debt ceiling deal..... does trumps grassroots actually want to shut the gov down?

[Bone]

@HMS_Irruncible

You’re concerned about the government misusing its monopoly of force, but funding its forcefulness is the top 2 of 4 items you’re concerned with. You prioritize funding of the thing you claim to fear. How is this not contradictory?

To be contradictory regarding the use of force, I’d have to be opposed to the use of force all together and simultaneously want to fund/support it. Concern about something isn’t contradictory to the idea of recognizing its necessity. I don’t think contradictory is an accurate descriptor here.

[HMS_Irruncible]

[quote=“Bone, post:62, topic:795701”]

To be contradictory regarding the use of force, I’d have to be opposed to the use of force all together and simultaneously want to fund/support it. Concern about something isn’t contradictory to the idea of recognizing its necessity. I When you say you fear the abuse of force above all else, but you prioritize its funding above all else, that’s clearly contradictory. Anything else is mental gymnastics.

[Bone]

@HMS_Irruncible

When you say you fear the abuse of force above all else, but you prioritize its funding above all else, that’s clearly contradictory. Anything else is mental gymnastics.

I’m firmly against nuclear war in almost all circumstance, and I also think it’s necessary that the US maintain a nuclear arsenal. Is that also contradictory to you?

I don’t agree with your conclusion in that it’s not contradictory to simultaneously be concerned with the abuse of force, and recognize the necessity of force in some circumstances. I’m okay with disagreeing.

[Ravenman]

@HurricaneDitka

Which response are you referring to? the stimulus bill? I wouldn’t have minded if that never happened.

Both TARP and the stimulus would never have happened.

If you would have preferred the stimulus not have happened, that’s fine. But it is an utterly uncontroversial opinion among economists that the stimulus worked and produced benefits that exceeded the costs. Same with TARP.

And since I’m sure you’re about to dismiss these economists as a bunch of lefties, I will point out that the same group doesn’t think a $15 minimum wage is a good idea, by a pretty substantial margin.

[Ravenman]

@Bone

And it’s not like the concept of tiered importance is foreign to our system of government. We recognize some decisions of greater import and thus require it.

So, to this end, if we took your suggestion that, say, responding to an economic crisis should only be done if 2/3rds or 3/4ths of politicians agree to do so; would you then propose that all constitutional amendments must be subject to a unanimous vote?

[HMS_Irruncible]

@Bone

I’m firmly against nuclear war in almost all circumstance, and I also think it’s necessary that the US maintain a nuclear arsenal. Is that also contradictory to you?

This analogy only makes it more absurd. You prioritize funding the government’s capacity for wielding force, because this deters government abuse of force? How does that work?

[Bone]

@Ravenman

So, to this end, if we took your suggestion that, say, responding to an economic crisis should only be done if 2/3rds or 3/4ths of politicians agree to do so; would you then propose that all constitutional amendments must be subject to a unanimous vote?

I think those are levels of details that would depend on circumstance. In general I wouldn’t be opposed if constitutional amendment required greater levels of support than simple legislation. Unanimous is at one end of the spectrum, but not necessarily the only option that meets that general criteria.

@HMS_Irruncible

This analogy only makes it more absurd. You prioritize funding the government’s capacity for wielding force, because this deters government abuse of force? How does that work?

I think we’re talking past each other.