U.S. Politics - the Default thread

[Selmy]

I actually prefer our(American) system Jeor. Our government is sort of designed to operate slowly, in part so drastic changes and reactionary measures don't happen.

I mean look at the UK. They call for new elections when people are dissatisfied and terrified at the current economic climate. Then when the new party comes into power they call for massive austerity measures, which leads to pretty big riots.

Our system if nothing else allows people to digest a situation.

Either way, Obama is all but assured re-election at this point, barring something crazy happening. It's still early in our election cycle but so far the Republicans haven't really offered up a candidate that's electable and energizes their base.

[Jeor]

I actually prefer our(American) system Jeor. Our government is sort of designed to operate slowly, in part so drastic changes and reactionary measures don't happen.

I mean look at the UK. They call for new elections when people are dissatisfied and terrified at the current economic climate. Then when the new party comes into power they call for massive austerity measures, which leads to pretty big riots.

Fair enough; I agree the election route can be unstable, but given they can only be called by sitting PMs, that limits it somewhat. Generally a PM tries to get something through Parliament, they vote it down, he takes it as a vote of no-confidence, and then calls an election, hoping to get a majority to force it through. He either loses completely or reclaims government without the majority he needed, and thus ditches the issue.

I'm not completely up to speed with the UK situation, but I believe theirs is a little more complicated because of the hung parliament issue, where a coalition had to be formed for the first time in decades.

There's something to be said for a fixed term, which allows politicians to stew over things and make tough decisions without fear of instant voter reprisal, but I don't think it's working as expected in this current climate. I'd be curious to know how the political landscape would pan out if a US election were called today; in particular, I'd be interested as to how popular the Republican 'no new taxes' stance actually is. To me it seems to create more political damage for them instead of helping their cause.

[Selmy]

Finding reliable polling data in the US is pretty damn hard. Everyone loves to throw out statistics that support their position. Turn on one channel and they'll have a poll saying 80% of people believe the sky is blue. Change the channel and some other network will insist that 80% believe that the sky is orange.

The last I saw was that a "majority" of Americans support ending the Bush era tax cuts for the wealthy and ending various tax loopholes.

[ThinkerX]

They can't get four Dem senators to vote for a BBA? 20 current Democrats in the Senate have supported a BBA in the past. It's not unreasonable to think some might have supported this bill. Several Democrats in the House supported the bill. It's always good to get people on record

This from the party that pioneered deficit spending (Reagan)? And saw absolutely nothing wrong with deficit cpending until loosing the last presidential election? Nope - this is absolutely nothing more than partisan politics.

[ThinkerX]

A large majority of the public supports the bill, it's important to get the opposition on record if they are refusing to support a bill that the public wants. Bill Nelson, Claire McCaskill, Jon Tester, Sherrod Brown, Bob Casey, Joe Manchin, all have to justify their position to voters in 2012. That's how democracy works.

From the polls I've seen - and which appear on the evening news and even here now and again - a large majority of the public regards congress - democrats and republicans alike - as being corrupt corporate sellouts.

Almost every state has a balanced budget requirement. To say there is no chance of them ratifying it at the national level is dubious, especially considering GOP control of most state houses.

And it's absolutely necessary. Congress has proven it will borrow in perpetuity until we default, regardless of the party in power. Budget constraints have to be codified into law

Can you see the glaringly obvious direct contradiction between those two paragraphs?

[Shryke]

Obama's POV seems to be that elections are inconveniences that somehow disrupt the "proper" flow of government. He seems frightened by the idea that voters might actually hold politicians accountable for how they might vote on those issues next summer. Or (God forbid) politicians might actually think about voter opinions when deciding which legislation to support. Why, the very idea that voters might cast their votes based on how politicians addressed a recent issue of critical national importance is so...undemocratic.

This country is long overdue for a hard public debate on these issues. I hope the GOP limits any such extension to next September or so, so that politicians are forced to take clear public stands on these issues. Give voters a clear choice during the period when they are paying closest attention to politics, and then hold the bastards (of whatever viewpoint or persuasion) accountable for those votes in November. If they don't like what those politicians did, then they'll be able to throw the bums out and change course.

The President's idea that these critical national issues should somehow be kept as far as possible from elections is offensive.

What the hell are you talking about? Obama hates democracy? Are you even trying to make sense anymore?

Also, it's the politicians job to explain shit ot voters they don't understand. Shit like, say, the debt ceiling and how not raising it is a huge catastrophe. And it's also their job to not help the voting public ignorantly drive themselves over a cliff.

All that's happening right now is one party is holding the world's economy hostage on an issue they have outright admitted must be dealt with in the way they are refusing to deal with it.

[Shryke]

Also, the GOP is now going to even further lengths to give up their constitutional authority in order to avoid dealing with the political issue they've created from nothing.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/07/23/super-congress-debt-ceiling_n_907887.html

This "Super Congress," composed of members of both chambers and both parties, isn't mentioned anywhere in the Constitution, but would be granted extraordinary new powers. Under a plan put forth by Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) and his counterpart Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.), legislation to lift the debt ceiling would be accompanied by the creation of a 12-member panel made up of 12 lawmakers -- six from each chamber and six from each party.

Legislation approved by the Super Congress -- which some on Capitol Hill are calling the "super committee" -- would then be fast-tracked through both chambers, where it couldn't be amended by simple, regular lawmakers, who'd have the ability only to cast an up or down vote. With the weight of both leaderships behind it, a product originated by the Super Congress would have a strong chance of moving through the little Congress and quickly becoming law. A Super Congress would be less accountable than the system that exists today, and would find it easier to strip the public of popular benefits. Negotiators are currently considering cutting the mortgage deduction and tax credits for retirement savings, for instance, extremely popular policies that would be difficult to slice up using the traditional legislative process.

Hey, this is kinda funny coming after your post flow. It appears the GOP is desperate to undermine their own democratic authority in order to avoid dealing with the mess they've made.

[Shryke]

Boehner was absolutely right to demand that. Was about time he made a move to illustrate that the so-called cuts are mostly empty promises. Obama may be playing Lucy, But Boehner isn't going to play Charlie Brown.

Wait, you are suggesting that bringing this issue up, out of nowwhere, to scuttle a deal at the last minute is a good idea?

Geez, I thought you said this hostage situation was was a shameless political ploy to extract concessions FLOW, not a suicide attempt.

And it's funny that the part of the ACA targetted is the big one that makes it not blow health insurance costs through the roof. Good work there, fixing that economy!

A large majority of the public supports the bill, it's important to get the opposition on record if they are refusing to support a bill that the public wants.

A large chunk of the public also doesn't want to raise the debt ceiling. The public is woefully underinformed when it comes to economics.

Almost every state has a balanced budget requirement. To say there is no chance of them ratifying it at the national level is dubious, especially considering GOP control of most state houses.

And those amendments are fucking alot of states hard, leading to harsh austerity measures during a downturn, which in turn makes the economy worse. Shit, it's only federal funding keeping most states from firing even more employees.

And it's absolutely necessary. Congress has proven it will borrow in perpetuity until we default, regardless of the party in power. Budget constraints have to be codified into law.

Actually the US is in no danger of defaulting any time soon. None.

Oh, you know, except for if they don't raise the debt ceiling. So, you know, the only reason the US could default is because the GOP is trying to make it.

But then, the GOP has been the ones ballooning the US national debt like mad, so I guess this isn't a new strategy on their part.

[KazigluBey]

This country is long overdue for a hard public debate on these issues. I hope the GOP limits any such extension to next September or so, so that politicians are forced to take clear public stands on these issues. Give voters a clear choice during the period when they are paying closest attention to politics, and then hold the bastards (of whatever viewpoint or persuasion) accountable for those votes in November. If they don't like what those politicians did, then they'll be able to throw the bums out and change course.

Are you kidding me? I get from your general tone that you're a republican, how can you expect the general population to vote anywhere near your political views? The only reason the republicans had any gains in the house in 2010 is because the general population abstained from voting, because Obama didn't push for the national healthcare system he campaigned on. Make no mistake, if every single american voted in the next election, the republicans would be lucky to receive a third of the votes. What kind of idiot who isn't a billionaire would vote to cut medicare and social security?

Keeping in mind that taxes are the lowest they've been in 80 years. We don't have a spending problem, we have a revenue problem. I'm not about to go bankrupt paying for my parents medical bills, so either we're going to figure out our problem with medicare (get rid of for profit health care) and let our seniors live independently with social security, or you're going to have a bunch of pissed off and broke millenial generations on your hands.

[Altherion]

Is there no circuit breaker in the American political system?

No, there is not. It has its advantages and disadvantages. I would have liked to see it simply because it greatly diminishes the impact of "campaigning", but it's too late now.

Along with the general election, there's a capacity to enact a legally binding referendum from the people on what they would like to do, with the questions and choices dictated by parliament; is there any history of US plebiscites/referendums?

Sort of. Some of the states (e.g. California, Massachusetts) have referendums called "ballot initiatives", but the Federal government does not. Since they act as amendments to the state constitution, they are a double-edged sword. For example, California passed a law limiting taxes in the 1970's and now they're stuck with it even though they're broke.

[Horza]

Ok, it's the 11th hour - time for the final vote on extending the Thread Ceiling. I can't vote as a foreigner but what say you all?