Nov 2023 Mod notice:
There may be other, more specific, threads about some aspects of US politics, but this one tends to act as a hub for all sorts of related news and information, so it's usually one of the busiest OTC threads.
If you're new to OTC, it's worth reading the Introduction to On-Topic Conversations
and the On-Topic Conversations debate guidelines
before posting here.
Rumor-based, fear-mongering and/or inflammatory statements that damage the quality of the thread will be thumped. Off-topic posts will also be thumped. Repeat offenders may be suspended.
If time spent moderating this thread remains a distraction from moderation of the wiki itself, the thread will need to be locked. We want to avoid that, so please follow the forum rules
when posting here.
In line with the general forum rules, 'gravedancing' is prohibited here. If you're celebrating someone's death or hoping that they die, your post will get thumped. This rule applies regardless of what the person you're discussing has said or done.
Edited by Mrph1 on Nov 30th 2023 at 11:03:59 AM
Basically the big issue I can see is that businesses that have departments justify their budget tend to end up spending all their time and money justifying their budget instead of what they're actually supposed to be doing. It's a "money saving" trick that in practice just costs money and productivity but makes the people in charge feel like they're doing something.
Reality is that, which when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away. -Philip K. DickIncidentally, Sanders playing the "he wants to kill Medicare" card could also be considered strategic. If you let the guy get nominated, but you have a "he wants to kill Medicare" attack line for the general, he's going to get creamed.
The democratic party WANTS the weakest candidate at the head of the party.
Sounds inefficient.
Having to ask for the money they probably just normally need to function isn't a good idea, since having to go through the proper channels and processing is going to cost time and money. And that's if they get the money in the first place, which they probably won't under Republicans, so it's better to just give them the money as standard so it'd more difficult for politicians to just cut off an agency.
Wrong. It would do just about the opposite. With no base budget and no cushion, any budget shut down is going to hit immediately. What's more it means that because every agency is constantly having to justify getting money it means that they can't even count on having money the next month even if the government has passed a budget.
Reality is that, which when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away. -Philip K. DickHaving to be accountable for their spending is something I'm pretty sure departments already have to be, emergency money can be removed easily enough after the emergency ends, I'm pretty sure it can even just be allocated for a set period of time.
So I'm not seeing what this is meant to change, unless it's what the name implies and isn't about accountability, but is about making each department ask fully or money every year, which just sounds like it would create a ton of red tape and mean you'd be seeing budget fights every year.
“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ CyranIt's an idea that would be sensible if one of our parties wasn't insane. As it is, zero-based-budgeting would be a trojan horse to gut EPA and other conservative bogeymen. It's especially inane to talk about it when everyone's still suffering from sequestration cuts and government spending (sans Defense) badly needs to be boosted across the board.
...and spent within a certain period of time. Something I've heard about.
Keep Rolling OnThere was a letter to the editor in my local newspaper this morning. The writer compared the presidential debates to the group therapy sessions in One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest, and suggested that Pfizer come up with a pill for "electile dysfunction."
It gave me a laugh, just thought I'd share.
This Space Intentionally Left Blank.@Luminosity: Well, considering that "you should be set on fire" translates directly to "you should suffer and probably die" I'd hope that all debate standards in the world would prevent anyone from saying that. It's stupidly cruel and in no way good.
In any case, considering that scandals and fake scandals are littering the ground, the fact that Sanders is staying focused says a lot about what matters to him. He doesn't appear to be interested in moralizing about people's lives.
You know, primaries in general fascinate me. The fact that people in the same party can have such different views, along with the fact that who does and doesn't run and how they run can leave such a trail of happiness or bitterness among such close friends is utterly amazing to me. Also, presidential politics is so boring when it comes down to downballot. That's where it really happens, especially in primaries.
anyone know why asscaps has that particular name?Well, I think the thing about primaries is that's where there's actual choices to be made.
Maybe I'm just saying this because I'm a bit partisan, but: in the post-primary, it's pretty easy to choose your candidate. Unless they're a complete and utter moron, you should just vote for the guy in your party.
During the primaries, however, you have to choose between gradients and variations of your political party. This is where things get interesting.
Leviticus 19:34
American political parties seem functionally like the coalitions in Parliamentary systems, they really don't deserve the unthinking loyalty they're too often given.
edited 8th Nov '15 7:06:07 PM by Artificius
"I have no fear, for fear is the little death that kills me over and over. Without fear, I die but once."Although a poll was taken that suggests that about 25% of registered Republicans would not vote for Trump if he gets the nomination. If that much of the base stays home/protest votes for a 3rd party, or even grits their teeth and votes Democrat...Trump's opponent wins.
Of course Trump's opponent probably auto wins thanks to Trump's dismal numbers among Hispanics, unless the Dems hit a massive voter turnout fail.
Politics is the skilled use of blunt objects.Yeah short of a massive turnout failure (which could happen if people get complacent) the Dems should have the presidency. The Republicans need to sweep the swing states while the Dems need only a few, and right now the Republicans aren't winning anyone over, they're just firing up a base that already votes in large numbers. Trump could put off a lot of Republicans if he gets the nomination, just by existing he's already pushed a lot of moderates away from the party. This also doesn't count for the possibility that upon losing the nomination Trump will go full nut and do a third party run, further driving the Republicans down.
But there's a lot more to fight for then just winning the presidency by 51%, so people mustn't get complacent.
“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ CyranThe whole "Justify your budget" seems like more of the same Do Well, But Not Perfect incentive to "pad" your budget to avoid it being cut next year.
"And as long as a sack of shit is not a good thing to be, chivalry will never die."

I'm not really qualified to discuss the intricacies of the budgeting system. Seems like something that plays nice for the "we should run the government like a business" crowd without having any real meaning.
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"