A Democracy too far?

[dmp]

also:
http://www.vice.com/read/here-are-all-the-laws-passed-by-the-worst-congress-of-all-time

How depressing to see how little has gotten done. Disagreement to the point that nothing can be done just maintains the status quo - and I think we all agree somethings need to be improved in this country before too much longer.
They really need to make a filibuster a filibuster again.

 

[JohnRoberts]

also:
http://www.vice.com/read/here-are-all-the-laws-passed-by-the-worst-congress-of-all-time

How depressing to see how little has gotten done. Disagreement to the point that nothing can be done just maintains the status quo - and I think we all agree somethings need to be improved in this country before too much longer.
They really need to make a filibuster a filibuster again.

There are two very different philosophies about the role of government. Some see government as the all wise, nurturing parent and solution for all the worlds problems, others see government as a parasitic sea anchor that slows human progress by meddling in areas they shouldn't.

Some state legislatures don't even meet every year... and manage to get the people's work done.

I am of the view that government is not the solution and in fact significantly responsible for our current economic malaise, due to past misguided efforts to help us. 

I expect opinions vary.

JR

PS: Just to be clear I am not advocating anarchy, just a smaller more focused central government doing just what they should. Trying to control macroeconomics by fiat is the height of arrogance (like fooling mother nature). Macro economics is the result of billions of people making personal decisions in their individual self-interest. No central planner can manage that and attempts to influence things on that macro scale routinely lead to negative unintended consequences.  An object lesson playing out in slow motion right now is Japan who is actively increasing sovereign debt despite already being 200+ % of their GDP. Interesting times.

 

[Pip]

Anybody know what the real name of the Law is that everybody refers to by that intended to besmerch title as in this case O'care. Oh yea and while where at it lets eliminate entitlements and socialist government initiatives.

By the way half of most enlisted people with families get food stamps. Way to go USA you serve your country and you get to eat cheese on the state.

Read about macroeconomics and what must happen to a countries economy for it to really take effect. Way to go Boys from Chicago.

Hows about the fact that every appointment you receive from the government gives you another guaranteed pension. Way to go Dick Cheney 5 and counting!

The President does not make laws Congress and the Senate do. He may draft or reccommend legislation but they must bring it to the floor and pass it and then he gets to sign it into law. Way to go Congress what reading got ya stumped?!

Oh yea it's called the Affordable Care Act and its a Law! That Congress and the senate passed. Way to go elected officials! What maybe you thought the Affordable Care Act and O'care were two different things like most Americans.

So lets look at the pre-flight checklist shall we? Passed by congress? Check! Passed by Senate? Check! Signed into law by President? Check! Oh and late info. Upheld by Supreme Court? Check! All branches of government involved and in the affirmative. Hmmm? Can you say what happened did ya all wake up after a bad drunk? Or just back on the bus to Agenda Town. Or dang that guy really kicked our asses in that there election thing and we gotta make sure that nobody ever thinks that they can do that again especially if they don't aggree with us!

 

[dmp]

There are two very different philosophies about the role of government. Some see government as the all wise, nurturing parent and solution for all the worlds problems, others see government as a parasitic sea anchor that slows human progress by meddling in areas they shouldn't.

There is a lot of grey between those extremes. I hope most people see that there is a middle ground where government provides a lot of value but is restrained as well.
I fear that 'binary thinking' has led to extremists in the Congress that now have great influence. I don't think you get in the door of the tea party without being fanatically anti-government.

 

[JohnRoberts]

Oh yea it's called the Affordable Care Act and its a Law! That Congress and the senate passed. Way to go elected officials! What maybe you thought the Affordable Care Act and O'care were two different things like most Americans.

Who me? A funny thing about names for legislation, the names are often full of promise, some would say wishful thinking. They rarely reflect reality.

I guess people see the healthcare problem differently or as more than one problem. Most thoughtful people were concerned about the rising costs of healthcare, some concerned about underserved fractions of the population who relied upon emergency room visits.

One of the major promises of O'care (aka ACA) was bending the price curve, and I get angry when the spinners on TV talk about slowing the rise of health care costs.

Look at the damn chart... look at what happened immediately after the law passed, yup ramped up faster than it was... and now it is merely flat after that quick ramp up. They are taking credit for a recent slowing to the significant rise in costs that they caused by passing the law (the industry raised prices in anticipation of this).    The long term trend is unchanged, and it is too early to tell one way or the other about the long term effects of the law, but this doesn't stop the unethical spinners from taking a victory lap.

So lets look at the pre-flight checklist shall we? Passed by congress? Check! Passed by Senate? Check! Signed into law by President? Check! Oh and late info. Upheld by Supreme Court? Check! All branches of government involved and in the affirmative. Hmmm? Can you say what happened did ya all wake up after a bad drunk? Or just back on the bus to Agenda Town. Or dang that guy really kicked our asses in that there election thing and we gotta make sure that nobody ever thinks that they can do that again especially if they don't aggree with us!

I have been posting about this since day one. While they didn't bend the cost curve they did bend a few rules to get the legislation passed. While not the first or only to ever bend rules in government.  This is massive important legislation that affects every single American but written by only one party. Past examples of such large scope legislation (like civil rights) were an actual (ugly) negotiation with more views represented. 

I don't know about drunk, but we are about to get the hangover from this excessive legislation.

JR

PS I am not opposed to expanding our safety net for truly disadvantaged citizens. During the sausage making I looked at multiple other country's versions of socialized medicine, and several offer financial support for disadvantaged citizens so they can participate in private health care. Instead we are supposed to believe that the government can take over the entire thing and run it effectively. Just look at the post office (or IRS, or...) for an example of government efficiency and effectiveness. Do we want them running more than 15%+ of our economy? (rhetorical.. no).

 

[Kingston]

Oh dear god that chart. What a horrible death grip and power the insurance companies hold over people in the states. I feel really bad for you people forced to live in that private corporate dystopia of a country.

 

[JohnRoberts]

There are two very different philosophies about the role of government. Some see government as the all wise, nurturing parent and solution for all the worlds problems, others see government as a parasitic sea anchor that slows human progress by meddling in areas they shouldn't.

There is a lot of grey between those extremes. I hope most people see that there is a middle ground where government provides a lot of value but is restrained as well.
I fear that 'binary thinking' has led to extremists in the Congress that now have great influence. I don't think you get in the door of the tea party without being fanatically anti-government.

As i offerend in my PS.... and in multiple posts over the years.. There is a place for government. It is just not their place to manage everything.

JR

PS: To get back on topic, and this is a personal problem, I had to change the channel again today to get away from the president lobbying the public to promote his position. While the bully pulpit is his to exploit, let my make this observation. When the principals are talking at us, instead of to each other, they are not making progress toward a solution.

Ignore the head fakes... They need to be locked in a room and not let out until they deal.

PPS: Unfortunately shutting down the government does not significantly alter the debt ceiling threshold (still around Oct 17), because only non-essential workers are furloughed.

PPPS: yesterday the stock market went up, so the President gave an interview to one of the financial channels to talk the market back down (IMO).  This morning another press release promising economic apocalypse. This inciting public fear is obviously intended to put pressure on the legislature to fold. 

 

[JohnRoberts]

Oh dear god that chart. What a horrible death grip and power the insurance hold over people in the states. I feel really bad for you people forced to live in that private corporate dystopia of a country.

Yup, insurance industry was thwarting free market forces from introducing competition and keeping costs down, now they are crony capitalist butt buddies with government. What could go wrong?

I do not have insurance and estimate I paid 2-3x what i should have for a simple MRI, but there was no completive market locally for me to shop and find a lower price. I could have travelled to a state on the other side of the country and paid maybe 1/3 what I did.  :'(

I never said there wasn't a problem, I only disagree with the solution.

JR

 

[DaveP]

You've all gone off topic.

This was originally about the flaws in your system of government that cause problems for the rest of the world.

If the US was just a very small economy it would not matter much how daft your system was.

In the UK and similar western democracies, we elect a government to fulfil their manifesto, the financing of it is part and parcel of the deal.  If a party came up with ridiculously expensive plans we would not elect them.

Your problem is that you've inserted a layer of approval in the wrong place.  When Congress passes a law the financial implications should be taken into account at that point, it should not need a separate vote for the finance of that law otherwise you are open to constant disruption as you frequently discover.

Same thing with your debt ceiling, you are causing yourself and everyone else enormous problems by arguing over it every year.  The time to discuss it is when there is an election and its a policy topic to be voted on.

What seemed a great system 270 years ago is past its sell by date now and badly needs reforming (same type of problem in UK where we haven't even got electronic voting yet)

I'd like to say its none of my damn business, but unfortunately you are so big its become everyones business but we don't get to vote on it!

 

[JohnRoberts]

You've all gone off topic.

This was originally about the flaws in your system of government that cause problems for the rest of the world.

If the US was just a very small economy it would not matter much how daft your system was.

In the UK and similar western democracies, we elect a government to fulfil their manifesto, the financing of it is part and parcel of the deal.  If a party came up with ridiculously expensive plans we would not elect them.

Your problem is that you've inserted a layer of approval in the wrong place.  When Congress passes a law the financial implications should be taken into account at that point, it should not need a separate vote for the finance of that law otherwise you are open to constant disruption as you frequently discover.

Same thing with your debt ceiling, you are causing yourself and everyone else enormous problems by arguing over it every year.  The time to discuss it is when there is an election and its a policy topic to be voted on.

What seemed a great system 270 years ago is past its sell by date now and badly needs reforming (same type of problem in UK where we haven't even got electronic voting yet)

I'd like to say its none of my damn business, but unfortunately you are so big its become everyones business but we don't get to vote on it!

The founders made this process contentious on purpose. They understand the problems from consolidating too much power, in too few people. If our leadership could do every single thing they wanted to do without any checks, we would be in a far deeper hole. 

I am sorry that we are the bull in the world's economic China shop, but don't worry our fearless leader is making us weaker every passing day, so soon you can complain about China or India who are growing to fill the void in the Pacific created by us being diminished.

I like to think a strong America is good for world (not perfect but better than the next few alternatives), but I don't expect the world to think that.

JR

 

[DaveP]

The founders made this process contentious on purpose. They understand the problems from consolidating too much power, in too few people. If our leadership could do every single thing they wanted to do without any checks, we would be in a far deeper hole.

You talk about the founders like they were ancient gods from a golden age.  They probably had a great system that was the envy of the world in 1776.  But what worked back then when you were a little ex colony has now saddled you with a system which is unfit for purpose in the 21st century, consequently you are also sloshing around up to your knees in firearms that are available to any loonytune to use, but that is another off topic.

You have endowed your "founders" with a surfeit of reverence that has made any change to your system seem like an act of sacrilege.  The same excessive reverence infects all manner of old institutions, the Catholic Church only pardoned Galileo after 300 years as one example (not a rushed decision), women not being allowed to drive in Saudi Arabia is another (makes them infertile apparently).

Your comment implies an enormous lack of trust in your leaders, maybe its because your candidates need the budget of a small country to get elected?  Does that restrict your choice to a certain type of rich business person/lawyer who intrinsically can't be trusted? 

You've got to admit I have a point JR?

DaveP

 

[hodad]

This is massive important legislation that affects every single American but written by only one party.

There you go again. 
The ACA is based on Republican ideas and is extremely similar to the approach taken in Massachusetts by Republican Governor Mitt Romney.  ACA was a compromise from the beginning, and it was debated for 14 months.  Don't tell me Republicans didn't have a say in the legislation. 

Of course, over-represented in the discussion were various large corporations with various and sundry at stake  in this deal.  That doesn't make me happy, but there's not a whole lot to do about that at this time. 

The scary thing for the GOP is that Americans might actually like Obamacare.  And if that happens, they got nothin'.

 

[JohnRoberts]

The founders made this process contentious on purpose. They understand the problems from consolidating too much power, in too few people. If our leadership could do every single thing they wanted to do without any checks, we would be in a far deeper hole.

You talk about the founders like they were ancient gods from a golden age.  They probably had a great system that was the envy of the world in 1776.  But what worked back then when you were a little ex colony has now saddled you with a system which is unfit for purpose in the 21st century, consequently you are also sloshing around up to your knees in firearms that are available to any loonytune to use, but that is another off topic.

A read of the Federalist Papers will provide a sense of how expensively they researched other previous systems of government, discussing strengths and weaknesses.

I do not suggest that times have not changed, but the last thing we need is to make it easier for a powerful central government to control more our lives.

Our constitution provided for amendments and I have a few i would like to suggest myself. But these are even harder to get passed.

I agree that the massive spending in Washington has corrupted the process.... Why do you think they spend so much money to get elected and their hands on the levers of power? it is precisely to take advantage of controlling this spending for advantage.

The only solution for this IMO is to shrink government and reduce the prize that they all spend so much money pursuing. Do the math, follow the money, insert your own cliche. 

You have endowed your "founders" with a surfeit of reverence that has made any change to your system seem like an act of sacrilege.  The same excessive reverence infects all manner of old institutions, the Catholic Church only pardoned Galileo after 300 years as one example (not a rushed decision), women not being allowed to drive in Saudi Arabia is another (makes them infertile apparently).

I am capable of forming and describing what i think... you are not even close. While I do hold them in reverence, they respected what they didn't know and allowed for amendments so our government could evolve.

Your comment implies an enormous lack of trust in your leaders, maybe its because your candidates need the budget of a small country to get elected?  Does that restrict your choice to a certain type of rich business person/lawyer who intrinsically can't be trusted? 

Indeed I do favor one party over the other, but only as a lesser evil. I do not have much respect for the economic and math skills of the administration, nor the math and economic skills of both houses. They are overly focussed on getting re-elected. The whole purpose of government design is to prevent them from doing harm as they follow their very human urges.

You've got to admit I have a point JR?

DaveP

No, I do not when I do not hear a concrete solution that appears any better.  Our form of government may appear messy and unstructured from a distance. Our reportage here is well off the mark, regurgitating party lines, that only prolong the disagreement. Media profits from the conflict so has no interest in solution. I do not expect you to receive a more balanced view from your local media ("look at those silly colonists, again!"). CSPAN televises the PMQ in house of commons, and that looks pretty bizarre compared to our sausage making, but it's the sausage that matters, not how it looks while it is being made.

JR

 

[JohnRoberts]

This is massive important legislation that affects every single American but written by only one party.

There you go again. 
The ACA is based on Republican ideas and is extremely similar to the approach taken in Massachusetts by Republican Governor Mitt Romney.  ACA was a compromise from the beginning, and it was debated for 14 months.  Don't tell me Republicans didn't have a say in the legislation. 

The vast majority of the bill was written in closed committee sessions, not open floor debate. Few(?) even  read it before the vote, let alone participated in a bi-patisan process to craft it.

The vote is a matter of record. Senator Kennedy died during the process depriving the democrats in the Senate of their super-majority so they had to pass the final bill by reconciliation since they didn't have enough votes to pass it normally.  Reconciliation is generally used to make budgetary adjustments not to pass contentious major legislation, but that too is history, so academic at this point.

Of course, over-represented in the discussion were various large corporations with various and sundry at stake  in this deal.  That doesn't make me happy, but there's not a whole lot to do about that at this time. 

The scary thing for the GOP is that Americans might actually like Obamacare.  And if that happens, they got nothin'.

As i have said many times I recognize that the American healthcare system has problems. IMO this not only does not fix those problems but moves us further toward the flawed one payer system.

Sorry If i haven't been clear...  I do not have time to play talking point bingo. People generally like entitlements, so i don't see them easily giving this up. The problem for responsible people is to figure out how to polish this turd... Like how do we pay for it? how do we really reduce costs? Besides just paying hospitals less for doing more. 

Time will tell.. I would really love to be wrong. REALLY.

JR

PS: FWIW the partisan spinners have managed to talk down the market so far today with fears of an "apocalyptic" debt default. I really hate to watch this play out but the public who barely pay attention normally are pretty easy to manipulate with fear and a sympathetic media that already thrives on scaring viewers.

 

[DaveP]

Oh well I tried :-\

Couple of clarifications;

I would put money on the fact that most Brits would not know that the US used to be a colony so the media wouldn't take that line.

Our house of commons and house of Lords (says it all really) is as much of an anchronism as your system which is the point I was making.  In fact our flunkies still wear the same get-up as your founding fathers on high days and holidays, its all  so bizarre.

I can't know and never will know the intricacies of the workings of your system, I can only comment as an objective observer, and from where we are standing something needs fixing.

I guess your founders did not anticipate that 230 odd years down the line, the very people who would hold them in such esteem (Tea Party) would subvert their carefully contrived system of government, but then the morals and standards of behaviour are probably not in the same class as back then.
best
DaveP

 

[JohnRoberts]

Oh well I tried :-\

Couple of clarifications;

I would put money on the fact that most Brits would not know that the US used to be a colony so the media wouldn't take that line.

Our house of commons and house of Lords (says it all really) is as much of an anchronism as your system which is the point I was making.  In fact our flunkies still wear the same get-up as your founding fathers on high days and holidays, its all  so bizarre.

I can't know and never will know the intricacies of the workings of your system, I can only comment as an objective observer, and from where we are standing something needs fixing.

I guess your founders did not anticipate that 230 odd years down the line, the very people who would hold them in such esteem (Tea Party) would subvert their carefully contrived system of government, but then the morals and standards of behaviour are probably not in the same class as back then.
best
DaveP

While I can't know what modern politicians really think, the founders published essays. albeit under fake names to argue their opinions about how to govern (Federalist Papers).

I suspect the founders would applaud the tea party for being pissed off and getting personally involved. "A government by the people". Where do you think the tea party got their ideas?

If the gears of government are quiet, it means they getting too much grease from outside interest groups, or a dictatorship where opposing views are squashed. A loud vigorous debate is healthy. Talking past each other to the press like we have right now is not healthy debate, while the news media enjoys the fear mongering, because it gets more people to tune in. I have my TV turned off right now. 

I don't want to change our government just return it to the principles laid out. I wouldn't mind a few small tweaks like an amendment to control spending, but even that is not without unintended consequences. We already have rules in congress about budgets that are being being ignored. We are arguing about a CR because there never was a budget passed.

I am still listening for alternative suggestions. A coalition form of legislative organization could help break the two party duopoly, and give more voice to smaller political fractions.  When one party today claims to speak for the majority that is laughable, they barely speak for one party.

Our electoral system is designed to make narrow wins look like landslide victories to quiet the losers. Another clever bit of design, but sometimes the winners believe the PR.

JR

 

[Pip]

Our electoral system is designed to make narrow wins look like landslide victories to quiet the losers. Another clever bit of design, but sometimes the winners believe the PR.

JR

The only party that guaranteed loses if the electoral college goes away is the GOP! Thats why they redistrict so much!

As to the Framers as they are often called. I believe that they attempted to create something new and different with a truly fresh approach and really tried as best they could to think outside their own biases to a new day. That being said this new concept is still the new kid on the block at about 300 years old we aren't even a young adolescent. Guess it's the terrible two's?!

It is not the governments job to manage everything but it is the governments job to regulate and watchdog also to investigate and prosecute the wrong doers. It is the free press that is supposed to watch the watchers and it is we the peoples job to take action when the system gets missused. So I guess everyone has forgotten what their job is again? Maybe because they are so worried about what someone might think or say if they get a little proactive. So a decent system is left to those with less conscious and more audacity then balls to act out their paranoid fear fantasy! The I got mine and I will do whatever it takes so you don't take it away squad. Ah macroeconomics. What politician said "want to know the reason for anything.... look to where the money is" or words to that effect!

 

[JohnRoberts]

Our electoral system is designed to make narrow wins look like landslide victories to quiet the losers. Another clever bit of design, but sometimes the winners believe the PR.

JR

The only party that guaranteed loses if the electoral college goes away is the GOP! Thats why they redistrict so much!

Yup the changing demographics are not the republican's friend right now, but some of this is how the party is characterized by the friendly opposition. One side is clearly better than the other at appearing to offer all things to all people.

The districts are set by the states after the census every ten years. I saw one of the cable talk channels showing some grotesque districts last night as if this was a new phenomenon. This partisan practice plied by both sides (when in power) was named "Gerrymandering" in 1812. More recently we've seen "Perry-mandering" in TX, and "Jerry-mandering" in CA.

This is one of the slow rhythms in politics swinging on a 10 year cycle.  It hasn't been enough to keep one party in power perpetually, but it may reduce turn-over of politicians in certain districts. Some are blaming Gerrymandering for the intransigence of the conservative block of some 80 representatives in the house thwarting a quick deal. This gerrymandering cuts both ways, i recall listening to the election results during the last presidential election when Romney did not get one single vote in some purely democratic districts.

As to the Framers as they are often called. I believe that they attempted to create something new and different with a truly fresh approach and really tried as best they could to think outside their own biases to a new day. That being said this new concept is still the new kid on the block at about 300 years old we aren't even a young adolescent. Guess it's the terrible two's?!

It is not the governments job to manage everything but it is the governments job to regulate and watchdog also to investigate and prosecute the wrong doers. It is the free press that is supposed to watch the watchers and it is we the peoples job to take action when the system gets missused. So I guess everyone has forgotten what their job is again? Maybe because they are so worried about what someone might think or say if they get a little proactive. So a decent system is left to those with less conscious and more audacity then balls to act out their paranoid fear fantasy! The I got mine and I will do whatever it takes so you don't take it away squad. Ah macroeconomics. What politician said "want to know the reason for anything.... look to where the money is" or words to that effect!

Speaking of money, I heard a report of record political contributions pouring into both sides due to this recent conflict. I suspect the politicians may delay the people's business a little longer if their personal kitty is getting fattened up.

JR

PS: Thank you for the thoughtful comments, it is nice to talk "about" politics, without talking politics.

 

[Indecline]

Wouldn't the "democratic" way to repeal the ACA be to win a majority and the presidency, thus removing the possibility of a veto?

I doubt the founders would endorse the tactics used today of grinding the government to a halt over something that was indeed passed into law. Don't like it? Use it as part of your campaign, get elected and change it. Voice your opinion in the government (like the House voting 40 times for repeal of the ACA, kudos to them), then use that to change the law by getting a majority elected and the presidency. It worked for prohibition, civil right, womens rights, etc. IMO, the Republicans have one chance to change it and it's by winning in 2016, not by collapsing the government today. Obama would never repeal the law, and they know that, so why are they playing chicken? To get re-elected by their base? And by that process they're weakening the whole Republican party and driving voters to Democrats since the Tea Party and Republicans have split into two factions, thus reducing their influence from voters. Plus the Republicans are now associated with the "wacko" Tea Party (and yes, TP'ers actually endorse this term) who most Americans see as the biggest reason for congress getting nothing accomplished. They're shooting themselves and their closest, sort-of ally in both of their feet.

I'm sorry but our government isn't suppose to work this way. Obstructing a bill before it becomes law is one thing, obstructing a law and closing the government because of that law is another. That's not how you repeal a law.

 

[QUEEF BAG]

the ten commandments for a rational debate...


1.  Thou shall not attack a person's character but the argument itself.  ("Ad hominem")

.

2.  Thou shall not misrepresent or exaggerate a person's argument In order to make it easier to attack.  ("Straw Man Fallacy)



3.  Thou shall not use small numbers to represent the whole.



4.  Thou shall not argue thy position by assuming one of its premises is true. ("Begging the Question")



5.  Thou shall not claim that because something occurred before something it must be the cause.



6.  Thou shall not reduce the argument down to two possibilities.  (Fake dichotomy)



7.  Thou shall not that because of our ignorance that the claim must be true.



8.  Thou shall not lay the burden of proof onto him who is questioning the claim.  ("Burden of Proof reversal")



9.  Thou shall not claim this follows that when when "it" has no logical connection.  ("non sequitor")



10. Thou shall not claim that because a premises is popular, therefore, it must be true. ("Bandwagon Fallacy")



both parties fail miserably here.





i think of the intro announcer from the superman series in the '60's 

" truth, justice, and the american way"



i realize now those are three SEPARATE THINGS.