win. So, they don't vote for them, choosing instead from the 'lesser of two evils' so as to not somehow 'waste their vote.' But, when that happens, if people voted for the person they actually wanted, they could win. It's a fallacy supported by the two party system to retain power.
We would do very well to remember that the Republican party was a little ol' third party. Until it wasn't.
For sure. I would have voted for RFK, as the third party, but as it turned out, him dropping out and joining Trumps team was ingenious. Votes would have been split enough for Harris to win. I'm actually happy with how it all turned out, with Trump being President. I think he is a man of good character.
I too was excited about RFK Jr. We need, in my view, outsiders.
Studies suggest the cost of the Biden administration has racked up $400 billion, to fly in immigrants, transportation and housing. The lion's share of that cost is borne by state and local governments. State and local governments can't borrow or print money like the federal government, so they have to balance their budgets by either absorbing this cost through raising taxes or they have to cut services to their citizens.
On war efforts- an estimated $20 Billion has gone to a war criminal (Benjamin Netanyahu). Another estimated $225 Billion has gone to (Volodymyr Zelenskyy), who couldn't join NATO membership because of it known corruption.
This is a really awesome way of explaining it symbolically! Thank you very much!