$98 per barrel oil

Wolfgang Schwanke wrote:
Bob Noel wrote in
:

In article , Wolfgang Schwanke
wrote:

From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates
promising the most benefits from the public treasury,
The argument is flawed because it rests on a number of wrong
assumptions.
such as?

1. That the majority of voters will decide on egoistic motivations over
other considerations

This assumption seems to hold true most of the time. What evidence do
you have that it is a wrong assumption?

2. That politicians actually do what they promise before elections

I don't think it assumes that at all. In reality, the politicians tend
to do even more than they promise when it comes to spending money.


3. That pro-welfare policies will always be implemented without also
rising the taxes

I don't see where this assumption is present, but even it it was
present, it still supports the trend towards a collapse as rising taxes
will eventually kill the economy and bankrupt the nation.

Matt

Matt Whiting wrote in
:

Wolfgang Schwanke wrote:
Matt Whiting wrote
in :

Scottish professor Sir Alex Fraser Tytler (1714-1778) of the
University of Edinburgh: "A democracy cannot exist as a permanent
form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover they
can vote themselves largess from the public treasury.

From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates
promising the most benefits from the public treasury,

The argument is flawed because it rests on a number of wrong
assumptions.

Such as? In any event, the trend in the USA is looking very much like
this forecast.


No, it isn't

Bertie

"F. Baum" wrote in message
ups.com...
On Nov 10, 11:49 pm, "Matt W. Barrow"
wrote:

And two or three years from now, when gas is $5 a gallon, and 100LL, if
available at all, will be $7, I'm sure he'll have some more alibi when
Shrillary and the Dem's run up the price and gas lines return with a
vengeance.- Hide quoted text -
MXMatt, How are things at the mental hospital ? I see you have been
good and earned some internet priveleges today. Good to hear from you.

I see you're the same half-literate CS as always.

Better dash, I hear your mommy calling.

"Nomen Nescio" wrote in message
...
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

From: Jay Honeck

What makes me sick is that both the Democrats and the Republicans
(formerly the "balanced budget champions" of my youth) now run up the
deficit as a matter of course, but feel it necessary to blame each
other for the problem. Actually, the only difference between the two
parties is the *reason* they run up the debt. Democrats blame the
war, Republicans blame "entitlements" -- but neither side has ever
seen a tax they didn't adore, or a spending program they wouldn't hump
dry.

Yep. Both parties play the "Good cop...Bad cop" game against the citizen.
What people aren't supposed to notice is that they're both COPS.
The Republicans and Democrats only care about two things.
1) They get reelected and keep their job.
2) Everyone else in Congress is either a Democrat or Republican.

I say throw them all out, and start over.

I'm with you.
I'd much prefer a government in the hands of inexperienced, but
intelligent
and motivated individuals than the self serving hacks who have perfected
the art of screwing the American people.

Sadly, the stupid and lazy type is dominating the voter base on an
exponentially
increasing level. "Screw the rich" (which, btw, has become "anybody
actually working
to better their position in life") and "Save the idiot" are all you have
to say to win an
election.

Hear! Hear!

I once though my retirement would be 20 acres in Florida and a
conservative
portfolio. Now, it's looking more like a villa in Costa Rica and a Swiss
bank
account.

Ditto!

In article , Wolfgang Schwanke
wrote:

Matt Whiting wrote in
:

Wolfgang Schwanke wrote:
Bob Noel wrote in
:

In article , Wolfgang Schwanke
wrote:

From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates
promising the most benefits from the public treasury,
The argument is flawed because it rests on a number of wrong
assumptions.
such as?

1. That the majority of voters will decide on egoistic motivations
over other considerations

This assumption seems to hold true most of the time. What evidence do
you have that it is a wrong assumption?

First the burden of proof is on those who claim a specific behaviour,
not those who disclaim it.

True. But you should be able to defend your own assertions made
in an effort to disclaim an assertion.



Anyway I think I have evidence that it doesn't hold true, at least not
all of the time: Voters have often and repeatedly voted for parties who
advocate welfare cuts.

The arguement doesn't preclude some voters doing so, but it does
depend on the *majority* doing so more often than not.

Look at how the GOP politicians have been vilified for suggesting
smaller increases.


2. That politicians actually do what they promise before elections

I don't think it assumes that at all.

Yes it does. Even if 1. were true, if the politicians don't implement
the welfare rises they promised earlier, it has no effect.

Entitlements have been going up and up and up in the USA. Cripes, any
so-called cuts have actually been increases smaller than the gimme crowd
wanted.


In reality, the politicians tend
to do even more than they promise when it comes to spending money.

This is not true here .

Why do you think "entitlements" in the USA have been going up every year?



3. That pro-welfare policies will always be implemented without also
rising the taxes

I don't see where this assumption is present,

If spending and taxes rise evenly, there's no unbalanced budget, so no
problem.

ouch. Of course there is a problem. There isn't an inexhaustable amount
of taxable income. duh


but even it it was
present, it still supports the trend towards a collapse as rising taxes
will eventually kill the economy and bankrupt the nation.

Oh no. It's not a given that high taxes kill the economy. Example the
Scandinavian countries: Generous welfare systems, excruciatingly high
taxes (even by European standards), strong economies. Has worked for
generations and shows no sign of caving in.

"generations"? They had a great economy through the two world wars did they?

You need to think on a longer scale. No one is suggesting that a collaspe
will happen in just a few years.

--
Bob Noel
(goodness, please trim replies!!!)

Wolfgang Schwanke wrote:
Matt Whiting wrote in
:

Wolfgang Schwanke wrote:
Bob Noel wrote in
:

In article , Wolfgang Schwanke
wrote:

From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates
promising the most benefits from the public treasury,
The argument is flawed because it rests on a number of wrong
assumptions.
such as?
1. That the majority of voters will decide on egoistic motivations
over other considerations
This assumption seems to hold true most of the time. What evidence do
you have that it is a wrong assumption?

First the burden of proof is on those who claim a specific behaviour,
not those who disclaim it.

Anyway I think I have evidence that it doesn't hold true, at least not
all of the time: Voters have often and repeatedly voted for parties who
advocate welfare cuts.

That supports the assumption. Since the majority of the population is
not (yet, anyway) on welfare, voting for cuts in welfare is voting in
their own self-interest. Thanks for providing me an example.


2. That politicians actually do what they promise before elections
I don't think it assumes that at all.

Yes it does. Even if 1. were true, if the politicians don't implement
the welfare rises they promised earlier, it has no effect.

In reality, the politicians tend
to do even more than they promise when it comes to spending money.

This is not true here .

I'm speaking in the context of the USA which I believe was the context
of Jay's original post.


3. That pro-welfare policies will always be implemented without also
rising the taxes
I don't see where this assumption is present,

If spending and taxes rise evenly, there's no unbalanced budget, so no
problem.

There will be as you can only raise taxes so far. There is an upper
limit above which you no longer have a democracy and thus the original
argument holds. Once you become communist or socialist than the
original assertion is complete.


but even it it was
present, it still supports the trend towards a collapse as rising taxes
will eventually kill the economy and bankrupt the nation.

Oh no. It's not a given that high taxes kill the economy. Example the
Scandinavian countries: Generous welfare systems, excruciatingly high
taxes (even by European standards), strong economies. Has worked for
generations and shows no sign of caving in.

I don't consider the Scandinavian countries to be bastion of a great
economy, but maybe.... I seldom see them on any list of economic
significance. I'm also not terribly familiar with their governmental
systems. Are they true democracies?

Matt

Bob Noel wrote in
:



"generations"? They had a great economy through the two world wars
did they?


they did, actually.

"Wolfgang Schwanke" wrote

You're still working on the assumption that welfare is a problem. It
might be badly constructed here and there, but its existance as such is
a benefit. It's really a necessity to create a somewhat evenly balanced
wealth across the entire population, and to stabilise society including
the economy. Without it there's risk of riots, revolutions or other
turmoil.

Where the hell did I put my L00n mallet? Where is that damn thing when you
need it most?
--
Jim (stay the hell over there) in NC
--
Jim in NC

Wolfgang Schwanke wrote:
"Gig 601XL Builder" wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net wrote in
:

The distances here are just plain longer than what you are dealing
with in Europe.

Not really. Europe as a continent is a bit larger than the USA.

The straight line distance between Paris and Berlin
~450 miles. In the US that would get you from New York to Detroit.

How about Madrid - Moscow or Athens - Tromsø?

Well if you are going to play that game then you have to take Mexico and
Canada into the mix here. But I was giving you the benefit of counting EU
nations. If you'd like we could reduce the conversation to individual
countries on both sides.



To
get to Los Angles you'd have to go another 1900 miles. Which is
further than the distance from either the Northern tip of Denmark to
the Southern end of Italy or from Gibralter to the Polish border.

Quite. But Europe is a bit larger than the examples you chose.

One factor is that people tend to live their lives within one country,
they don't really dash across the entire continent that much, and that
contributes to overall shorter journey times. But that is changing as
national borders become less relevant.


Exactly. And I gave you the benefit of considering the EU as a country.


Would it be nice to have electric rail serving the majority of the
US, hell yes, but after WWII we decided a huge highway system would
be the way to go

Nothing wrong with that as such, but smashing the railway system at
the same time (which AFAIK was better then than today, correct me if
I'm wrong) wasn't really a good idea.

and it served us well and help make the US the worlds
largest economy.

I don't know about that, but neglecting the rail system certainly
wasn't economically sound.


It certainly was at the time.



But trying to install an electric rail system now
would be next to impossible.

It would take a huge effort comparable to the buildup of the highway
system, but why impossible?


We could probably have scheduled flight to Mars for the cost.


And there is one big plus to highways over rail. We don't grind to a
halt every time a single union goes out on strike.

He Well they've stopped for the moment.


For the moment. They probably already have the next strike date on their
calenders.

They started building their welfare system in the late 19th/early 20th
century. At that time they were still comparatively poor as their
economies were mostly agricultural. They got rich after WW2, and used
that money to massively expand their welfare systems. The expansion
stopped with the recessions in the 1990s and 2000s, so did the tax
rises. Their budgets are now at equilibrium, and the economy is going
strong once again.

The Western European welfare economies could only exist because they
lived under the umbrella of America's protection from the Soviet
Union. Not
having to spend money on self-defense is a wonderful thing, but don't
count
on it lasting for too many more "generations" -- cuz we're broke.

You're still working on the assumption that welfare is a problem. It
might be badly constructed here and there, but its existance as such is
a benefit. It's really a necessity to create a somewhat evenly balanced
wealth across the entire population, and to stabilise society including
the economy. Without it there's risk of riots, revolutions or other
turmoil.

Two things have destroyed the United States in my lifetime. Topping
the
list is out-of-control spending on "entitlements", which has caused
the
exponential growth of the bureacracy.

At some point (and I can't pinpoint the precise date) the 'crats in
the US
realized that it was THEY who were really in control of our
government.
Politicians would come and go like a summer breeze, but the civil
"servants"
(Ha! What a misnomer!) could be "in office" forever. Because of
incredibly
lucrative union contracts, they couldn't be fired, and they built mini-
empires of
power around themselves, such that they have become an ever-expanding
parasitic growth on the country.

Worse than the financial impact of this development has been the
psychological
impact on Americans. After years of indoctrination in our bureacrat-
controlled
schools, the majority of Americans now believe that they are
"entitled" to cradle-
to-grave service from their government. This attitude, when combined
with the
self-sustaining, ever-expanding bureacracy, has created a situation
from which
there is seemingly no end in sight.

When Hillary is elected president next fall the transformation to a
welfare state
will be complete. The Nanny State will be unstoppable, and the
decline and fall
of the US will be as inevitable as the spring rains in Iowa.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"