News Is Democracy Sustainable in the Face of Human Nature?

[drankin]

A government determined by the people is, of course, the most effective and desirable form of government.

IMO - The primary problem lies with human nature. The tendency to take the path of least resistance. To vote in benefits but avoid and shift the costs associated to them. This begins to degrade overall liberties in that we create ways to take more from "A" to accommodate "B". "A" being a larger group of voters than "B". This does have a balancing effect but potentially "A" is going to be tapped and "B", which has become accustomed to the benefits paid for by "A", will begin to feed on itself. Or, pass the costs to those who do not participate in the process i.e. outside of our borders.

Simplistic but a sincere effort to reduce the complexity of a problem I see in our democracy.

We are shifting the costs of our democracy outside of our borders in an effort to sustain it's lifestyle. It's not necessarily a good or bad thing but does create conflict.

Comments appreciated.

 

[WhoWee]

A government determined by the people is, of course, the most effective and desirable form of government.

IMO - The primary problem lies with human nature. The tendency to take the path of least resistance. To vote in benefits but avoid and shift the costs associated to them. This begins to degrade overall liberties in that we create ways to take more from "A" to accommodate "B". "A" being a larger group of voters than "B". This does have a balancing effect but potentially "A" is going to be tapped and "B", which has become accustomed to the benefits paid for by "A", will begin to feed on itself. Or, pass the costs to those who do not participate in the process i.e. outside of our borders.

Simplistic but a sincere effort to reduce the complexity of a problem I see in our democracy.

We are shifting the costs of our democracy outside of our borders in an effort to sustain it's lifestyle. It's not necessarily a good or bad thing but does create conflict.

Comments appreciated.

I have a solution - only tax "payers" (including all retirement pension recipients) should be allowed to vote. People who pay $0.00 in Federal taxes - or live off of tax re-distribution or welfare of any type should not influence spending decisions. Again - IMO.

 

[WhoWee]

I have a solution - only tax "payers" (including all retirement pension recipients) should be allowed to vote. People who pay $0.00 in Federal taxes - or live off of tax re-distribution or welfare of any type should not influence spending decisions. Again - IMO.

To expand a bit - perhaps we could weight votes? That is, the more you pay in taxes - the more your vote counts - people who pay $0 or less would get 1 vote - a person paying $10,000 in taxes would get 10,000 votes.

 

[Al68]

A government determined by the people is, of course, the most effective and desirable form of government.

IMO - The primary problem lies with human nature. The tendency to take the path of least resistance. To vote in benefits but avoid and shift the costs associated to them. This begins to degrade overall liberties in that we create ways to take more from "A" to accommodate "B". "A" being a larger group of voters than "B". This does have a balancing effect but potentially "A" is going to be tapped and "B", which has become accustomed to the benefits paid for by "A", will begin to feed on itself.

This was addressed very well, IMO, by http://bastiat.org/" [/I] in 1850, in this same context (in France, not the U.S., which didn't start down that path until several decades later):

"When plunder becomes a way of life for a group of men living together in society, they create for themselves in the course of time a legal system that authorizes it and a moral code that glorifies it."

 

[WhoWee]

This was addressed very well, IMO, by http://bastiat.org/" [/I] in 1850, in this same context (in France, not the U.S., which didn't start down that path until several decades later):

Good find.

 

[Al68]

Good find.

The Law is required reading for all right-wingers. I've quoted it before in this forum, but it's been a while.

It's a very short book and you can read it and other Bastiat writings http://bastiat.org/" .

 

[drankin]

The Law is required reading for all right-wingers. I've quoted it before in this forum, but it's been a while.

It's a very short book and you can read it and other Bastiat writings http://bastiat.org/" .

Thank you for the reference.

 

[daveb]

A government determined by the people is, of course, the most effective and desirable form of government.

Really? What is your proof? I'm no saying I disagree, but your argument is weak if your premise is not true.

 

[drankin]

Really? What is your proof? I'm no saying I disagree, but your argument is weak if your premise is not true.

Maybe I am mistaken. Please prove that the premise is incorrect.

 

[loseyourname]

There is a far more fundamental problem with democratic government than that, namely that it's democratic. We gain representativeness and hopefully some level of protection of individual and minority liberties and degrade the ability of the government to become tyrannical, but at the expense of actually having an efficient, cost-effective, and just plain effective government. The people in charge are not subject-matter experts. As it stands in the U.S., they're mostly attorneys. It's no surprise we end up with a stultifying bureaucracy that stifles the innovation and initiative of local directors and middle managers in favor of extremely specific and unyielding rules written in damn near code that demand complete allegiance to the rule of law but basically no individual discretion or creativity, making robots of all but the legislature, and then we get back to the problem that legislators are not policy experts, and they answer to voters, who know even less and are very easily manipulated into believing there are simple answers usually involving the scapegoating of a currently unpopular subpopulation that keep us from seeking real answers.

 

[daveb]

Your the person who made the claim, and therefore it is your job to show the premise as true.

 

[Al68]

A government determined by the people is, of course, the most effective and desirable form of government.

Really? What is your proof? I'm no saying I disagree, but your argument is weak if your premise is not true.

drankin's statement is opinion, not a factual claim (so no proof is necessary), although it's an opinion I share.

The real question isn't how government and lawmakers are chosen, but what they are empowered to do. The word "democratic" refers to the former, not the latter. An Elk Lodge, for example chooses it's leader democratically, but such leader doesn't have unlimited power, he has only whatever power its members delegate to him. It's logically impossible for him to have other powers by virtue of his democratic election.

The same logic applies to any government. A democratic process can logically only delegate power, it doesn't create any legitimate power that didn't already exist with those delegating it..

It's all too common for people to falsely equate "democratic" with unlimited power and scope, then fallaciously claim that limits on the scope of the government's power is undemocratic.

 

[drankin]

Your the person who made the claim, and therefore it is your job to show the premise as true.

Yes, it is my opinion. I should have moved the "IMO" to before the first sentence. My bad.

Beyond that, do you have anything to add?

 

[daveb]

I would say it's definitely the most desireable...efficient? One can argue that a distatorship can be more efficient.

 

[drankin]

I would say it's definitely the most desireable...efficient? One can argue that a distatorship can be more efficient.

I never said "efficient" :)

I did say "effective", but I agree that is debateable. But considering our world position, though it may be declining, it has been the most influential.

 

[russ_watters]

Dunno, with other forms of government failing and democracy becoming dominant, I'd conclude an evolutionary process whereby we could consider democracy to be the "fittest" form of government.

 

[ThomasEdison]

In reference to the OP:

Democracy is desirable to who? To everybody?
Do you make the claim that everyone's opinion on how to run their government holds equal merit?
That is the flaw in democracy that nobody talks about: the fallacy that everyone's opinion is equal. The myth of equality sounds noble, but the more I really think about it, the more I have to disagree.

I feel that it is the elephant in the room when talking about "power to the people!"

 

[Ryumast3r]

Dunno, with other forms of government failing and democracy becoming dominant, I'd conclude an evolutionary process whereby we could consider democracy to be the "fittest" form of government.

Not really Democracy though... The US is a Republic.

 

[tedbradly]

To expand a bit - perhaps we could weight votes? That is, the more you pay in taxes - the more your vote counts - people who pay $0 or less would get 1 vote - a person paying $10,000 in taxes would get 10,000 votes.

Is this a joke?I don't like democracy for the same reason I don't want people to vote on how to build the next bridge or to vote on how to construct the next skyscraper. Let only the proficient and knowledgeable in engineering build bridges and skyscrapers. Let only the proficient and knowledgeable in government, politics, economics, and so on vote.

 

[WhoWee]

Is this a joke?


I don't like democracy for the same reason I don't want people to vote on how to build the next bridge or to vote on how to construct the next skyscraper. Let only the proficient and knowledgeable in engineering build bridges and skyscrapers. Let only the proficient and knowledgeable in government, politics, economics, and so on vote.

I think my idea is a little more fair - the more you pay in taxes - the greater your voice is regarding how to spend the money. To extend your idea - there would be testing at the polls to determine who is knowledgeable enough to vote?

 

[amwest]

To expand a bit - perhaps we could weight votes? That is, the more you pay in taxes - the more your vote counts - people who pay $0 or less would get 1 vote - a person paying $10,000 in taxes would get 10,000 votes.

I hope this is sarcasm here. If true than the poor would be enslaved to the rich. Which we sort of are now with the rich lobbying groups buying votes in congress(not litterly but figurativly)
To put this into context this would be like moving towards an aristocracy. The rich would ensure the laws protect them above everyone else.

 

[drankin]

I hope this is sarcasm here. If true than the poor would be enslaved to the rich. Which we sort of are now with the rich lobbying groups buying votes in congress(not litterly but figurativly)
To put this into context this would be like moving towards an aristocracy. The rich would ensure the laws protect them above everyone else.

I agree with both of you actually. IMO there needs to be a standard to be met in order to be able to dictate, by voting, where money collected by the government goes. Being that everyone is looking out for their own interests, I believe you should be contributing to those funds in order to have a say as to where it goes. Practically, it makes complete sense. Why should someone who has no stake in a decision be able to influence it's outcome to their advantage??

 

[Office_Shredder]

I agree with both of you actually. IMO there needs to be a standard to be met in order to be able to dictate, by voting, where money collected by the government goes. Being that everyone is looking out for their own interests, I believe you should be contributing to those funds in order to have a say as to where it goes. Practically, it makes complete sense. Why should someone who has no stake in a decision be able to influence it's outcome to their advantage??

Why should someone with no say in a decision be held accountable to it? What reason do I have to follow the laws of a government in which I don't get to vote because I'm too poor?

 

[drankin]

Why should someone with no say in a decision be held accountable to it? What reason do I have to follow the laws of a government in which I don't get to vote because I'm too poor?

Because you aren't contributing. If you work, you have a say because your money is going into the system too. It seems to me that if you aren't working and paying taxes why should you be able to have a say as to where that money goes?

 

[Office_Shredder]

Because you aren't contributing. If you work, you have a say because your money is going into the system too. It seems to me that if you aren't working and paying taxes why should you be able to have a say as to where that money goes?

If your money goes to funding a police force, and deciding, for example, that aspirin should be illegal, why should I pay any attention to you (besides the police force arresting me of course)? Would you argue that the top 5% of income earners in the country has the right to ban aspirin because hey, they're paying for enforcing that ban?

The government has immense power to harm people as well as help them, and you can't just ignore those people because they can't buy their way to influence. Well, you can, but not in the context of democracy

 

[drankin]

If your money goes to funding a police force, and deciding, for example, that aspirin should be illegal, why should I pay any attention to you (besides the police force arresting me of course)? Would you argue that the top 5% of income earners in the country has the right to ban aspirin because hey, they're paying for enforcing that ban?

The government has immense power to harm people as well as help them, and you can't just ignore those people because they can't buy their way to influence. Well, you can, but not in the context of democracy

Yep, that is where the fundamentals have to be established. Unalienable rights. Those cannot be infringed. The right to use/purchase aspirin, um... marijuana etc. The laws cannot infringe on the rights of the individual regardless of voting status. Back when we founded this nation, it was expected/understood but unfortunately not specified. It was a totally new deal. They created a system with checks and balances impeccably with what they could possibly foresee. Unfortunately, you cannot completely account for the human tendency to subvert the intentions of a system.

 

[rootX]

This was addressed very well, IMO, by http://bastiat.org/" [/I] in 1850, in this same context (in France, not the U.S., which didn't start down that path until several decades later):

Ideas like those don't play well in practice.

 

[Office_Shredder]

Yep, that is where the fundamentals have to be established. Unalienable rights. Those cannot be infringed. The right to use/purchase aspirin, um... marijuana etc. The laws cannot infringe on the rights of the individual regardless of voting status. Back when we founded this nation, it was expected/understood but unfortunately not specified. It was a totally new deal. They created a system with checks and balances impeccably with what they could possibly foresee. Unfortunately, you cannot completely account for the human tendency to subvert the intentions of a system.

Who decides what the inalienable rights are? Who has the power to update these inalienable rights over time (alternatively, what is your solution to the possible problem of these rights being subverted in unexpected ways in 100 years?)

 

[drankin]

Who decides what the inalienable rights are? Who has the power to update these inalienable rights over time (alternatively, what is your solution to the possible problem of these rights being subverted in unexpected ways in 100 years?)

That's the point of unalienable rigths. They can't be changed.

 

[Office_Shredder]

That's the point of unalienable rigths. They can't be changed.

There's still the problem of how do you choose them, and how do you ensure that the ones you've chosen aren't subverted in 100 years, similar to how the existing constitutional rights are insufficient protection to allow people to vote proportional to income tax.

You need to set rules to ensure that things like prison time for crimes that don't even exist yet, tax rates on goods and services that don't exist yet, government procedures for services that have never been conceived of, are all handled in a fair and judicious manner that cannot harm the people who can't effectively vote. I propose that this task is impossible

 

[WhoWee]

I agree with both of you actually. IMO there needs to be a standard to be met in order to be able to dictate, by voting, where money collected by the government goes. Being that everyone is looking out for their own interests, I believe you should be contributing to those funds in order to have a say as to where it goes. Practically, it makes complete sense. Why should someone who has no stake in a decision be able to influence it's outcome to their advantage??

Fair enough - modification required - let's add strict term limits for the House and a single 6 year Presidential Term (no re-election campaign). Last, once someone serves a full term in the House -they would be eligible to run for Senate (20 year limit).

 

[daveb]

Dunno, with other forms of government failing and democracy becoming dominant, I'd conclude an evolutionary process whereby we could consider democracy to be the "fittest" form of government.

I've sometimes wondered if the idea of natural selection could philosophically be applied to social systems.

 

[WhoWee]

I've sometimes wondered if the idea of natural selection could philosophically be applied to social systems.

Ahhh - you'd like to eliminate Congressional re-districting - maybe use county lines instead - I agree.

 

[daveb]

The problem with the idea of having unalienable rights, such as those delineated in the Declaration of Independence or Constitution, is that it is the government's duty to protect them and the people's duty to demand them. When the government is run by only a few, though, when they are the ones with the power, they are the ones who determine whether or not those rights are safeguarded.

"If a majority be united by a common interest, the rights of the minority will be insecure." - Madison, Federalist 51

 

[WhoWee]

The problem with the idea of having unalienable rights, such as those delineated in the Declaration of Independence or Constitution, is that it is the government's duty to protect them and the people's duty to demand them. When the government is run by only a few, though, when they are the ones with the power, they are the ones who determine whether or not those rights are safeguarded.

"If a majority be united by a common interest, the rights of the minority will be insecure." - Madison, Federalist 51

IMO - our 2 party system has shifted the power from the people to a sophisticated "power broker" network. Next, the Beltway politicians are much too comfortable - there's very little accountability for poor performance - if everyone does something/nothing - nobody is to blame (kids learn that at an early age). Accordingly, everyone's top priority is keeping their job - regardless of the cost. I think this is why the TEA Party has been so influential - it seeks to put the people's voice and accountability back into the formula. AGAIN - IMO.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

In my mind the biggest problem with democracy is the assumption that every voter is an informed individual. If we imagine a hypothetical country running a Direct Democracy we see that it should be fine at dealing with most issues if every member is well informed and makes a rational, unbiased decision when voting.

In reality however the majority of voters are uninformed on the majority of subjects (e.g. should a milkman living in the north have the right to vote on the proposal to build nuclear reactors in the south?) and therefore will base their vote either on what their peers tell them or what the media tells them.

I'm also not convinced by the idea that it's "what the majority want". I have a strange colleague who always advocates that if the majority of people want to kill and torture the minority then it is fine. Applied to a democratic country scenarios like that (though not as extreme) represent real problems, for example if 51% of the voters want everyone in the country to live quaint rural lifestyles (circa 1800s) should we just hold our hands up and say "hey, its what the majority want!" when the other 49% who want to live in cities and live modern lives are forced by the will of the former. Another way of posing this problem is if voters have different reasons for voting i.e. one votes for nuclear power because they understand the numbers involved and one votes against because as much as they understand the numbers they have a personal preference to live a medieval lifestyle.

 

[WhoWee]

In my mind the biggest problem with democracy is the assumption that every voter is an informed individual. If we imagine a hypothetical country running a Direct Democracy we see that it should be fine at dealing with most issues if every member is well informed and makes a rational, unbiased decision when voting.

In reality however the majority of voters are uninformed on the majority of subjects (e.g. should a milkman living in the north have the right to vote on the proposal to build nuclear reactors in the south?) and therefore will base their vote either on what their peers tell them or what the media tells them.

I'm also not convinced by the idea that it's "what the majority want". I have a strange colleague who always advocates that if the majority of people want to kill and torture the minority then it is fine. Applied to a democratic country scenarios like that (though not as extreme) represent real problems, for example if 51% of the voters want everyone in the country to live quaint rural lifestyles (circa 1800s) should we just hold our hands up and say "hey, its what the majority want!" when the other 49% who want to live in cities and live modern lives are forced by the will of the former. Another way of posing this problem is if voters have different reasons for voting i.e. one votes for nuclear power because they understand the numbers involved and one votes against because as much as they understand the numbers they have a personal preference to live a medieval lifestyle.

Let's be honest - in discussions on PF - members have argued that Congresspersons don't need to read Bills before voting - 2,000 pages of legal babble is too confusing/tiresome? This - IMO - is the problem - the legislation lacks focus. A Bill about education shouldn't have war funding or green energy (or whatever?) included. IMO again - Congress needs to package legislation in narrow packages that can be voted on yes or no - and in language that everyone can understand. Instead, some very bad legislation (pork and waste) gets packaged into otherwise well intentioned Bills. When that happens, it's very difficult to undo.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

Let's be honest - in discussions on PF - members have argued that Congresspersons don't need to read Bills before voting - 2,000 pages of legal babble is too confusing/tiresome? This - IMO - is the problem - the legislation lacks focus. A Bill about education shouldn't have war funding or green energy (or whatever?) included. IMO again - Congress needs to package legislation in narrow packages that can be voted on yes or no - and in language that everyone can understand. Instead, some very bad legislation (pork and waste) gets packaged into otherwise well intentioned Bills. When that happens, it's very difficult to undo.

All well and good except...I'm British. The bills here don't (to my knowledge) typically have others tacked on. I was kinda shocked to see that on US TV

 

[WhoWee]

All well and good except...I'm British. The bills here don't (to my knowledge) typically have others tacked on. I was kinda shocked to see that on US TV

Yes - IMO - it's a difficult problem. We can't expect the average person to be informed if the information presented is over-whelming.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Yes - IMO - it's a difficult problem. We can't expect the average person to be informed if the information presented is over-whelming.

I would modify that to say that we can't expect the average person to be informed. Who has the time?

I tend to vote more according to the person than the issues. If I think someone has integrity and is smart, capable, compassionate, and passionate, I am willing to trust their judgment. I don't have the time to be an expert - that's why I vote for people that do.

In my view, if we elect good people and then show a little trust, the rest will take care of itself.

 

[WhoWee]

I would modify that to say that we can't expect the average person to be informed. Who has the time?

I tend to vote more according to the person than the issues. If I think someone has integrity and is smart, capable, compassionate, and passionate, I am willing to trust their judgment. I don't have the time to be an expert - that's why I vote for people that do.

In my view, if we elect good people and then show a little trust, the rest will take care of itself.

I generally agree with you on this - the term limits would give us a stop-loss if they forget who gave them the power - IMO.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I generally agree with you on this - the term limits would give us a stop-loss if they forget who gave them the power - IMO.

It seems to me that the campaign process itself is the problem. With the new superpac money, it will be worse than ever.

I think we need a better method of evaluating candidates. Currently, the signal to noise ratio is near zero. But how do you beat down the noise while preserving free speech?

 

[WhoWee]

It seems to me that the campaign process itself is the problem. With the new superpac money, it will be worse than ever.

I think we need a better method of evaluating candidates. Currently, the signal to noise ratio is near zero. But how do you beat down the noise while preserving free speech?

Aside from debate and unbiased reporting - I don't know? Like them or not - I think the TEA Party will hold their candidates feet to the fire when re-election time rolls around.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Aside from debate and unbiased reporting - I don't know? Like them or not - I think the TEA Party will hold their candidates feet to the fire when re-election time rolls around.

Perhaps so, but will they be asking the right questions, or will it be another ideological fettish session?

Everyone knows we need to reduce spending and balance the budget. As soon as someone says Obama doesn't want to do this, I know they are misinformed and or biased. The question is how best to accomplish that without stalling the recovery. I don't know the best answer to that question and am willing to trust the experts, but I do know the answer is not a simple one that fits in a thirty-second commercial.

The first test of integrity - no real solutions are simple

 

[WhoWee]

Perhaps so, but will they be asking the right questions, or will it be another ideological fettish session?

Everyone knows we need to reduce spending and balance the budget. As soon as someone says Obama doesn't want to do this, I know they are misinformed and or biased. The question is how best to accomplish that without stalling the recovery. I don't know the best answer to that question and am willing to trust the experts, but I do know the answer is not a simple one that fits in a thirty-second commercial.

The first test of integrity - no real solutions are simple

How long has it been since the United States of America has operated under an approved budget plan? It's total nonsense and nobody's fault

Regardless of the topic and whether first proposed by Red or Blue, Left or Right, Liberal or Conservative - we typically end up with an ineffective, massive, and diluted piece of legislation that causes more unintended consequences and bloating of Government than ever thought possible - IMO - 1 step forward and 2 steps back should be the official Beltway slogan. How long has it been since the United States of America has operated under an approved budget plan?

 

[Al68]

It seems to me that the campaign process itself is the problem. With the new superpac money, it will be worse than ever.

I think we need a better method of evaluating candidates. Currently, the signal to noise ratio is near zero. But how do you beat down the noise while preserving free speech?

The campaign process was never intended to be a government regulated process at all. Any limits imposed by government on private campaigns for public office are undemocratic.

Everyone knows we need to reduce spending and balance the budget. As soon as someone says Obama doesn't want to do this, I know they are misinformed and or biased.

I'll take "biased" for $100.

He may "want" to reduce spending, but his actions and proposals have been to increase it. In the real world, actions speak louder than words.

The question is how best to accomplish that without stalling the recovery. I don't know the best answer to that question and am willing to trust the experts...

I'm not. Experts are biased, and therefore disagree between themselves. Why would I trust people who are themselves biased, unless their bias is in my favor?

...but I do know the answer is not a simple one that fits in a thirty-second commercial.

That I agree with, the answer is far more complicated than many "experts" try to convince people of. That's why I don't trust them.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

The campaign process was never intended to be a government regulated process at all. Any limits imposed by government on private campaigns for public office are undemocratic.

Not all solutions have to be provided by the government. In fact, I never said anything about a government solution. [however, I do have a huge problem with the superpacs]

I'll take "biased" for $100.

He may "want" to reduce spending, but his actions and proposals have been to increase it. In the real world, actions speak louder than words.

You are ignoring the second and most important aspect of my statement: How to balance the budget without stalling the recovery. It will do us no good to reduce spending and crash the GDP. For the long term, politics is a process. We can't fix this overnight.

I'm not. Experts are biased

However, to be blunt, neither you, I, or most anyone else here is even capable of understanding the issues. I think a big part of the problem is that everyone's an expert these days. Instead of voting for the best person, we elect someone who agrees with our unqualified, armchair opinions.

For example, I would put almost anything Geithner says ahead of any opinions expressed in this forum. It is a simple fact: He's an expert and no one [or almost no one] here is. As for legitimate points of contention among experts, we are still in no position to judge. This is no different than disqualifying anyone but experts in physics, from debating physics.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

How long has it been since the United States of America has operated under an approved budget plan? It's total nonsense and nobody's fault

Regardless of the topic and whether first proposed by Red or Blue, Left or Right, Liberal or Conservative - we typically end up with an ineffective, massive, and diluted piece of legislation that causes more unintended consequences and bloating of Government than ever thought possible - IMO - 1 step forward and 2 steps back should be the official Beltway slogan. How long has it been since the United States of America has operated under an approved budget plan?

Do you mean a plan that extends beyond the current and next fiscal year? What an outrageously Chinese suggestion!

 

[mege]

I've sometimes wondered if the idea of natural selection could philosophically be applied to social systems.

Don't bring that up in front of a feminist.

There are two things that I think dominate social system evolution and counteract themselves a bit: natural selection and Maslow's hierarchy of needs. As our societal systems become weeded through (Via natural selection) we create more and more overall benefitial systems of government. That beneficial nature of our government (or social organization at a smaller level) creates a prosperity in which we start to get more and more 'fat' (via Maslow's hierarchy) and add inefficiencies. It then becomes an few oppositional forces as we shift along the evolutionary chain of social structures.

 

[Al68]

You are ignoring the second and most important aspect of my statement: How to balance the budget without stalling the recovery. It will do us no good to reduce spending and crash the GDP.

I ignored it because it makes no sense. It's like asking how to reduce someone's rat poison intake without sacrificing their health.

However, to be blunt, neither you, I, or most anyone else here is even capable of understanding the issues.

That depends on what is meant by understanding. I'm certainly capable of understanding many issues to a large extent, even if not fully.

For example, I would put almost anything Geithner says ahead of any opinions expressed in this forum. It is a simple fact: He's an expert and no one [or almost no one] here is. As for legitimate points of contention among experts, we are still in no position to judge. This is no different than disqualifying anyone but experts in physics, from debating physics.

I agree with that for non-political issues, but for political issues it just ignores reality. It's like trusting a car salesman because he's an expert about cars. Far too much power is at stake with political issues to just take any expert at his word about anything. Experts are inherently biased, even if not dishonest, and power and money are motive enough to cause both.

I'm not an expert in physics, but I have a good enough general knowledge to recognize that someone is lying, if they are lying at a level below my level of knowledge, such as a claim that a 1 square meter solar panel on a car's roof could generate 100 HP. As silly as that sounds, it's fairly analogous to the claims of many politicians and economics "experts" about economics issues.

Meaning that a good general understanding of an issue is enough to recognize fraud, if the fraud is designed to fool only those without a general understanding. The economic fraud of the left is a perfect example of that.