What would you cut, and how would you get enough votes?

Post #345,500 by Another Scott 8/1/11 7:31:01 AM Reply	What would you cut, and how would you get enough votes?
Post #345,509 by beepster 8/1/11 11:50:06 AM Reply	Thankfully, not my job But I would start by looking at the workforce, and items like doe..as for votes...doing the unpopular won't garner them...part of the reason we are in this mess Sure, understanding today's complex world of the future is a little like having bees live in your head. But...there they are.
Post #345,511 by drook 8/1/11 12:03:31 PM Reply	What if the popular thing is also the right thing? Closing all businesses and putting everybody out of work would be unpopular. Does that mean we should do it? Republicans keep talking about their willingness to do the unpopular things, as though it proves how serious they are about fixing things. But what if the things they are willing to do are not only unpopular, but bad for the economy? What if they're unpopular with the majority of the population because they are bad for the majority of the population? Huge public works projects like the WPA would be very popular with the millions of people that they could employ. They would also fix the lack of demand that is crippling the economy. Don't pretend we're in this mess because leadership is unwilling to do things that are "unpopular". We're in this mess because leadership is unwilling to do things that are unpopular with the banking/financial industry. -- Drew
Post #345,541 by Ashton 8/1/11 6:02:35 PM Reply	You may underestimate Beep's comprehension of 'the poor' He realizes that these folks shall never aspire to/inhabit a Corner Office (or see an Armani-Suited one, live.) Perhaps he sees the necessity of these folks biting-the-bullet of their expectations of a decent society, one with the Galtian Rulez which Made Murica what it Is, today (in his macroscopic view.) 'Popular' is thus anathema to the ultimate Authority for digital-think Economics, that handy algorithm for maintaining the rule of the Haves over those who rarely employ such phrases as, the-velocity-of-money. Proles never could craft such a brilliantly-recursive scam as his patriots-in-arms who came up with mortgage-backed-securities, aka "reducing the risk factor to Zero" [Ours!--as they said to selves: not Everyone Else's] And $brilliance trumps every other aspect of (some peoples' idea of) what a society 'is about'. Doncha know? So you just don't get how these craft-y strategists program their recipes for infinitely expanding 'wealth'--for those smart enough to game the system, infinitely (there are lots of exponentials hidden in that mortgage secret formula: these folks think BIG. As infinity IS.) Ergo, screw your 'majority of the population'--those aims/desires/POVs all suck with the real $$Pros. Beep's just lookin-out for Numero Uno: is there anyone else in a zero-sum game?
Post #345,544 by beepster 8/1/11 7:42:28 PM Reply	That would hardly fit with my supporting, for example, more public works/infrastructure spending instead of bailing out wall street... but it fits perfectly with your made up version of the moniker. And, of course, the doubling in size of the fed over the past 30 years has done so much to help the masses..as everything in washington is done in such a selfless fashion. What. Ever. Sure, understanding today's complex world of the future is a little like having bees live in your head. But...there they are.
Post #345,547 by Another Scott 8/1/11 9:43:35 PM Reply	You're making up stuff again... "And of course, doubling the size of the fed over the past 30 years..." http://www.gpoaccess...fy11/pdf/hist.pdf 1980: Federal Outlays: 21.6% of GDP 2010: Federal Outlays: 25.4% of GDP http://www.opm.gov/f...mentSince1962.asp 1980: Total Federal Employment: 4.965M 2010: Total Federal Employment: 4.443M HTH. Cheers, Scott.
Post #345,595 by Ashton 8/2/11 3:22:48 PM Reply	Y'know Beep.. I think that most realize that you aren't the [caricature-self] which you promulgate here--or nobody could stand being around you, and we know: they Can. Nevertheless, your predictable defense of the most extreme aspects of [whatever IS the latest brouhaha involving language -mayhem if not -murder] does constitute A Theme with few variations. Maybe it's just your religious-faith that Your variant of {n + many) Econ-theories: [what-ever! does that word connote? given the multiple dueling 'definitions' extant==each acolyte/'Economist' Sure that His God is Real and the others.. misled or nefarious] Is the One True algorithm, both necessary [and here's the clinker: sufficient!] == all ye need to know: to 'craft' a liveable? "fair"? humane?? society. (Some of us have come to learn that 'logic' is never.. enough; it's only a crude start; others Believe.) And if Murican vulture-Capitalism is the epitome of Economist 'thought'-to-date?? I'd say: q.e.d. But, wtf.. Carrion with the other True Believers. In a hundred years there will be all New People (or, perhaps when the nukes finally fly again.. not so many.) (Your idea of 'stirring-the-pot', via juxtaposing extremes: fits into all the web-lists of Logical Fallacies, now so neatly chronicled; but don't let that stop you; obviously that stance feeds some deep need of a psyche, eh?) :-0 People think that because they know the name of something ... they 'understand it'. --Richard Feynman

Welcome to IWETHEY!