LogFAQs > #924805742

Balrog0 posted...

That's crazy dude. Like try to get outside your own personal biases here.

What bias would that be? You referred to partisanship in your next post as well. My comment that you initially took issue with was, "I dont see how politics could be anything other than scummy, particularly when a government gets to be as massive as ours." I'm not underestimating how bad local politics can get. I'm sure the more power that local government has in its' respective region will tend to make it worse. I just think you're underestimating how bad it gets at the federal level where trillions are at stake. The state government using the war on drugs as a way to keep private state prisons populated is very bad. The military industrial complex staging color revolutions around the world is worse, and more money is at stake, which means that bigger players (Lockheed Martin, etc.) are pulling the strings. But when I bring this up you either call it a non sequitur or say that it doesn't follow, and I honestly don't see where the disconnect for you is.

I did literally ask you to do this in asking how it follows that a bigger government means elected officials are more corrupt. No one is stopping you from explaining and if anything I think. I've been more tolerant of your non-explanatory insistence than anyone else who doesn't already agree with you would be.

The ability to fund social programs and endless military campaigns via debt enables the government to pander to multiple interests at once while minimizing costs in the present. The only reason we can pay for old age entitlements, welfare, constant war, bases all over the world, and a bloated government bureaucracy is through debt. This means that future generations are getting the bill for present pandering. This would not be politically possible otherwise. The war in Afganistan for example would have ended 10+ years ago if it caused an obvious, temporary tax hike because voters would have asked what they have to gain from it long ago. The Fed keeps rates low, which makes debt cheap. Japan in an extreme example because if they somehow ended up with significant inflation and the BOJ had to increase rates, before long the Japanese government would spend 100% of tax revenue on debt servicing costs which would lead to default or hyperinflation. The central bank is an enabler of government excess. Politicians can use deficit spending to create the illusion of infinite resources. When voters buy into that lie, it appears cruel to demand a decrease in social spending. You yourself said that I wanted poor single moms to die in another topic. Of course when the government runs out of money and the illusion created through cheap credit is gone, the first people to get hurt will be the most vulnerable people such as poor single moms.

I agree, that's why I posted more than just that. I told you the things I thought were more relevant than the ability to deficit finance social programs through monetary policy.

The rest of your post that I didn't quote was fine, it just wasn't an argument against my point. Members of 3rd parties use the arguments you posted to encourage more activity at the local level all the time.
---

"Those who need leaders are not qualified to choose them." -Michael Malice