If this was law in the US, every member of the Senate and House Finance Committees of the last 80 years deserves thrown into maximum security prison without possibility of parole.
Double sentences for those who crafted the poorly planned out welfare state programs. They are the worst offenders in US fiscal woes.
"Allah may guide their bullets, but Jesus helps those who aim down the sights."Hmmm... Hard to say. Politicians are voted by the general public and not just a select bunch of shareholders, so arguably the democratic process should be its own form of accountability
I'm tempted to just say 'voter beware'.
edited 11th Jun '11 7:37:35 AM by joeyjojo
hashtagsarestupidSince when is being bad at your job a crime?
"It takes an idiot to do cool things, that's why it's cool" - Haruhara HarukoDepends on the extent of how bad you are.
Well, the end justifies the mean. If GB spent all that 90bn on NHS, Education, and other socially rewarding stuff, then it's sorta mitigated. If it was spent on equipping soldiers... maybe. If it was buying stuff from unstable dictators, I call dibs on being the loudspeaker of the angry mob.
Double sentences for those who crafted the poorly planned out welfare state programs. They are the worst offenders in US fiscal woes.
What about the people who authorized spending for two wars while at the same time as cutting taxes for the top brackets?
"If this was law in the US, every member of the Senate and House Finance Committees of the last 80 years deserves thrown into maximum security prison without possibility of parole. "
And you know what? Most people would be very happy.
This is going to be a fun thread.
@Tom: You forgot military spending. Those /3/ make up the majority of US fiscal woes due to bad design of spending on otherwise good ideas.
^ While there are indeed wasteful military programs, a fiscally ignorant press feeding an even more fiscally ignorant public audience blows the actual state of affairs out of proportion. A good bit of what's lumped under "waste" is often ignoring factors that are applicable to military hardware but not civilian equivalents.
This being OTC, I'll leave off speculation as to why such numbers are reported as they are, often without context being provided.
As for the subject (again, OTC), I'm not sure if they should without more thought given to the issue than I have the desire to give at the moment, but politicians people being who they are I don't expect it to be a serious consideration within at least my lifetime ("Yeah, sure I'll vote for a law that could possibly get me sued or put in jail").
[Edit: damn markup mixup...]
edited 11th Jun '11 11:16:35 AM by Nohbody
All your safe space are belong to TrumpThat's true, but there's also a culture in Washington that treats cutting defense spending for any reason whatsoever as an eighth deadly sin.
^ Considering all who propose cutting defense spending equate it to reducing personnel and equipment rather than cutting programs such as various robotics that won't ever see combat, new rifle programs that end up canceled with no intention of result and more, it might as well be the eighth deadly sin.
edited 11th Jun '11 11:48:03 AM by MajorTom
"Allah may guide their bullets, but Jesus helps those who aim down the sights."LOL! I'd love that!
Congress and the Houses of Parliament'd prolly be empty if that came into effect, though.
Enjoy the Inferno...@Tom: so we should just let the people who consider wasteful spending on the military "necessary and proper" run rampant instead of trying to get a third option out there?
I'll be the first to admit welfare and social security need massive reform. But essentially gutting them and spending on military waste is less of a strategy and more of a one-sided political crusade. Either deal with all 3 of the gaping holes in the budget or don't even try to whitewash it as anything except right-wing evangelizing.
After all, the main reason the military programs that need to be cut arent cut is because either democrats or republicans are in the poickets of the companies who preform the research.
edited 11th Jun '11 1:39:51 PM by Midgetsnowman
I would say prosecute the politicians who want to let the government default. Those crazy... people... are completely obfuscating the real damage that a default would do to the country...
Very big Daydream Believer. "That's not knowledge, that's a crapshoot!" -Al Murray "Welcome to QI" -Stephen FryThe voting system itself holds politicians accountable for their actions. If you want better politicians, create more well-informed voters.
edited 11th Jun '11 9:21:46 PM by Clarste
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!
"Had Mother Nature been a real parent, she would have been in jail for child abuse and murder." -Nick Bostrom@Love: he's right. The failing is that the average voter is an absolute moron who'd rather vote based on complete lack of information and gut feelings than any real desire to pick a candidate worth electing.
I thought the average voter voted for the person who would steal the most for them?
If only they were that well-informed. Voters do not actually vote in their best interests.
edited 12th Jun '11 1:17:18 AM by Clarste
Exactly. When the AV referendum was on, anyone with half-a-mind could see that the NO camp were just being irrational and fearmongering - and treating the public like cattle. The Yes camp treated people like idiots too, but not as much. The NO camp played on fears of minority parties (they aren't called minorities for nothing), they outright lied about the costs... they could've replaced the posters with "Vote NO on 5 May, Because You're Idiots, and We're Right".
Guess which side won? The NO camp, by a ratio of 2-1.
For some apparent reason, the electorate likes to be called stupid. Most of the voting public are indeed morons. In the last General Election, over 20% of people based their choice under TEN minutes before they went to the polls. Not on the debates, or policies. Just before they left the house or just before they entered the polling station, they said "Hmm... I'm going to vote Tory today".
@Deux: The average voter doesnt even have a blessed clue which politician would be better suited to bringing home pork to their district.
Voting presuppose that the voters actually know who they vote for. It works best at a very local level, and when the votee is not a rich crook who can drown his adversaries in money, lawyers, or both.
So should the voters be prosecuted for electoral recklessness?
Or are the consequences enough punishment on their own?
edited 12th Jun '11 8:48:01 AM by blueharp
Documents reveal financial irresponsibility of Brown government
It warns that the efficiency of the public sector needed to improve rapidly and insisted that "spending growth will slow". The document drafted by civil servants also says that "ineffective spending" must be "closed down".
However, Gordon Brown discarded the advice and embarked on a £90 billion increase in spending when he became prime minister.
The expenditure meant that the economy was left facing a record deficit as the effects of the recession were felt.
You would prosecute a Managing Director/CEO for this sort of thing. Surely government ministers should be held just as, if not more responsible for national budgets?
edited 11th Jun '11 7:30:56 AM by Shichibukai
Requiem ~ September 2010 - October 2011 [Banned 4 Life]