When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.
No politician gets elected by saying "I'm going to take away services! I'm going to reduce Medicare (so it's solvent), I'm going to privatize Social Security!"
And that really is getting to the core of the situation.
There is a quotation, which is sometimes attributed to Alexander Fraser Tytler, and sometimes to Alexis de Tocqueville (and there is strong evidence that neither citation is correct) which goes:
A democracy is always temporary in nature; it cannot exist as a permanent form of government. A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover that they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates who promise the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that every democracy will finally collapse due to imprudent fiscal policy, which is always followed by a dictatorship.
Now, put aside semantic arguments about democracy vs. republic, and just think about that for a moment.
While searching for citations on that quote, one of the essays I came upon was entitled Is Democracy Doomed? The Far Right Certainly Hopes So. The bias in the essay is clearly implicit from the title, though it actually is a pretty good read if, like me, you value truly understanding how the other half thinks.
The essay fairly critiques the citation of the above quote, and then it starts dissecting it phrase by phrase. Some of these dissections are fair (There is no such thing as permanence), while others are a bit more... crafty.
I'll just skip down to the paragraph entitled It misdirects the blame, at which point the author states "And don’t forget: The treasury is filled with taxpayer money — why the heck shouldn’t taxpayers get to decide how to spend it?"
And THAT is the real heart of the matter.
When our founding fathers set up the framework for United States, the fundamental concept of a democracy was a fairly shaky idea. There just hadn't been one in a while. As such, they laid out a deliberately rather vague national charter, and then implemented it into practice in the way which they felt would be most robust.
One such protection had to do with voting rights. Each state laid out its rules a bit differently, but as a broad generalization, the right to vote was extended to persons who owned productive land on which property tax was paid, or similar. (There was no income tax at the time; the very idea was universally repugnant, being thought of as too much like the tributes paid by members of the Serf class to their Lords under the old English feudalist system.)
Protections such as this have been gradually eroded over time. By politicians who realized how they could benefit from doing so.
Today, in 2024, roughly 60% of US households pay some form of income tax. The remaining 40% pay no income tax at all (up from 21% in 1990.) And, due to the existence of refundable tax credits (credits such as the EITC and the ATCT, for which you can receive a "refund" even if you have zero tax liability to begin with,) roughly 20% of households actually received refund checks from the IRS despite not having paid any taxes at all to begin with.
And that's just income tax. If you also factor in programs such as Medicaid, SNAP / WIC, Housing Assistance, SSI / TANF, energy aid, unemployment, the number of people who are net-consumers of public money rises to approximately half.
Half.
Tomorrow, as you are out in the general public, take a moment and look to your left. Look to your right. Try to guess which ones are net-recipients.
And that really is getting to the core of the situation.
There is a quotation, which is sometimes attributed to Alexander Fraser Tytler, and sometimes to Alexis de Tocqueville (and there is strong evidence that neither citation is correct) which goes:
A democracy is always temporary in nature; it cannot exist as a permanent form of government. A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover that they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates who promise the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that every democracy will finally collapse due to imprudent fiscal policy, which is always followed by a dictatorship.[/font]
Now, put aside semantic arguments about democracy vs. republic, and just think about that for a moment.
"And don’t forget: The treasury is filled with taxpayer money — why the heck shouldn’t taxpayers get to decide how to spend it?" And THAT is the real heart of the matter.
When our founding fathers set up the framework for United States, the fundamental concept of a democracy was a fairly shaky idea.
Today, in 2024, roughly 60% of US households pay some form of income tax. The remaining 40% pay no income tax at all (up from 21% in 1990.) And, due to the existence of refundable tax credits (credits such as the EITC and the ATCT, for which you can receive a "refund" even if you have zero tax liability to begin with,) roughly 20% of households actually received refund checks from the IRS despite not having paid any taxes at all to begin with.
And that's just income tax. If you also factor in programs such as Medicaid, SNAP / WIC, Housing Assistance, SSI / TANF, energy aid, unemployment, the number of people who are net-consumers of public money rises to approximately half.
The Founding Fathers were painfully aware of the failures of a Democracy; you really can't call this "semantics" and then continue on. They're bagging on democracies because they inherently don't work. The only weakness they described to a Constitutional Republic was that it could only work with a God-fearing populace. Now that's something you could sink your teeth into.
I think Trump and his team realize how close we are to the point of no return. Perhaps that's why DOGE is actually going to be a real thing. This wouldn't happen if nearly any other Republican won.
I'm still laughing my *** off cause they want to bring remote workers back to offices and all the boomers ******* love it.
one of the least efficient things you could possibly do...
Unless “efficient” isn’t the goal - it’s probably a way to reduce the agency head counts without the legal and financial exposures of layoffs.
When the company I used to work for went from remote to 50% in-office, a big chunk of the employees found other jobs.
Unless “efficient” isn’t the goal - it’s probably a way to reduce the agency head counts without the legal and financial exposures of layoffs.
When the company I used to work for went from remote to 50% in-office, a big chunk of the employees found other jobs.
because in-office is ******* retarded as ****. it's the final boss of all retardation.
because in-office is ******* retarded as ****. it's the final boss of all retardation.
Exactly. So if they tell you that you have to be in the office, you’ll quit, and they’ll have taken your paycheck out of their budget without having to pay severance or COBRA.
Sounds like someone doesn't want to go back to the office full time./s
I'm currently WFH, when I interviewed, I thought I was going to be at HQ learned after I took the job it was actually remote was a huge bonus. I'll probably never go back; I'm much more productive now and the myriad benefits from being home are insane for both parties.
Originally Posted by xturner
Exactly. So if they tell you that you have to be in the office, you’ll quit, and they’ll have taken your paycheck out of their budget without having to pay severance or COBRA.
Fair point, I was going to say it also make you lose a lot of actual talent, but I forgot that's like one in every 1000 GSs.
I've worked in gov't for the last 14 year, and it's rare to find a competent average govt employee.
My wife was remote for her last 10 years working. Her company realized that they were maintaining 250K sq ft of leased space so that people could work on computers, so they offered a “you get broadband at home( like everyone already did), we’ll give you everything else” deal. They maintained open work spaces at HQ in case they were needed, so my wife went in a couple times a month, but most of the month she was 300 miles away.
I’m not familiar with office space leasing, but her company was saving millions every month, and her(our) life got better.
My limited dealings with Federal employees is limited to a couple crashes with EPA and FTC, and I suspect that those guys are essentially unemployable in the private sector.
Our company closed two leased properties and sold a third during COVID, and switched to full remote for everyone that made sense (mostly engineering personnel.) They ranted and raved about the cost savings from downsizing, and increased productivity (since nobody was taking lunch breaks and weren't "shutting down" during lunches, evenings, etc.)
Then they went and hired a huge bunch of entry level engineers, and are now forcing 50/50 schedules to return in office for senior personnel, and full-time in-office for new hires. Not only are the senior personnel losing efficiency by having to come in twice a week, but they're so overworked that the new hires aren't getting adequate training or OJT to begin with. On top of that, they're having to sink additional cash they don't have into workplace renovations, because they quickly ran out of room and are now desperate to expand to accommodate cubicles and parking spots for everyone.
Why they decided "back to the office" was a smart idea, I have no idea. Are they somehow expecting Gen Z kids to not be capable of working remotely?
The Irony in this is that another gov't agency is being built to purportedly do its job.
Yep, ironic. The stated goal is to shut DOGE down after two years. But who has ever seen a government entity shut down? BTW, Musk says the goal is to go from 428 to 98 in this time, and House Speaker Johnson says he supports it. Again, what he says and what they'll do are probably two different things...I get it.
The Founding Fathers were painfully aware of the failures of a Democracy; you really can't call this "semantics" and then continue on.
I think that's an unfair dismissal of the rest of what I wrote.
As I was thinking about this reply, I was going to liken your response to being the guy who says "Actually, if it's not from the Champagne region of France, then it's merely sparkling wine," however I realized that is not a good comparison, because the Champagne thing is technically accurate.
The US is, and was originally founded as, a Representative Democracy. We the People vote for politicians to represent us in both the Legislature and the Executive. That's all "Day 1, right here in the Constitution" stuff.
A Representative Democracy is one form of Democracy.
Direct Democracy, in which the people vote directly on every single decision, is another way of implementing a Democratic government. One, I might note, which does not work well at large scale.
We actually do have elements of this today, in the form of Referendum votes, in which a "Shall this law be enacted?" type of question is printed directly on a ballot. This practice has existed in the US since the late 1800s, and today exists in 23 states. Recent examples of Popular Referendums include the legalization of marijuana and the question of whether access to abortion shall be specifically protected by amendment of the State constitution.
But the only thing which really matters, after all of that has been said, is this: When someone says "American Democracy" or "Democracy in America," the average person knows what they mean.
Responding with "America is not a Democracy" isn't merely unhelpful, it's actually untrue.
We don't vote on issues. We vote for statesmen to decide and vote on issues. We can give them our opinion, but they have the ability to choose to vote contrary to our opinion or even every constituent's opinion. We are a constitutional representative republic. As Maryland's representative to the Constitutional Convention, James McHenry, recorded in an interaction between Benjamin Franklin and a lady named Mrs. Powell of Philadelphia, Franklin famously said the new form of government will be, "A republic, if you can keep it."
I think that's an unfair dismissal of the rest of what I wrote.
As I was thinking about this reply, I was going to liken your response to being the guy who says "Actually, if it's not from the Champagne region of France, then it's merely sparkling wine," however I realized that is not a good comparison, because the Champagne thing is technically accurate.
The US is, and was originally founded as, a Representative Democracy. We the People vote for politicians to represent us in both the Legislature and the Executive. That's all "Day 1, right here in the Constitution" stuff.
A Representative Democracy is one form of Democracy.
Direct Democracy, in which the people vote directly on every single decision, is another way of implementing a Democratic government. One, I might note, which does not work well at large scale.
We actually do have elements of this today, in the form of Referendum votes, in which a "Shall this law be enacted?" type of question is printed directly on a ballot. This practice has existed in the US since the late 1800s, and today exists in 23 states. Recent examples of Popular Referendums include the legalization of marijuana and the question of whether access to abortion shall be specifically protected by amendment of the State constitution.
But the only thing which really matters, after all of that has been said, is this: When someone says "American Democracy" or "Democracy in America," the average person knows what they mean.
Responding with "America is not a Democracy" isn't merely unhelpful, it's actually untrue.
I prefer to use the term "Constitutional Republic". Republic encompasses all the things you mention with "representative democracy", without the ugly use of the "d" word. "Constitutional" says that we're a nation of laws, not of men. That's what's kept us going all this time; not a cult of personality or majority rule, but an adherence to a set of rules that can be added to or changed from time to time.
2
