What's the risk?

[Chachma v'Oz]

Over the past century our political system has evolved into a two-party affair. For the first 80 years or so it worked well enough. The parties' representatives we sent to congress more or less worked together, wheeling and dealing, cooperating if necessary, horse-trading to get the best deal and compromising if that's the only way to accomplish at least something. They eventually turned out product that was neither ideal nor intolerable to either side.

But since 1994 there's been a fundamental change in our political process. Cooperation gave way to belligerence and compromise fell before lines drawn in the sand. As a result, our legislative process has ground to a halt. Rather than dealing with American's problems we flit from crisis to crisis after applying band-aid after band-aid, creating more and worse problems and solving none.

There doesn't seem to be a viable third party on the horizon, so where are we headed? And at what risk? It depends on who's running the show, and it couldn't be more black and white.

If the Democrats hold sway, we can expect creeping socialism. Is that bad? It wouldn't seem so, initially. We have a ways to go before reaching even the middle of the field, but as people see how their standard of living and quality of life improves, they're unlikely to call for restraint. Eventually we'll begin to think things might be going too far, the pendulum's swing will slow to a stop, and the inevitable reversal in programs and policies will follow. Risk assessment: short-term low, long-term moderate.

If the Republicans get the upper hand, we'll see more developing plutocracy. It's understandable that the wealthy will want to protect their interests and use their power and influence in the political process to achieve that, but now that won't be enough. With our elections for sale on the world market to the wealthiest players, the culture of greed will drive them to concentrate all the wealth into their very few hands. It won't be enough to own the lion's share, they will endeavor to own it all. They will lead, in any direction that furthers their ends, and the rest of us will exist only to serve them. We have no choice, because we haven't the power to stop it. By the time the pendulum swings this far, it isn't swinging back. It can't. They own the pendulum now.

All that may be well and good depending on your view of how things ought to be. But is there risk? You bet, on several levels.

Politically, American voters' voices will be drowned out by the tsunami of foreign and domestic money flowing into our campaigns and selecting our leaders.

Economically, as the income of workers continues to decline relative to that of managers and owners, business will become inefficient. When consumer workers can no longer afford to buy the products they're producing, everybody loses, up and down the line.

Socially, well, there's the biggest risk. Plutocracies throughout history have two unwavering characteristics. They don't last very long, and they end violently. Risk assessment: short-term high, long-term extremely high.

Looking at this simply and objectively, it seems that taking the path that presents less risk would be prudent, particularly when the other path offers no benefit whatsoever for our nation's future.

[garyd]

The primary risk right now is that we continue to spend like the bill collectors will never ask for their money and become Weimar German or worse Zimbabwe.

[Chachma v'Oz]

Responsible taxation will make a dent in some of that borrowing, but that's a different subject.

[Freedom&Liberty]

If the Democrats hold sway, we can expect creeping socialism. Is that bad? It wouldn't seem so, initially. We have a ways to go before reaching even the middle of the field, but as people see how their standard of living and quality of life improves, they're unlikely to call for restraint. Eventually we'll begin to think things might be going too far, the pendulum's swing will slow to a stop, and the inevitable reversal in programs and policies will follow. Risk assessment: short-term low, long-term moderate.

Your assessment is completely flawed. Democrats have been saying the same stupid shit for 70 years and it's no truer today than it was then. The pendulum has never slowed to a stop and as long as people can get free shit, it never will. Government will get larger, more powerful and more corrupt and the people will become even more dependent on a failing government. Risk assessment: short-term very high, long-term completely unsustainable.

[garyd]

That which you tax you will eventually get less of. That which you reward you will eventually get more of. Eventually these two lines cross and you are screwed...

[Chachma v'Oz]

The point at which they cross is the point at which the system becomes unwieldy and needs to be reviewed.

Why is all the talk about the creeping socialism, with nothing said about the greater danger, the developing plutocracy?