2012 Election thread

[Osprey 199]

Just so I'm not pigeonholed into any party, I will divulge that I have never voted. I have always felt that I couldn't vote for someone simply because they are better than he alternative.

 

That being said, I am not politically ignorant. I have followed politics for a long time, and I came to the conclusion about four years ago that nothing will save this federal government. It is destined to collapse. It is not functioning well enough to be of use much longer, and I think within fifteen years it will not exist. We can't fix it. It's not unlike the Magic-D12 situation, in some ways (obviously not a literal comparison). Someone on here mentioned that we couldn't trade away our veteran workers and rebuild through the draft. That's true, but we can dump our old government and rebuild through smaller, more localized governments(like states, except with power to actually govern rather than simply follow the fed).

 

My assumptions: In twenty years, the American way of life will not be near as absurd as it is now; mostly because we can't afford it for that much longer. Technological growth in some areas will probably slow down, because we won't be able to afford it much longer. Housing will be more collectivized, with more people staying in one household. The federal government will not exist outside of military presence.

 

We read too much into economic booms and panic too hard at economic downturns. Thus we have painted ourselves into a corner by destroying what once needed only small changes here and there, and turning it into something unsalvageable.

 

I'm a small government guy, but I don't even mean taxes, necessarily. I mean oversight. Tax whatever is necessary, but the bigger the boat, the more leaks you're gonna have.

 

Pragmatic and insightful. Though a little saddening.

 

I personally welcome a decentralized approach, a more localized "Federation of Regions" if you will.

[Secretly Space Jesus 670]

The federal government will not exist outside of military presence {in twenty years}.

 

 

I've read a lot of absolutely insane things on this board.

 

This might top all of them.

[Secretly Space Jesus 670]

Speaking of insane things, holy ****:

 

As he says, Newt Gingrich thinks grandiose thoughts. Today’s pitch to Florida’s Space Coast: a lunar base within the next eight years.“By the end of my second term we will have the first permanent base on the moon and it will be American,” he said. According to Newt, the base would be used for “science, tourism, and manufacturing” and create a “robust industry” modeled on the airline business in the 20th century.

 

 

 

 

[Justin Jaudon 221]

I've read a lot of absolutely insane things on this board.

 

This might top all of them.

 

 

I'm probably going to regret even opening this can, but how exactly is this insane?

 

I'm not saying you have to agree that it's even likely, but "insane" insinuates that it would be outside rational thinking. I don't think that the idea of a large wealthy government collapsing due to economic failure is even far-fetched. It seems inevitable, looking through history, that a country this size will go through a radical, if not revolutionary change at some point. Why not soon? Because it's inconvenient and will probably not be a pleasant experience? I doubt the fates care much what we think of their work.

 

Personally, I think once the dust settles, we will be happier for it. More localized governments will be able to better understand local job markets and social needs, so I think the reaction time to economic downfall will be much swifter.

 

I'm not trying to get into all the things I think would be better. My point is that I would like to hear a polite explanation of why this concept is lacking a base in reality.

[Secretly Space Jesus 670]

You stated that the federal government, with the sole exception of the military for some reason, will completely disappear in the next 20 years, and the nature of what you describe implies that this will most likely happen peacefully and that nothing will replace it.

 

Instead, we'd turn into a confederation of loosely affiliated independent states, but we'd inexplicably still have a centralized, national military that was simultaneously beholden to absolutely no one, but the country would somehow still not become a military dictatorship.

 

That would be unprecedented in the course of human history. So yes: "insane" is absolutely the correct word here.

 

Also, if there's no federal government then who is paying for the military? Are soldiers working pro-bono in the future?

 

Nearly every major collapse by a powerful country's government in the course of history as been due to either revolution or invasion, and in either case, a new centralized power structure has replaced the previous government.

 

Also, why on Earth would you think individual states, with no federal backing of any kind, would be better equipped to handle problems than a federal government would? Do you realize how much more money the Rocky Mountain and midwestern states get in Federal tax money than they're putting in? Most of those states are too sparsley populated to come up with the tax revenue to have any impact on anything in a meaningful way during a crisis.

 

Yeah: California, Texas, New York, Florida, Massachussetts... THOSE states would love a system like that, since they're putting a lot more into the system than they're getting back(particularly California, who gets back less than $.70 for every dollar they put in), but your new plan for a government just screwed Wyoming over something awful.

 

Not to mention: who's making sure there isn't rat-poison in my food? Who is tracking criminals once they cross state lines? Who is regulating inter-state commerce? Who is making sure that terrorists aren't smuggling weapons into the country? Does NASA still exist? What about the EPA? What about the National Parks? Do they still exist? Who's repairing the interstate highways? Who is providing subsidies for our energy sources to make sure power stays affordable?

[jec 427]

Speaking of insane things, holy ****:

 

[/size][/font]

 

 

 

hahahaha that' the most awesome thing ever. Based on the airline business? What, are people going to visit friends and family on the moon? Go on business trips to the moon? Will there be a Sea World on the moon?

 

That's like something you might see on the Onion.

[Berto 338]

He must have gotten drunk after the debate and watched the movie Moon starring Sam Rockwell.

 

I find it funny that any person running for anything would make statements like that when this country currently has no way of even sending astronauts into space at this point in time. We basically rely on Russia to hitch us a ride to the space station. A base on the moon and manned missions to Mars are realistic endeavors, they just won't be in the cards for probably at least 3-4 decades.

 

This is just typical Republican dick swagger.

[Secretly Space Jesus 670]

He must have gotten drunk after the debate and watched the movie Moon starring Sam Rockwell.

 

 

In Gingrich's defense, that movie is awesome.

[Captain Hi-Top 791]

He must have gotten drunk after the debate and watched the movie Moon starring Sam Rockwell.

 

I find it funny that any person running for anything would make statements like that when this country currently has no way of even sending astronauts into space at this point in time. We basically rely on Russia to hitch us a ride to the space station. A base on the moon and manned missions to Mars are realistic endeavors, they just won't be in the cards for probably at least 3-4 decades.

 

This is just typical Republican dick swagger.

 

While I think his time frame is a bit optimistic, his goal of incentive driven private development should yield drastically different results in terms of the quickness with which things happen. I do like the idea in general.

[Justin Jaudon 221]

You stated that the federal government, with the sole exception of the military for some reason, will completely disappear in the next 20 years, and the nature of what you describe implies that this will most likely happen peacefully and that nothing will replace it.

 

Instead, we'd turn into a confederation of loosely affiliated independent states, but we'd inexplicably still have a centralized, national military that was simultaneously beholden to absolutely no one, but the country would somehow still not become a military dictatorship.

 

That would be unprecedented in the course of human history. So yes: "insane" is absolutely the correct word here.

 

Also, if there's no federal government then who is paying for the military? Are soldiers working pro-bono in the future?

 

Nearly every major collapse by a powerful country's government in the course of history as been due to either revolution or invasion, and in either case, a new centralized power structure has replaced the previous government.

 

Also, why on Earth would you think individual states, with no federal backing of any kind, would be better equipped to handle problems than a federal government would? Do you realize how much more money the Rocky Mountain and midwestern states get in Federal tax money than they're putting in? Most of those states are too sparsley populated to come up with the tax revenue to have any impact on anything in a meaningful way during a crisis.

 

Yeah: California, Texas, New York, Florida, Massachussetts... THOSE states would love a system like that, since they're putting a lot more into the system than they're getting back(particularly California, who gets back less than $.70 for every dollar they put in), but your new plan for a government just screwed Wyoming over something awful.

 

Not to mention: who's making sure there isn't rat-poison in my food? Who is tracking criminals once they cross state lines? Who is regulating inter-state commerce? Who is making sure that terrorists aren't smuggling weapons into the country? Does NASA still exist? What about the EPA? What about the National Parks? Do they still exist? Who's repairing the interstate highways? Who is providing subsidies for our energy sources to make sure power stays affordable?

 

Sigh... Ok here goes. I should have explained that the federal military, in this scenario, would not be what it is today. I thought that was obvious, but, I'll explain more if it's necessary. Basically,we would have individual militaries somewhat beholden to one another, with funding from the individual states' taxes for whatever oversight and facilities are needed. It has been done before where military operations have been supported by more than one country. In fact, that's usually the way it works everywhere but here.

 

But I didn't explain, that before, so I'm sorry.

 

As for the rest of your comments: I never implied this would be totally peaceful. I don't think it will be; sadly, people will die, there will be some amount of chaos and violence. I don't expect full on revolution, but that's more because I think americans would rather let politicians legislate a revolution. It's just the way we do things these days. Still, I could be wrong; revolution on a massive scale could happen. But whatever it is, it will be something somewhat new. Yet not entirely new. You need to brush up on your history. Plenty of small European nations separated themselves from parent nations, and not all were terribly violent in the achievement. Canada separated itself from Great Britain without much violence. In fact, other than the US and a couple of other exceptions, the fall of the British Empire was relatively peaceful. The most glaring example, however, is the Russian Revolution. While it was called revolution, the death toll was quite low until the new government actually took over, and that death toll was mostly because they had to control that huge country, so the crazy people leading the new government started assassinating anyone they thought might try to stir up the old regime. That would be difficult to recreate in a legislated national dissolution, as it would be seen as legally done, the will of the people. And honestly, most Americans can't even be bothered to vote anymore, much less try to form a military counter-revolution. In the end, yes, it would be something somewhat new, as I can't think of a large country dissolving itself in this way before, but not entirely new, as it is only a step further than what we have seen elsewhere before (and nearly happened here, 150 years ago).

 

What I find amusing is that you seem to think that the federal government can afford to support the Wyomings and other such states. Where do you think al this national debt comes from? My point is that we won't have a choice. If they are too sparsely populated, then how much help will they need? If there're not enough people to support their own population... Wait a minute... Are you saying that a country needs to be big to be self-sufficient? If there is no one in these states, who are we paying so much to? One thing the federal government likes to do in these places is pay people not to farm. Yep, that's crazy. Actively keeping people from working. Their economic downturns and crises would be less tied to Wall Street and more to production levels of agriculture and industry.

 

I think heavily populated states would have their own set of problems under this scenario. While the less populated states would be forced to grow, the more populated ones would probably shrink a little, as the new job opportunities would bring people into the smaller states. That wouldn't be the problem, though. They would need to become more productive, as it would be difficult to continue such consumerist economies.

 

As I said in my first post, the American way of life will change.

 

What bothers me is that you seem to think that the American way of doing things is the only way. Who keeps the rat poison out of German food, or British, or Yugoslavian? They are all in the same continent, they all buy stuff from each other. They are separate countries. What is hard to grasp, here? NASA? Really? Why do I care? I'm confused as to why these things can't be replaced more locally.

 

As to why I believe a localized government would be more efficient, if it is not obvious, I'll explain... Wait... I already did in my first post. And then clarified further already, above. Smaller governments will be less prone to paying millions of dollars to see if a shrimp can run on a treadmill, I would think. Smaller governments would be better able to recognize the specific needs of their region. Imagine what your state government could do with your federal taxes. If you're in a large population, they could stop supporting the smaller ones and spend more on local social projects. Or even... Gasp... lower your overall taxes. If you're in a smaller population, they may not have the luxury of all the social programs at first. Time would be needed to modernize and grow. During that time, taxes and tariffs would exist in more abundance to exported agricultural goods, bringing food prices down locally. Housing prices are already low in these places.

 

It goes on and on. The other thing that bothers me is that you argued with very little of what I said. You made assumptions about what I said, then argued with your own assumptions.

 

I want to commend you, though, for your politeness in the response. I appreciate debate. I abhor rudeness.

[TheREALBrooksThompson 157]

or Yugoslavian?

 

I think it's about time to update your atlas.

[Secretly Space Jesus 670]

The most glaring example, however, is the Russian Revolution. While it was called revolution, the death toll was quite low until the new government actually took over, and that death toll was mostly because they had to control that huge country, so the crazy people leading the new government started assassinating anyone they thought might try to stir up the old regime.

 

 

I'll address your full post later, but this is the most bafflingly inaccurate thing I've ever seen.

 

750,000 people died during the Russian civil war. That's over 75% more than the number of Americans who died during World War 2.