"The morons in this country have elected a bunch of morons. "
Well, here I have to agree. If Boehnor loses his leadership spot next year, that will be poetic justice for having been a part of a party that thrived on gerrymandering.
I watched a "Political talking head" explain the differences in the American and Westminster systems of government last evening on Australian National TV. The talking head was an American economist and he seemed to despair that your system is so unwieldy, but yet capable of bringing the nation to a complete standstill at times when there is split control in the Congress. I gather that the politicians realize that something has to be done but that the two parties have entrenched themselves so deeply that withdrawal is impossible without loss of face.
Now, I know that the President is stymied by the House with their slim Republican majority but as the President ran on reducing the deficit with increases to the tax payable and cuts in spending, perhaps it could be held that he has a mandate for these changes. I wonder if the Congress is taking themselves seriously when they appear to be playing with lighted matches in a fireworks factory.
At least the Westminster system allows the elected government to call a double dissolution to resolve problems similar\r to those affecting my friends presently. I would certainly invoke any chance to dissolve the congress and start over with a new batch of untainted backsides ensconced on the chairs in the houses you laughingly refer to as "Government". I wonder what the founders would say could they but speak! Some here have wondered at my political allegiance. Let me reaffirm that I try to be apolitical here; in my own country I am a life long supporter of the Conservative side of politics.
"...but as the president ran on reducing the deficit with increases to the tax payable and cuts in spending..." perhaps he has a mandate for these changes.
OK But what we generally see is taxes go up and the promised cuts are promised for some future date. When that future date rolls around many voters have forgotten the details and the cuts disappear.
Or the promised cuts are really not cuts at all--they are slight decreases in the amounts of spending increases that will happen at some future date. When that future date rolls around many voters have forgotten the details and the cuts disappear.
the President ran on reducing the deficit with increases to the tax payable and cuts in spending,
There in lies the problem. The president has proposed additional spending with the new taxes collected. In addition, he proposes no cuts in spending. Can't reduce the debt without balancing the budget which isn't under consideration. They are not even discussing cutting spending. What isn't discussed are the new taxes enacted on 1/1 to begin paying for the PPACA. Not mentioned anywhere as they deem it a separate issue.
As long as we retain career politicians, we will continue with this problem.
King, you mention a slim majority in congress, let me remind you that the GOP commands a majority when all three branches are counted. We just had an election less than 60 days ago and remain in a lame duck session. No congress can encumber a future congress but past spending largess on the part of both parties has created an empty chair in the room, DEBT.
Secret back room deals are the norm now. Reconciliation between chambers in the light of day is a thing of the past. Socialists, in both parties, love crisis. Over three years have gone by without a required budget coming from the Democrat controlled Senate. Again, why haggle and vote on a budget and expose your socialist positions when our fourth estate won't hold anyone's feet to the fire.
A bandaid will be placed over the gash. The markets who love socialism will muddle along with low growth rates and high unemployment. Big crony corporations will herald any edict and continue to suck on the public teat. And in the end big government programs will continue inexorably towards the abyss.
16T is the limit. All the rest is bullshit on a shingle. Seniors eating dog food as their savings are depleted by inflation, children paying onerous tax rates to support the bloated entitlements of their fathers, and grandchildren living in the serfdom of unfathomable squalor due to generational theft, all are a short drive down the lane.
We will not allow this to happen. The rising began in 2009. We are observing the socialist statists in their final hours.
Well, I guess any comment I make is allegedly a cat fight, but your comments don't tell a complete story William. Add up all three branches and declare a Republican majority? That's a meaningless distinction. The founders intended three houses to have input for a reason. Democrats outnumber the Republicans in the senate by nearly ten seats, but they are not allowed to pass anything truly important on a simple majority vote. In congress, all that is needed for a majority vote is 218 votes, and the Republicans hold 234 seats. Suffice to say, they get their way.
In my opinion, not being able to pass things in the senate on simple majority prevents a process of reconciliation from happening. IE the Democrats there cannot pass a mostly Democrat bill that can then be reconciled with a mostly Republican bill from congress. Reid is a weak leader. Instead of finding a way to work it out, he just blocks purely partisan bills from congress. There is no moral high ground from either party there.
This has major implications for the budget process which is still largely a job of the congress. Presidents submit proposals, Obama has done his job. For reasons of ideology, the congress and the senate are not doing theirs.
Excellent, Instead of finding a way to work it out, he just blocks purely partisan bills from congress. There is no moral high ground from either party there. No truer words spoken.
Hope this year treats you well. I languish in retirement today. Without government support I might add.
And when memory failed and written records were falsified—when that happened, the claim of the Party to have improved the conditions of human life had got to be accepted, because there did not exist, and never again could exist, any standard against which it could be tested.
There are more elected GOP than DEMS across all three branches. Count up the totals.
If the people wanted the DEMS to have a filibuster proof Senate then they would have voted more DEMS in.
I agree, Reid is a weak leader.
They wanted Obama and Biden, so they will get weak leaders for four more years. So be it. Obama proposed his ideas, the congress despite your propaganda has had a bill on the table for a long time. Harry Reid's DEMS won't compromise enough within their body to gain enough votes to bring the senate version forward.
The senate is convening at 11AM this morning. Most people start work a bit earlier, but then again, most people are not faced with a made up world ending "fiscal cliff." Oh well, arrive 11Am, break for lunch at noon. Afternoon pleasantries, then Happy New Year! Let's all toast our government pay raises!
So be it. No more patches, no more hurried last minute back room deals. Your taxes are going up, spending will be cut, everyone will have to do more with less. So be it.
The market by the way is down a whopping 1 dollar. It seems the world won't end if the dicks in DC don't get it done.
1773-2009 Less is more. We are limiting government. Get used to the new normal.
William, you are being ridiculous. Your premise is basically that unless America gives the Democrats a majority that is so strong that it can't be filibustered, then clearly America flatly rejects everything Democrats stand for. If the Democrats did have a filibuster proof majority, I have absolutely no doubt you would be here bitching endlessly about how the founding fathers created the constitution TO PREVENT one party from dominating everything.
In advance Kingston, you are correct, this is a petty cat fight here. Your chiding has reminded me that deep down, nobody really gives a shit about anything but their own outlook. That includes you and me and William. Something you might not get is the behind the scenes power brokering that goes on. Our senate is elected much differently then our house of congress. In the house of congress, congressmen are elected to represent a "district" these districts are drawn and shaped in such a way to reflect political density of certain voters. IE, it is possible to draw politically shaped districts in order to ensure you will capture the greatest number of voters who lean a certain way.
Finally William, your paragraph about the congressional bill is no less propaganda. As Boehnor just showed, he can't find agreement within his own party for a bill of compromise. But, as Kingston has point out, this is a waste of time. Many of your facade arguments can be significantly dismantled when context is added. No one gives a shit about context though. Everything you post has a grain of truth and you masterfully play that as if you are holding a royal flush.
, it is possible to draw politically shaped districts in order to ensure you will capture the greatest number of voters who lean a certain way. here they tried to break up a solid Conservative district mine by taking the southern part away and merging the city of Aurora with us. Normally a district has similar needs. In our case Aurora is a city we are unincorporated county with no similarities. Almost worked however our representative was re-elected with a giant turnout from the unincorporated conservative side of the district. Happens both to Conservatives and Liberals, just depends on who controls state government.
"Happens both to Conservatives and Liberals, just depends on who controls state government."
Exactly. Get more Democrat state legislatures, and get more representation in congress. And vice versa. In a general sense, I don't have a major problem with that as your point about districts having similar needs is something I tend to believe holds true across many districts. Still, what has changed is that local Republican and Democratic parties are being taken over by large interests who could care less about local politics. In my opinion, more and more local races are being financed by gobs of money that come from outside that state and that is criminally wrong in my opinion.
It has now become one giant, angry money fight across the entire country. Anyone who runs with national aspirations must toe the party line first and foremost and place party loyalty above what is best for their constituents. If you come from a district of political hegemony and are financed by some large money from outside your district, you become nearly impossible to unseat even if you are doing a shitty job for your district. THIS is the stuff that bothers me the most and is what I think is the driving force behind lack of compromise. Just my .02 ayway
"The morons in this country have elected a bunch of morons. "
ReplyDeleteWell, here I have to agree. If Boehnor loses his leadership spot next year, that will be poetic justice for having been a part of a party that thrived on gerrymandering.
Moronic behavior has no party Max.
DeleteHappy Cliff Year!
Max, the devil you know vs the one you don't. Which is better?
DeleteI watched a "Political talking head" explain the differences in the American and Westminster systems of government last evening on Australian National TV. The talking head was an American economist and he seemed to despair that your system is so unwieldy, but yet capable of bringing the nation to a complete standstill at times when there is split control in the Congress.
ReplyDeleteI gather that the politicians realize that something has to be done but that the two parties have entrenched themselves so deeply that withdrawal is impossible without loss of face.
Now, I know that the President is stymied by the House with their slim Republican majority but as the President ran on reducing the deficit with increases to the tax payable and cuts in spending, perhaps it could be held that he has a mandate for these changes.
I wonder if the Congress is taking themselves seriously when they appear to be playing with lighted matches in a fireworks factory.
At least the Westminster system allows the elected government to call a double dissolution to resolve problems similar\r to those affecting my friends presently. I would certainly invoke any chance to dissolve the congress and start over with a new batch of untainted backsides ensconced on the chairs in the houses you laughingly refer to as "Government". I wonder what the founders would say could they but speak!
Some here have wondered at my political allegiance. Let me reaffirm that I try to be apolitical here; in my own country I am a life long supporter of the Conservative side of politics.
Cheers from Aussie
"...but as the president ran on reducing the deficit with increases to the tax payable and cuts in spending..." perhaps he has a mandate for these changes.
DeleteOK
But what we generally see is taxes go up and the promised cuts are promised for some future date. When that future date rolls around many voters have forgotten the details and the cuts disappear.
Or the promised cuts are really not cuts at all--they are slight decreases in the amounts of spending increases that will happen at some future date. When that future date rolls around many voters have forgotten the details and the cuts disappear.
Are you getting the picture yet?
the President ran on reducing the deficit with increases to the tax payable and cuts in spending,
DeleteThere in lies the problem.
The president has proposed additional spending with the new taxes collected. In addition, he proposes no cuts in spending. Can't reduce the debt without balancing the budget which isn't under consideration. They are not even discussing cutting spending. What isn't discussed are the new taxes enacted on 1/1 to begin paying for the PPACA. Not mentioned anywhere as they deem it a separate issue.
As long as we retain career politicians, we will continue with this problem.
King, you mention a slim majority in congress, let me remind you that the GOP commands a majority when all three branches are counted. We just had an election less than 60 days ago and remain in a lame duck session. No congress can encumber a future congress but past spending largess on the part of both parties has created an empty chair in the room, DEBT.
ReplyDeleteSecret back room deals are the norm now. Reconciliation between chambers in the light of day is a thing of the past. Socialists, in both parties, love crisis. Over three years have gone by without a required budget coming from the Democrat controlled Senate. Again, why haggle and vote on a budget and expose your socialist positions when our fourth estate won't hold anyone's feet to the fire.
A bandaid will be placed over the gash. The markets who love socialism will muddle along with low growth rates and high unemployment. Big crony corporations will herald any edict and continue to suck on the public teat. And in the end big government programs will continue inexorably towards the abyss.
16T is the limit. All the rest is bullshit on a shingle. Seniors eating dog food as their savings are depleted by inflation, children paying onerous tax rates to support the bloated entitlements of their fathers, and grandchildren living in the serfdom of unfathomable squalor due to generational theft, all are a short drive down the lane.
We will not allow this to happen. The rising began in 2009. We are observing the socialist statists in their final hours.
1773-2009 There remains no free lunch.
Well, I guess any comment I make is allegedly a cat fight, but your comments don't tell a complete story William. Add up all three branches and declare a Republican majority? That's a meaningless distinction. The founders intended three houses to have input for a reason. Democrats outnumber the Republicans in the senate by nearly ten seats, but they are not allowed to pass anything truly important on a simple majority vote. In congress, all that is needed for a majority vote is 218 votes, and the Republicans hold 234 seats. Suffice to say, they get their way.
ReplyDeleteIn my opinion, not being able to pass things in the senate on simple majority prevents a process of reconciliation from happening. IE the Democrats there cannot pass a mostly Democrat bill that can then be reconciled with a mostly Republican bill from congress. Reid is a weak leader. Instead of finding a way to work it out, he just blocks purely partisan bills from congress. There is no moral high ground from either party there.
This has major implications for the budget process which is still largely a job of the congress. Presidents submit proposals, Obama has done his job. For reasons of ideology, the congress and the senate are not doing theirs.
Excellent,
DeleteInstead of finding a way to work it out, he just blocks purely partisan bills from congress. There is no moral high ground from either party there.
No truer words spoken.
louman and Max,
DeleteMy favorite phrase: "A plague on both their houses."
Happy New Year, all.
Jean
jean,
DeleteHope this year treats you well. I languish in retirement today. Without government support I might add.
And when memory failed and written records were falsified—when that happened, the claim of the Party to have improved the conditions of human life had got to be accepted, because there did not exist, and never again could exist, any standard against which it could be tested.
1984
Still appropriate.
Newspeak, as clear as mud.
DeleteIgnorance is strength.
There are more elected GOP than DEMS across all three branches. Count up the totals.
ReplyDeleteIf the people wanted the DEMS to have a filibuster proof Senate then they would have voted more DEMS in.
I agree, Reid is a weak leader.
They wanted Obama and Biden, so they will get weak leaders for four more years. So be it. Obama proposed his ideas, the congress despite your propaganda has had a bill on the table for a long time. Harry Reid's DEMS won't compromise enough within their body to gain enough votes to bring the senate version forward.
The senate is convening at 11AM this morning. Most people start work a bit earlier, but then again, most people are not faced with a made up world ending "fiscal cliff." Oh well, arrive 11Am, break for lunch at noon. Afternoon pleasantries, then Happy New Year! Let's all toast our government pay raises!
So be it. No more patches, no more hurried last minute back room deals. Your taxes are going up, spending will be cut, everyone will have to do more with less. So be it.
The market by the way is down a whopping 1 dollar. It seems the world won't end if the dicks in DC don't get it done.
1773-2009 Less is more. We are limiting government. Get used to the new normal.
William, you are being ridiculous. Your premise is basically that unless America gives the Democrats a majority that is so strong that it can't be filibustered, then clearly America flatly rejects everything Democrats stand for. If the Democrats did have a filibuster proof majority, I have absolutely no doubt you would be here bitching endlessly about how the founding fathers created the constitution TO PREVENT one party from dominating everything.
DeleteIn advance Kingston, you are correct, this is a petty cat fight here. Your chiding has reminded me that deep down, nobody really gives a shit about anything but their own outlook. That includes you and me and William. Something you might not get is the behind the scenes power brokering that goes on. Our senate is elected much differently then our house of congress. In the house of congress, congressmen are elected to represent a "district" these districts are drawn and shaped in such a way to reflect political density of certain voters. IE, it is possible to draw politically shaped districts in order to ensure you will capture the greatest number of voters who lean a certain way.
Finally William, your paragraph about the congressional bill is no less propaganda. As Boehnor just showed, he can't find agreement within his own party for a bill of compromise. But, as Kingston has point out, this is a waste of time. Many of your facade arguments can be significantly dismantled when context is added. No one gives a shit about context though. Everything you post has a grain of truth and you masterfully play that as if you are holding a royal flush.
Happy new year anyway.
, it is possible to draw politically shaped districts in order to ensure you will capture the greatest number of voters who lean a certain way.
Deletehere they tried to break up a solid Conservative district mine by taking the southern part away and merging the city of Aurora with us. Normally a district has similar needs. In our case Aurora is a city we are unincorporated county with no similarities. Almost worked however our representative was re-elected with a giant turnout from the unincorporated conservative side of the district.
Happens both to Conservatives and Liberals, just depends on who controls state government.
"Happens both to Conservatives and Liberals, just depends on who controls state government."
DeleteExactly. Get more Democrat state legislatures, and get more representation in congress. And vice versa. In a general sense, I don't have a major problem with that as your point about districts having similar needs is something I tend to believe holds true across many districts. Still, what has changed is that local Republican and Democratic parties are being taken over by large interests who could care less about local politics. In my opinion, more and more local races are being financed by gobs of money that come from outside that state and that is criminally wrong in my opinion.
It has now become one giant, angry money fight across the entire country. Anyone who runs with national aspirations must toe the party line first and foremost and place party loyalty above what is best for their constituents. If you come from a district of political hegemony and are financed by some large money from outside your district, you become nearly impossible to unseat even if you are doing a shitty job for your district. THIS is the stuff that bothers me the most and is what I think is the driving force behind lack of compromise. Just my .02 ayway
Max,
DeleteI dunno, this could be auspicious for the new year. I'm agreeing with you. Again. In the same thread.
Jean