Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Neodemocracy on the rise (part 1) More

Neodemocracy on the rise (part 1)

Comments Filter:
  • ...was a spleen dump of the grandest tradition. Best read with a New York accent.[1]
    The idea of the Democrats pulling a flanking movement and thugging the conservative ground is interesting, but the Dems would have to shed the AFL-CIO and some of their more Socialist habits to support it.
    Of course, load-shedding both parties is an even more interesting idea, but that would likely reveal the fact that they're really just fronts for the rich.

    [1] But really, Virginia did do a lot to support the Revolution
    • the Dems would have to shed the AFL-CIO and some of their more Socialist habits to support it.

      Not really though. True fiscal conservatism would leave us with money to spend on the right social programs. The only reason our favorite social programs are becoming too expensive is because the neocons want them to be too expensive.

      We could embrace conservatism, our social safety net, and maybe still have cash left over for socialized medicine. If we didn't have to worry about all these twisted fucks voting ag
    • Union support need not conflict with budgetary conservatism. The government doesn't have to spend much money to maintain existing law: "employers must allow labor unions". That's all.

      But you're right about old baggage. Kerry's platform was loaded with "spend X million on this, Y million on that, blah blah blah", just like every Dem in the past 40 years. It all needs to go.

      Send that money straight back to the states. If some want huge social welfare systems, fine, see how long they're willing to pay for it

      • Send that money straight back to the states. If some want huge social welfare systems, fine, see how long they're willing to pay for it. If others prefer fiscal darwinism, let them try, see if they can survive media sob stories about starving homeless children.

        If we think that a hierarchy of federal/state/local government is a Good Thing, then implementing the social programs at the federal level seems to flatten the hierarchy; Congress is pulled into weedy detail, when we could sure use a closer eye on

        • reasons for keeping things located at the federal level is that the Fed controls the money, and can spend more readily when the money isn't there

          True... but are you saying that this ability to spend non-existent money is a good thing or a bad thing?

          I side with Keynes: deficit jobs programs during a downturn, pay it all back when things improve. I really wish our dear leaders could remember that second part.

          • I really wish our dear leaders could remember that second part.

            Oh, I wouldn't accuse them of Alzheimer's.
            It's really about incentivization; leadership is incentivized to acquire, exercise, and retain power.
            They are bent, by virtue of our 18th century constitution's election frequencies, towards tactical thinking.
            How, then, can the electorate reward strategic thinking in its leaders?
            We need to boo heavily when campaigns devolve into ad hominem attacks--we all lose.
            We need to have a trusted review sou

Slashdot Top Deals

The amount of beauty required launch 1 ship = 1 Millihelen

Close