Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : American Presidential Politics and foreign affairs -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: DuckTapeSunroof who wrote (47566)	1/4/2011 5:07:01 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 71588

In your opinion, is any proposal for sweeping but unlikely change, "bread and circuses"? If so - 1 - I strongly disagree. 2 - I think that a balanced budget amendment is major but unlikely change. If not, then I don't see any argument for your "bread and circuses" claim. all fake just to keep the public distracted form the one really important action they could* demand from their politicians: voting of a balanced budget amendment out to the states for ratification.* That's even less supported than the general generic "bread and circuses claim". It would not only have to be very unlikely (which I agree it is), AND designed to be a distraction, but also specifically designed to be a distraction to keep people's mind off the idea of a BBA. I consider that highly unlikely. I think many of the supporters of this amendment also support a BBA, and whether your considering those who support a BBA, or those who don't, you present no reason whatsoever to think that this is an anti-BBA strategy (in fact you don't even give any reason to think that the people supporting it are not doing so because they actually want it to happen), no reason to think its a red herring at all, let alone to think its an anti-BBA red herring/bread and circus collection. Its one thing not to assume good faith (generally I think you should assume it, but perhaps not with politicians <g>), but you don't only do that, or assume bad faith, but assume a highly specific form of bad faith, and assume that form is focused on your own pet political issue. That's a stretch to say the least. Not everyone is so focused on the issues you care about.