But in essence you've made things unequal in the other direction. Small states who have very different priorities than the large states get the say in who wins the election. So in essence, a vote in Wisconsin is worth twice a vote in California. And let's not forget the whole reason your founders set up the electoral college in the first…
But in essence you've made things unequal in the other direction. Small states who have very different priorities than the large states get the say in who wins the election. So in essence, a vote in Wisconsin is worth twice a vote in California. And let's not forget the whole reason your founders set up the electoral college in the first place - so that slavers would have an outsized influence on the elections. It also sure seems like the EC is also set up to keep Repubs in power rather than Dems, as Dems always seem to win the popular vote.
In essence, as an outsider looking in, I reject your premise. Your system is borked.
The slavers argument is false. Votes in solid blue or red states count for less than in swing states. Wisconsin is swing , California is blue, Texas is red. Dems win the popular vote bc they promise to give lots of money to voters. Irresponsible. What is your country’s voting system?
If you knew anything about Modern Monetary Theory (MMT), you would know that giving more money to the citizens is not as irresponsible as you think.
MMT looks at the different sectors of the economy: the public sector (the Federal government), the private sector (the people and businesses), and our relationship with the rest of the world (the outer sector).
Leaving the outer sector aside, it's the balance between the public and private sectors that interests us.
The Federal government creates the currency. It can never go broke as long as its debts are contracted in its own currency.
The deficit is the sum between the outlay of currency and what comes back in taxes.
It's like a seesaw: when the government is down, the private sector is up, and vice versa. If the government has a debt, the private sector has a surplus. If the government has a surplus, the private sector has to take on debt. As long as the government has a deficit, you and I don't have to take out loans to get by. And the government can never go broke or fail to pay the debt, but you and I have to pay back whatever loans we take out.
Since the government has people like you convinced that they should "decrease the deficit," the American people have had to shoulder a huge amount of debt: mortgages, student loans, and credit cards. We are crippled by the amount of debt that we have.
Most Americans make the mistake of thinking that since they understand their household budget, "the Federal budget" is exactly the same. Don't make this mistake. The Federal government doesn't really have a "budget" in the same way that you and I do. It's misleading to call it a "budget."
And you need to know that our politicians love to mislead the public about the economy and their role in it.
One of the misleading lies is to ask (only when the people are asking for something for themselves): "How are you going to pay for it?" They never say that when they are voting to spend billions of dollars on weapons for Ukraine or Israel. They never say that when they are voting for the huge upward transfer of wealth that happened during the Covid fiasco. They only say that when we want universal healthcare, or reducing the college debt, or housing the homeless.
It's not irresponsible to support your own people. Is it irresponsible for FEMA to do something for the people in Asheville, North Carolina?
The international definition of a failed state is a government that can't provide its citizens with the basic necessities of life: food, clean water, shelter, and freedom from state violence. By this definition, the US is a failed state. Providing for your citizens isn't irresponsible; it's acting like a strong country acts and not a failed state.
But in essence you've made things unequal in the other direction. Small states who have very different priorities than the large states get the say in who wins the election. So in essence, a vote in Wisconsin is worth twice a vote in California. And let's not forget the whole reason your founders set up the electoral college in the first place - so that slavers would have an outsized influence on the elections. It also sure seems like the EC is also set up to keep Repubs in power rather than Dems, as Dems always seem to win the popular vote.
In essence, as an outsider looking in, I reject your premise. Your system is borked.
The slavers argument is false. Votes in solid blue or red states count for less than in swing states. Wisconsin is swing , California is blue, Texas is red. Dems win the popular vote bc they promise to give lots of money to voters. Irresponsible. What is your country’s voting system?
If you knew anything about Modern Monetary Theory (MMT), you would know that giving more money to the citizens is not as irresponsible as you think.
MMT looks at the different sectors of the economy: the public sector (the Federal government), the private sector (the people and businesses), and our relationship with the rest of the world (the outer sector).
Leaving the outer sector aside, it's the balance between the public and private sectors that interests us.
The Federal government creates the currency. It can never go broke as long as its debts are contracted in its own currency.
The deficit is the sum between the outlay of currency and what comes back in taxes.
It's like a seesaw: when the government is down, the private sector is up, and vice versa. If the government has a debt, the private sector has a surplus. If the government has a surplus, the private sector has to take on debt. As long as the government has a deficit, you and I don't have to take out loans to get by. And the government can never go broke or fail to pay the debt, but you and I have to pay back whatever loans we take out.
Since the government has people like you convinced that they should "decrease the deficit," the American people have had to shoulder a huge amount of debt: mortgages, student loans, and credit cards. We are crippled by the amount of debt that we have.
Most Americans make the mistake of thinking that since they understand their household budget, "the Federal budget" is exactly the same. Don't make this mistake. The Federal government doesn't really have a "budget" in the same way that you and I do. It's misleading to call it a "budget."
And you need to know that our politicians love to mislead the public about the economy and their role in it.
One of the misleading lies is to ask (only when the people are asking for something for themselves): "How are you going to pay for it?" They never say that when they are voting to spend billions of dollars on weapons for Ukraine or Israel. They never say that when they are voting for the huge upward transfer of wealth that happened during the Covid fiasco. They only say that when we want universal healthcare, or reducing the college debt, or housing the homeless.
It's not irresponsible to support your own people. Is it irresponsible for FEMA to do something for the people in Asheville, North Carolina?
The international definition of a failed state is a government that can't provide its citizens with the basic necessities of life: food, clean water, shelter, and freedom from state violence. By this definition, the US is a failed state. Providing for your citizens isn't irresponsible; it's acting like a strong country acts and not a failed state.