Welcome guest, is this your first visit? Create Account now to join.
  • Login:

Welcome to the Online Debate Network.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed.

Page 4 of 15 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 14 ... LastLast
Results 61 to 80 of 283
  1. #61
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    8,828
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Mind Trapped By: Gov shut down, bad in what way?

    Quote Originally Posted by JJ
    (Apologies for the challenges, it's the only mechanism I have to get you to answer specific points - you seem to be ignoring specific questions which challenge the plausibility of your OP.)
    First, I am ignoring large portions of your posts because they become to wildly unrelated to what I have actually said. I'm not going to wast time on your wild extrapolations.

    Also an FYI
    The Challenge to support a claim. tags are generally for specific claims to be supported.
    For example, I claim the sky is blue you can challenge me to support that statement.
    In this way challenges should be directly connected(or connectable) with a quote.

    We also have the Question to opponent.tag, to draw attention to important questions.
    This is more appropriate for implications of a claim
    Such as
    Question to opponent.– What mechanism is there for the sky to being blue?

    So if you are looking to draw attention to a specific question, but there is no direct claim that you can quote(because a common response to challenge is "Where did I claim that"), then the question tag is probably right for you


    Quote Originally Posted by JJ
    The problem is that you haven't specified which elected officials:
    Yes I have.
    Elected officials = House/senate/Press as well as state and local.
    I'm not sure why you are assuming it is anything else.

    QUESTION: What elected official has been furloughed?

    Quote Originally Posted by JJ
    Support or retract that there are sufficient people to perform this task in a furloughed government. Either admit that you will have to recall staff (and if you do, how many) or that this task is impossible.
    The House/Senate and Pres have submitted/dealt with budgets in the past, which you have held were re-evaluations of each department. Nothing has changed to suggest that they are now incapable of doing their job. You are now contradicting your own past position, it seems simply to issue a random challenge.

    Quote Originally Posted by JJ
    So clearly, you're not talking about elected officials or people currently working in government. You are explicitly talking about a new set of people drawn.
    No.. I’m not. We have a gov now. There is no reason to think I am referring to the formation of some new one.
    To serve man.

  2. #62
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    2,765
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Mind Trapped By: Gov shut down, bad in what way?

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    First, I am ignoring large portions of your posts because they become to wildly unrelated to what I have actually said. I'm not going to wast time on your wild extrapolations.
    Ignore away! They'll all come back once we have figured out that you have enough people to perform this task. Also, thanks for the clarification of the use of CHALLENGE tags - I do try to attach them to quotes but will be more diligent in future.


    JJ:The problem is that you haven't specified which elected officials:
    Yes I have.
    Elected officials = House/senate/Press as well as state and local.
    I'm not sure why you are assuming it is anything else.
    Well, now you have more detail.

    You have already questioned the H/S/P's ability to do this so are you are now claiming they are capable of performing this task? Or are you claiming they haven't done it?

    Officials on the state and local levels is new. But you have produced more people to do the very job that you are claiming they haven't done in the first place.

    In short, you seem to be defeating your own OP by having the fox count the chickens you have already accused them of eating. Unless you're expecting a different outcome when they do it under a furlough.

    QUESTION: What elected official has been furloughed?
    No-one, that was a mistake that I was about to correct before you posted again.

    Challenge to support a claim. (A proper one this time) Are you withdrawing the WE(the people) were part of the pool of people to perform this task. Relevant quote "What I am saying is that WE(the people)should and the gov should, re-evaluate these programs"

    Question to opponent.You still haven't answered the question as to whether furloughed resources are to be brought back. Or are the elected officials supposed to do this on their own?


    The House/Senate and Pres have submitted/dealt with budgets in the past, which you have held were re-evaluations of each department. Nothing has changed to suggest that they are now incapable of doing their job. You are now contradicting your own past position, it seems simply to issue a random challenge.
    Not at all. I am saying that they merely made decisions on work done by dozens of their staff. Their job isn't to google or riffle through cabinets looking for documents or coming up with defenses for programs. That grunt-work is done by the now-furloughed employees; it's the second part of this objection against the OP - there is a skeletal government in place to just keep things running. You want to create additional work on an already stretched staff without providing more resources.


    JJ: So clearly, you're not talking about elected officials or people currently working in government. You are explicitly talking about a new set of people drawn.
    No.. I’m not. We have a gov now. There is no reason to think I am referring to the formation of some new one.
    No, I'm not saying that you're suggesting a new government. I am suggesting that when you said "What I am saying is that WE(the people)should and the gov should, re-evaluate these programs" you are creating a new body outside of government. You are free to withdraw "WE(the people)" from the challenge above. I'm just trying to get to a point where I can imagine that this could work from a resource perspective. Creating a new group and deeming it essential would certainly do that; the rest of the government is either working on essentials or furloughed. So I don't see how you will achieve this.

  3. #63
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    8,828
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Mind Trapped By: Gov shut down, bad in what way?

    Quote Originally Posted by JJ
    You have already questioned the H/S/P's ability to do this so are you are now claiming they are capable of performing this task? Or are you claiming they haven't done it?
    No, they are simply responsible for it, and so I say they have done a poor job and thus need to do it again.
    The evidence of the poor job is the budget deficit. So, just like a child that gets his homework wrong.. we should demand they do it again.

    Quote Originally Posted by JJ
    (A proper one this time) Are you withdrawing the WE(the people) were part of the pool of people to perform this task. Relevant quote "What I am saying is that WE(the people)should and the gov should, re-evaluate these programs"
    No JJ, you and I are “we the people”.. and the gov is the gov. We should both be having this discussion.

    Quote Originally Posted by JJ
    You still haven't answered the question as to whether furloughed resources are to be brought back. Or are the elected officials supposed to do this on their own?
    I don’t think it is necessary to bring them back in order for this discussion to be effective and reasonable. I would also expect any serious attempt at it to last longer than the gov shutdown.

    Quote Originally Posted by JJ
    Not at all. I am saying that they merely made decisions on work done by dozens of their staff. Their job isn't to google or riffle through cabinets looking for documents or coming up with defenses for programs. That grunt-work is done by the now-furloughed employees; it's the second part of this objection against the OP - there is a skeletal government in place to just keep things running. You want to create additional work on an already stretched staff without providing more resources.
    Department heads are still in place, but more than that, any of the changes on the level of reconsidering the roll of gov and prioritizing is going to come from the capital anyway, not from within the individual departments.

    Quote Originally Posted by JJ
    No, I'm not saying that you're suggesting a new government. I am suggesting that when you said "What I am saying is that WE(the people)should and the gov should, re-evaluate these programs" you are creating a new body outside of government. You are free to withdraw "WE(the people)" from the challenge above. I'm just trying to get to a point where I can imagine that this could work from a resource perspective. Creating a new group and deeming it essential would certainly do that; the rest of the government is either working on essentials or furloughed. So I don't see how you will achieve this.
    We the people already exist as playing a part in gov. We can make suggestions to our gov.. which is how the process is supposed to work. That would of course require some sort of national discussion. Which is exactly what I’m asking if we should have.

    A major part of the difficulty we would face is the fact that the gov has failed to do a very important part of any budget, which is prioritize spending. If we had an official priority list to start with, then this would be a lot easier, then we could have substantive arguments about the merits of #1002 Vs 1012, why we should prioritize the second above all that.
    If the money runs out at item #900.. then that is just the reality of it. And we can't have it. (Sort of like.. yea.. I want a jet back but that isn't how the world works).
    If we all agree that Item #901 is important and should be funded.. then we can discuss ways to raise income for it.
    At that point anything that is soo important that it must be funded would simply have to be higher on the list.
    Then we can all face the cold hard reality that when you are out of money, it doesn't matter how badly you want something you can't have it.
    To serve man.

  4. #64
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    2,765
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Mind Trapped By: Gov shut down, bad in what way?

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    JJ:You have already questioned the H/S/P's ability to do this so are you are now claiming they are capable of performing this task? Or are you claiming they haven't done it?
    No, they are simply responsible for it, and so I say they have done a poor job and thus need to do it again.
    The evidence of the poor job is the budget deficit. So, just like a child that gets his homework wrong.. we should demand they do it again.
    So now you are adding more requirements and limits to the budgeting process that needs to be even agreed upon: that of no pork. Unless you expect that magically, the porksters won't just add it back. That means that even before this can even start, you need to convene a vote for a new rule for the new budgeting process.


    No JJ, you and I are “we the people”.. and the gov is the gov. We should both be having this discussion.
    Huh? So what's the OP really about then: a chat about things or an actual scenario? I'm confused.

    JJ: You still haven't answered the question as to whether furloughed resources are to be brought back. Or are the elected officials supposed to do this on their own?
    I don’t think it is necessary to bring them back in order for this discussion to be effective and reasonable. I would also expect any serious attempt at it to last longer than the gov shutdown.
    Yet, when we go down the rabbit hole a little bit with one program - that of the feeding babies; you were able to shed that whole program and the people running it. The devil's in the details, as they say, and I contend that you won't get anywhere looking at it from a Federal Government level - those departments are required: it's what we did with national monuments where you agreed that 22K jobs were valid. You were only able to save money (whilst harming babies too, I have to add) by getting into the weeds. So how do you you this?

    Your only out is that this would continue after the shutdown then that totally goes against your OP which claimed "should each non-essential worker/department be forced to justify it's existence before being brought back?"

    Question to opponent.So are you answering "no" to that question now too? And defeating your own OP in the process?

    Department heads are still in place, but more than that, any of the changes on the level of reconsidering the roll of gov and prioritizing is going to come from the capital anyway, not from within the individual departments.
    But even the department heads aren't archivers and clerks. They don't know where this stuff is - that's not their job.

    We the people already exist as playing a part in gov. We can make suggestions to our gov.. which is how the process is supposed to work. That would of course require some sort of national discussion. Which is exactly what I’m asking if we should have.
    This is totally not the scenario you offered! You said "should each non-essential worker/department be forced to justify it's existence before being brought back?"

    A major part of the difficulty we would face is the fact that the gov has failed to do a very important part of any budget, which is prioritize spending. If we had an official priority list to start with, then this would be a lot easier, then we could have substantive arguments about the merits of #1002 Vs 1012, why we should prioritize the second above all that.
    If the money runs out at item #900.. then that is just the reality of it. And we can't have it. (Sort of like.. yea.. I want a jet back but that isn't how the world works).
    If we all agree that Item #901 is important and should be funded.. then we can discuss ways to raise income for it.
    At that point anything that is soo important that it must be funded would simply have to be higher on the list.
    Then we can all face the cold hard reality that when you are out of money, it doesn't matter how badly you want something you can't have it.
    I don't disagree that this is the discussion you want to have and I'm tempted to respond to it but you'll have to admit the OP's idea of a piecemeal restoration of government is either not a good idea (in of itself) or not implementable (no staff, not enough time) or not necessary (by using the existing justifications). If you can make that brave and honest move, then we can discuss something substantive as to why your idea above doesn't work.

  5. #65
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    8,828
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Mind Trapped By: Gov shut down, bad in what way?

    Quote Originally Posted by JJ
    So now you are adding more requirements and limits to the budgeting process that needs to be even agreed upon: that of no pork. Unless you expect that magically, the porksters won't just add it back. That means that even before this can even start, you need to convene a vote for a new rule for the new budgeting process.
    This is those wild an extreme claims I was talking about earlier.
    I didn't say that, nor do I see how it could reasonably be construed from what I said.

    Quote Originally Posted by JJ
    Huh? So what's the OP really about then: a chat about things or an actual scenario? I'm confused.
    I don't know how to clarify the fact that ODN is a discussion of Ideas.

    Quote Originally Posted by JJ
    But even the department heads aren't archivers and clerks. They don't know where this stuff is - that's not their job.
    They don't need to be.

    Quote Originally Posted by JJ
    This is totally not the scenario you offered! You said "should each non-essential worker/department be forced to justify it's existence before being brought back?"
    I don't see a problem with there being a discussion in regards to someones job being brought back.
    They should be part of that discussion of course, and given a chance to make a case. This specifically from the department heads(who are still at work).

    It's really not as convoluted as you keep trying to make it.

    Quote Originally Posted by JJ
    I don't disagree that this is the discussion you want to have and I'm tempted to respond to it but you'll have to admit the OP's idea of a piecemeal restoration of government is either not a good idea (in of itself) or not implementable (no staff, not enough time) or not necessary (by using the existing justifications). If you can make that brave and honest move, then we can discuss something substantive as to why your idea above doesn't work.
    You have yet to establish any of those conclusions as valid beyond your appeal to wildly inaccurate straw-men arguments.
    Non of your conclusions are valid objections to the OP, and they never will be until you start actually representing the op accuratly.

    Once you stop vacilationg from accusations of creating new gov agencies, new laws to govern budgeting, and recongize that there are people on the job that should be reasonably expected to have the authority and ability to complete any budgeting process.
    Then you may have a shot at a meaningful conversation.

    So far, you haven't been close. You really need to step back, drop all of your assumptions about my position and try to understand it before you try to attack it.
    You jump so far ahead with so much mis-information it isn't worth me attempting to untangle it.

    --------------------

    So I'll give you a chance to come to this with an open mind, and with at least a shred of a charitable reading of my position.

    Should the U.S. Gov and it's citizens have a conversation re-evaluating the jobs and spending of the departments which were designated "non-essential" by the gov shut down, specifically with the mind to prioritize the most important and essential ones and de-funding the ones that are less important due to our lack of income? This would entail a re-consideration of the way our gov interacts with the people, such as the national parks, which could be administrated by the various states (as we see that they are in some cases), with the question of "do we need the federal gov to do this?" in mind; such as the WIC example where the gov gives milk producing women...milk.
    The answer to this question has been so far.
    1) NO, because that conversation is already had every year around budget time.
    2) No, because that will hurt those that end up getting fired.
    3) No, Because that will require creating new laws to govern congressional budgeting practices.
    4) No, because there is no one in Washington to do this job.
    5) No, because the question does not propose an actual budget to be considered.
    6) No, because you don't understand the gov or what it does.
    7) No, because you are not considering the people that will be effected by getting rid of services.
    8) No, because we should just raise taxes on evil rich who are not paying taxes.
    9) No, because all spending is justified until it is shown to be otherwise, because we should assume the gov has already done the justification process.
    10) No, because we aren't going to change anything discussing this on ODN.
    11) No, .. I'm sure I missed some.. so fill in the blank.


    Question to opponent. Do you understand the question?
    Question to opponent.Which, if any and how many, of the above "no, because" reasoning are you forwarding. If none, could you phrase it to more accurately reflect your position?
    To serve man.

  6. #66
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    2,765
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Mind Trapped By: Gov shut down, bad in what way?

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    JJ: So now you are adding more requirements and limits to the budgeting process that needs to be even agreed upon: that of no pork. Unless you expect that magically, the porksters won't just add it back. That means that even before this can even start, you need to convene a vote for a new rule for the new budgeting process.

    This is those wild an extreme claims I was talking about earlier.
    I didn't say that, nor do I see how it could reasonably be construed from what I said.
    Actually, you explicitly stated that how government works is "add, not grow" and explicitly referred to pork. Then you suggest that those very same people, are supposed to produce a different outcome without changing rules to limit the in some way.

    JJ:Huh? So what's the OP really about then: a chat about things or an actual scenario? I'm confused.
    I don't know how to clarify the fact that ODN is a discussion of Ideas.
    I don't disagree. But I am discussing whether the idea is even implementable. If it's not then what's the point.

    They don't need to be.
    Prove it.


    MT:
    We the people already exist as playing a part in gov. We can make suggestions to our gov.. which is how the process is supposed to work. That would of course require some sort of national discussion. Which is exactly what I’m asking if we should have.

    JJ:This is totally not the scenario you offered! You said "should each non-essential worker/department be forced to justify it's existence before being brought back?"
    I don't see a problem with there being a discussion in regards to someones job being brought back.
    They should be part of that discussion of course, and given a chance to make a case. This specifically from the department heads(who are still at work).

    It's really not as convoluted as you keep trying to make it.
    Other than the the jobs aren't even gone - people have been furloughed not fired; this is still a different scenario what what you are now offering: that we have a natter about it and make suggestions to the government. I have no problem with that - it is the linking to bringing people back from furlough that I have serious problems with.

    It's not convoluted to suggest that it is a poor idea to get some approval before coming back from furlough and as a requirement to restore government. Just admit it so that we can move on.


    You have yet to establish any of those conclusions as valid beyond your appeal to wildly inaccurate straw-men arguments.
    Non of your conclusions are valid objections to the OP, and they never will be until you start actually representing the op accuratly.
    I believe I have been quoting the OP throughout this. It's just that I don't think you've been consistent.

    Once you stop vacilationg from accusations of creating new gov agencies, new laws to govern budgeting, and recongize that there are people on the job that should be reasonably expected to have the authority and ability to complete any budgeting process.
    Then you may have a shot at a meaningful conversation.
    I disagree that there are enough people to complete the job but the larger problem that is emerging is that of your linking or not linking it to the shut down.


    So far, you haven't been close. You really need to step back, drop all of your assumptions about my position and try to understand it before you try to attack it.
    You jump so far ahead with so much mis-information it isn't worth me attempting to untangle it.
    I've made it very clear:

    On the one hand the OP says:

    each non-essential worker/department be forced to justify it's existence before being brought back?
    Then in #63 you say:

    I would also expect any serious attempt at it to last longer than the gov shutdown.

    You wanted government to remain shut down until there is some sort of approval to bring those parts back. That's your exact scenario. In suggesting that this can go on longer than the furlough is just defeating the OP.

    You can change two things:

    a) admit that the OP shouldn't be linking the re-evaluation to the restoration of government and admit that was a bad idea.
    b) prove that it is a good idea (per your OP, in your own words "each non-essential worker/department be forced to justify it's existence before being brought back?"

    Challenge to support a claim. Please do one or the other.

    --------------------

    So I'll give you a chance to come to this with an open mind, and with at least a shred of a charitable reading of my position.
    It's not a charitably written OP to begin with. You are making a stressful situation for people I know into a forum on whether they should have a job in the first place. Then you call this a 'paid vacation'.

    That's not how government should be done or discussed. I am with the Democrats in not being pulled into substantive discussions with a gun held to my head.

    All you have to do to remove the gun is to withdraw the part of the OP that requires the jobs to be brought back after being justified.

    Should the U.S. Gov and it's citizens have a conversation re-evaluating the jobs and spending of the departments which were designated "non-essential" by the gov shut down, specifically with the mind to prioritize the most important and essential ones and de-funding the ones that are less important due to our lack of income? This would entail a re-consideration of the way our gov interacts with the people, such as the national parks, which could be administrated by the various states (as we see that they are in some cases), with the question of "do we need the federal gov to do this?" in mind; such as the WIC example where the gov gives milk producing women...milk.
    The answer to this question has been so far.
    1) NO, because that conversation is already had every year around budget time.
    2) No, because that will hurt those that end up getting fired.
    3) No, Because that will require creating new laws to govern congressional budgeting practices.
    4) No, because there is no one in Washington to do this job.
    5) No, because the question does not propose an actual budget to be considered.
    6) No, because you don't understand the gov or what it does.
    7) No, because you are not considering the people that will be effected by getting rid of services.
    8) No, because we should just raise taxes on evil rich who are not paying taxes.
    9) No, because all spending is justified until it is shown to be otherwise, because we should assume the gov has already done the justification process.
    10) No, because we aren't going to change anything discussing this on ODN.
    11) No, .. I'm sure I missed some.. so fill in the blank.


    Question to opponent. Do you understand the question?
    Question to opponent.Which, if any and how many, of the above "no, because" reasoning are you forwarding. If none, could you phrase it to more accurately reflect your position?
    Before answering, is this the new OP? I'm noticing that you have removed the most objectional part of this - that of linking it to the shutdown. May I consider your original idea defeated?
    Last edited by JimJones8934; October 6th, 2013 at 12:36 PM.

  7. #67
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    8,828
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Mind Trapped By: Gov shut down, bad in what way?

    Quote Originally Posted by JJ
    Actually, you explicitly stated that how government works is "add, not grow" and explicitly referred to pork. Then you suggest that those very same people, are supposed to produce a different outcome without changing rules to limit the in some way.
    Right, so?
    The thread is about what we should do.

    Quote Originally Posted by JJ
    I don't disagree. But I am discussing whether the idea is even implementable. If it's not then what's the point.
    If your asking if a thread discussion on ODN is going to actually accomplish anything in Washington.
    Then the answer is no, and if that is your standard for discussing any political topic, then I will know to skip over any of your contributions in regards to examining political related ideas.

    Quote Originally Posted by JJ
    Prove it.
    Your shifting the burden, your the one who brought up its relevance. You must support that it is a relevant factor.
    I don't hold or forward that it is relevant.

    Quote Originally Posted by JJ
    You wanted government to remain shut down until there is some sort of approval to bring those parts back.
    I did back before we were going to pay them anyway.
    There is no reason for them not to be working, if we are going to pay them anyway for the time they missed.

    Quote Originally Posted by JJ
    That's your exact scenario. In suggesting that this can go on longer than the furlough is just defeating the OP.
    You keep using that word.. I don't think it means what you think it means.
    Hence why I have generally ignored your repeated use of it as valid.
    In short the OP doesn't hing on the shut-down, it uses the shutdown as a starting point for the conversation not some limiting container. Or is it the case that if the shut down ended the day after the OP was written, that we could all just say "o well, the op was defeated.. no need to question anything now.. whew".

    There is nothing inherently contradictory in saying that the process of evaluation can, and probably would continue past a shut down. The focus is on starting WHILE we have a shut down, and using the loss of services.

    Quote Originally Posted by JJ
    Challenge to support a claim. Please do one or the other.
    Not a valid challenge.


    Quote Originally Posted by JJ
    It's not a charitably written OP to begin with
    That is not what the idea of "charitable" means in this context.

    Quote Originally Posted by JJ
    Before answering, is this the new OP? I'm noticing that you have removed the most objectional part of this - that of linking it to the shutdown. May I consider your original idea defeated?
    There's that word again..
    Keep trying maybe it will be true one-day.
    No worries, I'm sure you will find some other irrelevant minutia to extrapolate into absurdity or over inflate it's importance and distract from an otherwise simple question.

    I would say that given they are going to pay the workers anyway no matter what is done, then you should consider that part official omitted/conceded/changed/corrected/updated. or whatever else feeds into your agenda. It is not a good idea to pay people to not work.
    I hope now you will be able to focus on the point of the OP and the question.
    To serve man.

  8. Thanks JimJones8934 thanked for this post
  9. #68
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    2,765
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Mind Trapped By: Gov shut down, bad in what way?

    I would say that given they are going to pay the workers anyway no matter what is done, then you should consider that part official omitted/conceded/changed/corrected/updated. or whatever else feeds into your agenda. It is not a good idea to pay people to not work.
    I hope now you will be able to focus on the point of the OP and the question.
    Finally! Why did that take 10 rounds to admit? This is the sort of filibustering that makes it extremely difficult to debate - you know something is not true or not valid yet you continue to defend it until I hit upon some incantation that you can't get out of. That's not debating any of substance, it's just word games. Anyway, thanks for doing it; I will now consider the original OP invalid and assuming the new OP is now:

    Should the U.S. Gov and it's citizens have a conversation re-evaluating the jobs and spending of the departments which were designated "non-essential" by the gov shut down, specifically with the mind to prioritize the most important and essential ones and de-funding the ones that are less important due to our lack of income? This would entail a re-consideration of the way our gov interacts with the people, such as the national parks, which could be administrated by the various states (as we see that they are in some cases), with the question of "do we need the federal gov to do this?" in mind; such as the WIC example where the gov gives milk producing women...milk.
    The answer is still no; i.e. there should be no conversation re-evaluating jobs & spending. You don't get to rework how government operates on the back of blackmail. There is zero discussion to be had whilst you link any of your thinking to what is happening with the shutdown. That would only reward the GOP for literally undermining democracy: when you lose two elections and a Supreme Court case, you don't get to stall government when a law you don't like needs funding.

    Also, given that the prioritization is going to be voted on by a Republican House, there will likely be more damage to Progressive or Liberal programs. So further discussion will only help in the GOP agenda to reduce them. There is no reason for any Democrat or Liberal hand over future victims of GOP shutdowns. The WIC example being a perfect case - it's something that only D's care about yet it would likely be cut.

    In fact, the results might lead to more shutdowns thus ensuring that the blackmail technique be used again whilst only harming the poor and needy.

    I think a more productive way to 'solve' the 'lack of income' problem (which I disagree that there is anyway), is by raising taxes. So instead of prioritizing spending that has already been justified, we should look at prioritizing businesses that aren't paying their full fair of taxes, examine the loopholes and prioritize how to shut them down, and then look at other ideas such as off-shore accounts or reducing subsidies they don't need. That way, the majority of the people get to keep the programs they need whilst businesses continue to function with no additional harm.

  10. #69
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    8,828
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Mind Trapped By: Gov shut down, bad in what way?

    Quote Originally Posted by JJ
    You don't get to rework how government operates on the back of blackmail. There is zero discussion to be had whilst you link any of your thinking to what is happening with the shutdown. That would only reward the GOP for literally undermining democracy: when you lose two elections and a Supreme Court case, you don't get to stall government when a law you don't like needs funding.
    So your saying that success is not desired because it would encourage future gov shut-downs or general black-mail tactics.

    Quote Originally Posted by JJ
    Also, given that the prioritization is going to be voted on by a Republican House, there will likely be more damage to Progressive or Liberal programs. So further discussion will only help in the GOP agenda to reduce them. There is no reason for any Democrat or Liberal hand over future victims of GOP shutdowns. The WIC example being a perfect case - it's something that only D's care about yet it would likely be cut.
    So your saying success is not desired because republicans would win?

    Quote Originally Posted by JJ
    I think a more productive way to 'solve' the 'lack of income' problem (which I disagree that there is anyway), is by raising taxes. So instead of prioritizing spending that has already been justified, we should look at prioritizing businesses that aren't paying their full fair of taxes, examine the loopholes and prioritize how to shut them down, and then look at other ideas such as off-shore accounts or reducing subsidies they don't need. That way, the majority of the people get to keep the programs they need whilst businesses continue to function with no additional harm.
    So your saying that we should not examine the spending side of the budget equation only the income side.
    To serve man.

  11. #70
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    6,893
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Mind Trapped By: Gov shut down, bad in what way?

    Interesting. Its been how many days and the sky hasn't fallen.
    Last edited by chadn737; October 6th, 2013 at 06:10 PM.
    I typically cite original research papers and reviews that are available only to a personal or institutional subscriptional. If you wish a PDF copy of the papers I cite, send me a request.

  12. #71
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    2,765
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Mind Trapped By: Gov shut down, bad in what way?

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    You don't get to rework how government operates on the back of blackmail. There is zero discussion to be had whilst you link any of your thinking to what is happening with the shutdown. That would only reward the GOP for literally undermining democracy: when you lose two elections and a Supreme Court case, you don't get to stall government when a law you don't like needs funding.

    So your saying that success is not desired because it would encourage future gov shut-downs or general black-mail tactics.

    So your saying success is not desired because republicans would win?
    What do you mean by success? This is the first time you've brought up the term - success of what? What does this have to do with what you're responding to?

    So your saying that we should not examine the spending side of the budget equation only the income side.
    Not at all, but I think if we're going to have a new national discussion (or even an ODN one) it would be more productive. Plus, it's easier and less disruptive to babies.

  13. #72
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    8,828
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Mind Trapped By: Gov shut down, bad in what way?

    Quote Originally Posted by JJ
    What do you mean by success? This is the first time you've brought up the term - success of what? What does this have to do with what you're responding to?
    Well if you are going to be charitable to the point, you have to object on one of two fronts.
    1) That it will not be successful (IE balance the budget or move us towards it)
    or
    2) That it will be successful.

    Your objections did not appear to have any relevance to #1, in fact they seemed to assume #2.
    Such as that it would encourage black-mail. I don't see how it would encourage black-mail unless it actually was a successful.

    Quote Originally Posted by JJ
    Not at all,
    Are you or aren't you saying that we should not discuss spending side budget issues?

    Or maybe I misunderstood you and you were really saying.
    -That income side discussions are more efficient, and thus we should not have a successful discussion regarding spending because it would be less efficient.
    To serve man.

  14. #73
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    2,765
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Mind Trapped By: Gov shut down, bad in what way?

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Well if you are going to be charitable to the point, you have to object on one of two fronts.
    1) That it will not be successful (IE balance the budget or move us towards it)
    or
    2) That it will be successful.

    Your objections did not appear to have any relevance to #1, in fact they seemed to assume #2.
    Such as that it would encourage black-mail. I don't see how it would encourage black-mail unless it actually was a successful.
    Of course reducing programs will balance the budget - that's hardly rocket science; but we could also balance it by bringing in more money via taxes. So the question shouldn't be how we should reduce programs but whether we should reduce them at all.

    The blackmail was note was because you keep linking the idea to the current shutdown. In doing so you have made it explicit that such a prioritized list would used in future shutdowns until there is only a bare government left. Which of course, is what the right-wing have been wanting to do for decades.

    Therefore, to even have such a discussion would just be helping you destroy the last few decades of social progress and help to the poor and needy.

    So to answer your new OP, no such conversation should ever happen.


    Are you or aren't you saying that we should not discuss spending side budget issues?
    Not at all. I'm saying it shouldn't be done in the way you've described, or in any way that could jeopardize those social programs that are important to the American people (including ObamaCare). For example, we can discuss defunding the military or the NSA I suppose since we're no longer in three crazy wars.

    Or maybe I misunderstood you and you were really saying.
    -That income side discussions are more efficient, and thus we should not have a successful discussion regarding spending because it would be less efficient.
    That too, but that's all outside the scope of your OP. Also, I don't agree that balancing the budget is necessarily something we can do.

  15. #74
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    8,828
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Mind Trapped By: Gov shut down, bad in what way?

    Quote Originally Posted by JJ
    Of course reducing programs will balance the budget - that's hardly rocket science; but we could also balance it by bringing in more money via taxes. So the question shouldn't be how we should reduce programs but whether we should reduce them at all.
    That is great for implementing future spending, but future potential income can't be spent till you have it.
    We currently don't have it and we already have the bills for it.

    We should have a discussion on if raising taxes would increase total income. It should not be assumed that raising taxes would automatically raise revenue.

    Quote Originally Posted by JJ
    The blackmail was note was because you keep linking the idea to the current shutdown. In doing so you have made it explicit that such a prioritized list would used in future shutdowns until there is only a bare government left. Which of course, is what the right-wing have been wanting to do for decades.
    That doesn't seem like a sound conclusion, because this point is based on the income. So the gov would be as large as whatever the current income stream was.(if it was projected forward)
    The only way you would get such an implication is if the income went down.

    Quote Originally Posted by JJ
    Therefore, to even have such a discussion would just be helping you destroy the last few decades of social progress and help to the poor and needy.
    Your two premises are flawed and thus so is your conclusion.

    Quote Originally Posted by JJ
    Not at all. I'm saying it shouldn't be done in the way you've described, or in any way that could jeopardize those social programs that are important to the American people (including ObamaCare). For example, we can discuss defunding the military or the NSA I suppose since we're no longer in three crazy wars.
    As I told GP several posts back.. there are 400k military jobs that are included in this discussion.

    Quote Originally Posted by JJ
    That too, but that's all outside the scope of your OP. Also, I don't agree that balancing the budget is necessarily something we can do.
    If it is your reasoning for not wanting to discuss spending side budgeting.. It probably is inside the scope of the thread.
    .. but maybe your right.

    Other than that is it right that your objection is that we should not discuss spending side budget issues because we can't balance the budget anyway?
    IMO that is fiscally suicidal thinking.
    To serve man.

  16. #75
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    1,483
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Mind Trapped By: Gov shut down, bad in what way?

    Quote Originally Posted by chadn737 View Post
    Interesting. Its been how many days and the sky hasn't fallen.
    Made doubly interesting considering that Obama is his cronies are going out of their way to try to make this slowdown as painful as possible.
    I will no longer be replying to any post from a Liberal going forward. I will continue, as normal, to discuss topics and engage in intellectual exchanges with non-leftist

  17. #76
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    2,765
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Mind Trapped By: Gov shut down, bad in what way?

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    JJ: Of course reducing programs will balance the budget - that's hardly rocket science; but we could also balance it by bringing in more money via taxes. So the question shouldn't be how we should reduce programs but whether we should reduce them at all.

    That is great for implementing future spending, but future potential income can't be spent till you have it.
    We currently don't have it and we already have the bills for it.
    Then we'll just borrow it and increase the taxes further to cover the additional amount + interest. Simple, if you get out of the credit-card mindset and view money as a fluid transfer of opportunity from one party to another.

    We should have a discussion on if raising taxes would increase total income. It should not be assumed that raising taxes would automatically raise revenue.
    OK, I'll bite: how does not increasing taxes not result in an increase in total income?

    JJ: The blackmail was note was because you keep linking the idea to the current shutdown. In doing so you have made it explicit that such a prioritized list would used in future shutdowns until there is only a bare government left. Which of course, is what the right-wing have been wanting to do for decades.
    That doesn't seem like a sound conclusion, because this point is based on the income. So the gov would be as large as whatever the current income stream was.(if it was projected forward)
    The only way you would get such an implication is if the income went down.
    Well, my point here is not based on your scenario. It is about the politics of the situation, which is has been proven sound. There is no way such a discussion can take place until the GOP changes.

    JJ: Therefore, to even have such a discussion would just be helping you destroy the last few decades of social progress and help to the poor and needy.
    Your two premises are flawed and thus so is your conclusion.
    Not really. My first is not yet determined and the second you have failed to rebut directly. So the conclusion is not yet determined.

    As I told GP several posts back.. there are 400k military jobs that are included in this discussion.
    Good. Then did you factor this into the equation as far as reducing the other government programs?

    If it is your reasoning for not wanting to discuss spending side budgeting.. It probably is inside the scope of the thread.
    .. but maybe your right.
    Well, I don't mind discussing spending side budgeting but as I said, you'd linked to a blackmail scenario and that's an instant spoiler.

    Other than that is it right that your objection is that we should not discuss spending side budget issues because we can't balance the budget anyway?
    IMO that is fiscally suicidal thinking.
    No, it's not that we can't. It's just that I'm not convinced that we necessarily need to.

  18. #77
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    8,828
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Mind Trapped By: Gov shut down, bad in what way?

    Quote Originally Posted by JJ
    Then we'll just borrow it and increase the taxes further to cover the additional amount + interest. Simple, if you get out of the credit-card mindset and view money as a fluid transfer of opportunity from one party to another.
    Taxation is a transfer of opportunity from one party to another, borrowing is not.
    The credit card example is exactly right and should not be tossed out because it doesn't "sound good".

    Quote Originally Posted by JJ
    OK, I'll bite: how does not increasing taxes not result in an increase in total income?
    You have heard of the Laffer Curve?
    http://www.laffercenter.com/supply-s.../laffer-curve/

    Basically, taxation effects behavior. If you tax too much then the behavior it produces will result in less total income.

    Quote Originally Posted by JJ
    Well, my point here is not based on your scenario. It is about the politics of the situation, which is has been proven sound. There is no way such a discussion can take place until the GOP changes.
    Your eagerness to blaim one side is misguided, both parties have fed this problem.
    Still the point that washington must change is true. That is not however a valid reason to not desire that they have the conversation.
    Because as we gt into it, beyond if the converstion should be had, then the pricniples it should follow would also apply.


    Quote Originally Posted by JJ
    Not really. My first is not yet determined and the second you have failed to rebut directly. So the conclusion is not yet determined.
    The two points I was refering to, were. (and there was actualy 3 of them.. I just can't count)
    1) we should tax more to bring in more revinew.
    2) Black-mail is occuring and is bad.
    3) Social progress would be destroyed and hamr the poor.
    Conclusion - The conversation should never occure

    1) It is not certain that increasing taxes would increase revinew.
    2) & 3) Given the truth of 2 and 3 (which I would dispute), it doesn't follow that we should NEVER have this conversation.

    Your conclusion doesn't follow from the premises.

    Quote Originally Posted by JJ
    Good. Then did you factor this into the equation as far as reducing the other government programs?
    What do you mean?

    Quote Originally Posted by JJ
    Well, I don't mind discussing spending side budgeting but as I said, you'd linked to a blackmail scenario and that's an instant spoiler.
    I disagree, as it is the job of the house to black-mail the gov in this way. That is why it was given the power of the purse.
    That IS the power of the purse. Your calling it black-mail to paint it in a negative light, however that is the very nature of the power they wield.

    Quote Originally Posted by JJ
    No, it's not that we can't. It's just that I'm not convinced that we necessarily need to.
    Why not?

    Don't you realize that at the very lease deficit spending is the most inefficient way to transfer wealth from one party to the next, because an ever increasing portion is lost to interest?
    To serve man.

  19. #78
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    2,765
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Mind Trapped By: Gov shut down, bad in what way?

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    2) Black-mail is occuring and is bad.
    Before we continue with the thread, I would like you to transfer $5000 to a private paypal account.

  20. #79
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    8,828
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Mind Trapped By: Gov shut down, bad in what way?

    Quote Originally Posted by JJ
    Before we continue with the thread, I would like you to transfer $5000 to a private paypal account.
    I don't think that counts as black mail .. does it?

    Quote Originally Posted by BLACKMAIL DEFINED
    a. Extortion of money or something else of value from a person by the threat of exposing a criminal act or discreditable information.
    http://www.thefreedictionary.com/blackmail

    ---Still the proper use of English words and their meanings aside.
    Is the nature of your power and control over me in relation to money at all? If not, then you have provided a false analogy.

    ...or maybe your just asking for money just for the heck of it.
    In which case, as soon as my lotto ticket numbers match up.. sure.
    To serve man.

  21. #80
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    2,765
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Mind Trapped By: Gov shut down, bad in what way?

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    I don't think that counts as black mail .. does it?

    http://www.thefreedictionary.com/blackmail

    ---Still the proper use of English words and their meanings aside.
    Is the nature of your power and control over me in relation to money at all? If not, then you have provided a false analogy.

    ...or maybe your just asking for money just for the heck of it.
    In which case, as soon as my lotto ticket numbers match up.. sure.
    Hmm. You're right, it's really hostage taking. Everything else still applies - you still need to transfer the money before the thread can continue.

 

 
Page 4 of 15 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 14 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 12
    Last Post: April 26th, 2013, 11:18 PM
  2. Replies: 32
    Last Post: November 27th, 2012, 08:34 AM
  3. Mind Trapped in a dream #1
    By MindTrap028 in forum General Debate
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: March 13th, 2008, 01:34 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •