1. OT: Australia
- Posted by jimcbrown (admin) Nov 03, 2012
- 1739 views
Forked from Re: [OT] USA Elections
In Australia, we do not have ... a maximum number of ... terms.
This used to be true in the US as well until Franklin Roosevelt won four terms as President, and in reponse the 22nd amendment was passed.
It's still true today for the US Congress though - Senators and Represenatives do not have a maximum number of terms.
Mostly we have 10-15 years of a conservative government, until the people get compassionate again then we have 10-15 years of a liberal government, until people get greedy again.
Change that number to 8, and we've more-or-less got the same thing in the US.
I guess this makes sense if you measure compassion by how much of other people's money you spend on other people. Of course, here in the states, both parties like to do a lot of that, which is a big part of our problem.
Agreed.
Sadly, many don't figure out that the periods of "greed" create more prosperity than the times of "compassion."
Disagree. When Clinton ended his last term as President, we had a balanced budget (actually a small surplus). When Bush ended his last term as President, we had the largest budget deficit in US history at the time.
Not to mention the way income inequality has grown: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/07/09/1107890/-10-things-the-GOP-doesn-t-want-you-to-know-about-taxes#four
This cycle has been pretty consistent since we became independent from Great Britain in 1901. Which, by the way, was done peacefully, and we have yet to have a civil war.
I always thought that Australia was better than the US. This just cinches it.
You're not completely independent, of course.
I disagree. Australia is an independent, soverign country that is formally controlled by a monarchy (atm, the Queen of Australia) and in practice handled by the Govenor-General in conjunction with the executive branch headed by the Prime Minister. Australia also has a completely independent Parliament and its own High Court which serves as a court of final appeals/supreme court.
Admittedly, there is the matter of the Queen of Australia currently being in a personal union with the Queen of England (and Queen of Canada, et al) - but this does not need to hold true forever. (England and Australia theoretically can pass different laws to handle succession differently, which one day could lead to different individuals assuming the position of the head of the monarchy in those respective countries).
And 1776 was a very different time than 1901. Fortunately, you didn't have the old baggage of slavery to take care of like we did. Fortunately, we did take care of it.
Still, I have a feeling that Australia would have handled things better than the US did if it had been in similar circumstances.
2. Re: OT: Australia
- Posted by mattlewis (admin) Nov 03, 2012
- 1671 views
Sadly, many don't figure out that the periods of "greed" create more prosperity than the times of "compassion."
Disagree. When Clinton ended his last term as President, we had a balanced budget (actually a small surplus). When Bush ended his last term as President, we had the largest budget deficit in US history at the time.
I don't see what you're disagreeing about. The balanced budget had a lot to do with the draw down of defense after the Cold War, a relatively slow expansion of government in the US (we managed to avoid HillaryCare back then, and then we got a Republican Congress to oppose a centrist Democratic president, reduced welfare, cut capital gains taxes), plus the dot-com bubble which popped right around the end of Clinton's term.
The stuff that happened then is pretty much the opposite of what those who argue for "compassionate" government. In fact, Bush got elected calling himself a "compassionate conservative."
Not to mention the way income inequality has grown: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/07/09/1107890/-10-things-the-GOP-doesn-t-want-you-to-know-about-taxes#four
Those sorts of analysis ignore things like income mobility (I know that my income is very different than it was a few years ago). Income inequality statistics are really easy to make up all sorts of just-so stories. Mostly, it's just envy-politics when applied to economies like the US'.
You're not completely independent, of course.
I disagree. Australia is an independent, soverign country that is formally controlled by a monarchy (atm, the Queen of Australia) and in practice handled by the Govenor-General in conjunction with the executive branch headed by the Prime Minister. Australia also has a completely independent Parliament and its own High Court which serves as a court of final appeals/supreme court.
Yes, like I said, not completely independent. Sure, for all practical purposes, the monarch is just a figure head.
Admittedly, there is the matter of the Queen of Australia currently being in a personal union with the Queen of England (and Queen of Canada, et al) - but this does not need to hold true forever. (England and Australia theoretically can pass different laws to handle succession differently, which one day could lead to different individuals assuming the position of the head of the monarchy in those respective countries).
What I find interesting is the the Australian republicans disagree with me on just about everything except for ditching the British monarch.
And 1776 was a very different time than 1901. Fortunately, you didn't have the old baggage of slavery to take care of like we did. Fortunately, we did take care of it.
Still, I have a feeling that Australia would have handled things better than the US did if it had been in similar circumstances.
Possibly. The British might have, given how much more expensive it would have been to fight a war in Australia vs North America.
Matt
3. Re: OT: Australia
- Posted by jimcbrown (admin) Nov 03, 2012
- 1714 views
Sadly, many don't figure out that the periods of "greed" create more prosperity than the times of "compassion."
Disagree. When Clinton ended his last term as President, we had a balanced budget (actually a small surplus). When Bush ended his last term as President, we had the largest budget deficit in US history at the time.
I don't see what you're disagreeing about. The balanced budget had a lot to do with the draw down of defense after the Cold War, plus the dot-com bubble which popped right around the end of Clinton's term.
Point taken. All these things were factors largely outside the control of the government.
a relatively slow expansion of government in the US (we managed to avoid HillaryCare back then, and then we got a Republican Congress to oppose a centrist Democratic president, reduced welfare, cut capital gains taxes),
Point taken.
The stuff that happened then is pretty much the opposite of what those who argue for "compassionate" government. In fact, Bush got elected calling himself a "compassionate conservative."
Oddly enough, I don't recall Bush increasing welfare spending or raising capital gains taxes.
Not to mention the way income inequality has grown: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/07/09/1107890/-10-things-the-GOP-doesn-t-want-you-to-know-about-taxes#four
Those sorts of analysis ignore things like income mobility (I know that my income is very different than it was a few years ago). Income inequality statistics are really easy to make up all sorts of just-so stories. Mostly, it's just envy-politics when applied to economies like the US'.
Not all of them ignore it:
http://www.manhattan-institute.org/html/ir_22.htm
But, on lies, darned lies, and statistics: Point taken.
You're not completely independent, of course.
I disagree. Australia is an independent, soverign country that is formally controlled by a monarchy (atm, the Queen of Australia) and in practice handled by the Govenor-General in conjunction with the executive branch headed by the Prime Minister. Australia also has a completely independent Parliament and its own High Court which serves as a court of final appeals/supreme court.
Yes, like I said, not completely independent. Sure, for all practical purposes, the monarch is just a figure head.
Yes, like I said, completely independent.
Possibly. The British might have, given how much more expensive it would have been to fight a war in Australia vs North America.
Agreed.
At the very least, the Australians are doing something right during the Great Recession: http://theconversation.edu.au/the-benign-effects-of-the-great-recession-8163
Their economy appears to be a lot healtier than America's. Not to mention their healthcare: http://scienceblogs.com/denialism/2009/05/25/whats-health-care-like-in-aust/
