Democracy - We had a good run

[Shryke]

GOP has no power in Senate at all. All democrats need is 50 votes, not sixty. And balls. And maybe coherent political ideology.

It's so cute. You think you know what you're talking about.

[Jaime L]

That article is simplistic crap. I haven't read the whole thread so maybe someone said it before, but just because someone is against stimulus bill, doesn't mean he's against public spending (just a minor part of stimulus was infrastructure investment after all and there was almost no funding for alternative energy). The same about healthcare - if someone is against that horrible proposal of US Congress called "healthcare reform" doesn't mean they are against reform completely - after all public option was supported by majority. And you can feel that manufacturing industry is overregulated, while financial is the exact opposite. The problem are polls and simplistic conclusions, not "American mindset".

Ok, how about the point I bolded about the majority of Americans are against the stimulus but for increased transition and unemployment benefits? How about the overarching theme of Americans wanting government out of their lives at the same time as they want more and more benefits from it? We're a center-right nation only in what we say, not what we do. We're against pork unless of course that pork is creating jobs in my hometown. We want the deficit paid down, but we want our extensive medicare benefits more. We want smaller government, unless of course that government is defense spending keeping us safe. Then we want as much as of it as we can get.

The article isn't exactly identifying any novel concepts here. We're hypocrites, I don't know any other way to slice it. It's why raising taxes has become the third rail of American politics. Hasn't happened since, what, Carter? The Tea Partiers are rallying against Obama as a tax and spend president, but he's actually lowered taxes. He's a borrow-and-spend president, like each of the last 3 that have come before. And cutting government programs/benefits or pork is close to it. We're the architects of our own deficit. The politicans are just (overly) acceding to our stated wishes.

But, yes, it's easier to blame Obama.

[Guy Kilmore]

Neil, I would just point out that if you eliminated the filibuster, which is what you seem to be advocating, one of the primary effects would be that a Republican Senate and a Republican President could appoint whatever wild-eyed conservatives they wanted to the Supreme Court. It would also mean that they would have the ability to repeal overnight tons of programs you likely support.

Actually, I think Neil is pointing out that as the fillibuster as it stands now is horribly broken. The Fillibuster used to be limited by human endurance, once that was removed from the equation, it is now requires a simple phonecall to stymie and piece of legislation. I am scared now that we are seeing a new rise of political paralysis. Luckily the Democratic Party tends to be spineless and probably will be unable to be as cohesive as the Republicans have been, however if they figure out how to do it then welcome to the death of our nation through inertia.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

Ok, how about the point I bolded about the majority of Americans are against the stimulus but for increased transition and unemployment benefits? How about the overarching theme of Americans wanting government out of their lives at the same time as they want more and more benefits from it? We're a center-right nation only in what we say, not what we do. We're against pork unless of course that pork is creating jobs in my hometown. We want the deficit paid down, but we want our extensive medicare benefits more. We want smaller government, unless of course that government is defense spending keeping us safe. Then we want as much as of it as we can get.

The article isn't exactly identifying any novel concepts here. We're hypocrites, I don't know any other way to slice it. It's why raising taxes has become the third rail of American politics. Hasn't happened since, what, Carter? The Tea Partiers are rallying against Obama as a tax and spend president, but he's actually lowered taxes. He's a borrow-and-spend president, like each of the last 3 that have come before. And cutting government programs/benefits or pork is close to it. We're the architects of our own deficit. The politicans are just (overly) acceding to our stated wishes.

But, yes, it's easier to blame Obama.

Can't argue with that. Many people want the stuff government gives them, or gives someone else, but want to pretend simultaneously that they personally believe in a fiscally-conservative government. They want to have their cake without paying for it. Politicians cater to that by promising to pay for new stuff through "efficiencies" or the classic "waste, fraud, and abuse" line, when that's all b.s. You want some, quite pretending you're going to discover all these efficiencies and just pay for shit up front. If some efficiencies turn up, great. If not, you're at least solvent.

But its really too late for that now anyway.

[Andriy Czarchenko]

The article isn't exactly identifying any novel concepts here. We're hypocrites, I don't know any other way to slice it. It's why raising taxes has become the third rail of American politics. Hasn't happened since, what, Carter? The Tea Partiers are rallying against Obama as a tax and spend president, but he's actually lowered taxes. He's a borrow-and-spend president, like each of the last 3 that have come before. And cutting government programs/benefits or pork is close to it. We're the architects of our own deficit. The politicans are just (overly) acceding to our stated wishes.

But, yes, it's easier to blame Obama.

IIRC Reagan, Bush I and Clinton all did it actually.

[Shryke]

Ok, how about the point I bolded about the majority of Americans are against the stimulus but for increased transition and unemployment benefits? How about the overarching theme of Americans wanting government out of their lives at the same time as they want more and more benefits from it? We're a center-right nation only in what we say, not what we do. We're against pork unless of course that pork is creating jobs in my hometown. We want the deficit paid down, but we want our extensive medicare benefits more. We want smaller government, unless of course that government is defense spending keeping us safe. Then we want as much as of it as we can get.

The article isn't exactly identifying any novel concepts here. We're hypocrites, I don't know any other way to slice it. It's why raising taxes has become the third rail of American politics. Hasn't happened since, what, Carter? The Tea Partiers are rallying against Obama as a tax and spend president, but he's actually lowered taxes. He's a borrow-and-spend president, like each of the last 3 that have come before. And cutting government programs/benefits or pork is close to it. We're the architects of our own deficit. The politicans are just (overly) acceding to our stated wishes.

But, yes, it's easier to blame Obama.

He borrowed for the Stimulus, but that's what you are SUPPOSED to do.

He's also trying to raise taxes on people making over $250k because the funds are needed.

He also got Pay-Go passed.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

He borrowed for the Stimulus, but that's what you are SUPPOSED to do.

Well personally, I'm quite glad that he borrowed money so that recipients could do this with it.

http://www.baynews9.com/content/36/2010/2/10/581592.html

[Jaime L]

IIRC Reagan, Bush I and Clinton all did it actually.

The top marginal rate came precipitously down with Reagan. He and Clinton might've raised taxes a little to help cover Medicare and Social Security, but they didn't raise it enough to fully fund it. Still even a half-measure to address a funding gap seems both incredibly noble and incredibly distant in comparison to this decade's climate. Anyone who tried in this climate will get crucified by the opposition for raising taxes in a recession or cutting benefits to those who need it most. Really the greatest failing of our current political cilmate is it's impossible to even discuss these kind of things.

As for Bush I, just as a point of comparison, how unfathomable is it that he actually broke his campaign process and raised taxes? Even if that made him a liar and deeply unpopularthat kind of principled stand to do what needed to be done to adhere to his fiscally conservative beliefs seems unbelievably foreign as a concept compared with today's environment. Even typing it out, I can't believe it actually happened. Seems like a politican of a different age entirely.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

The top marginal rate came precipitously down with Reagan. He and Clinton might've raised taxes a little to help cover Medicare and Social Security, but they didn't raise it enough to fully fund it. Still even a half-measure to address a funding gap seems both incredibly noble and incredibly distant in comparison to this decade's climate. Anyone who tried in this climate will get crucified by the opposition for raising taxes in a recession or cutting benefits to those who need it most. Really the greatest failing of our current political cilmate is it's impossible to even discuss these kind of things.

I wonder about something. Maybe we have 40% or so of voters on the right who say screw all the social programs -- can them and cut my taxes. They're being fiscally sound. Then you have the same percentage of folks on the left who want all the social programs and say we should tax the hell out of people to pay for them. They're being fiscally sound too. The problem is the 20% of so-called swing people who won't take a principled stand either way, and they're the block that gets catered to in elections.

Just a thought -- who knows.

[Jaime L]

He borrowed for the Stimulus, but that's what you are SUPPOSED to do.

My point wasn't a comment on what he was or wasn't SUPPOSED to do, just defined what he actually is.

I wonder about something. Maybe we have 40% or so of voters on the right who say screw all the social programs -- can them and cut my taxes. They're being fiscally sound. Then you have the same percentage of folks on the left who want all the social programs and say we should tax the hell out of people to pay for them. They're being fiscally sound too. The problem is the 20% of so-called swing people who won't take a principled stand either way, and they're the block that gets catered to in elections.

Just a thought -- who knows.

It's possible.

Though I really think the percentage of principled people on the right or the left is far lower these days, maybe 10%. Think the vast majority of people want money for nothing. They want all these benefits they think they deserve until they see how much they personally will have to be taxed to cover it.

[Shryke]

My point wasn't a comment on what he was or wasn't SUPPOSED to do, just defined what he actually is.

Except he's trying to raise taxes to pay for this shit and reintroduced Pay-Go. He also stopped cooking the books the way GWB was.

[Shryke]

I wonder about something. Maybe we have 40% or so of voters on the right who say screw all the social programs -- can them and cut my taxes. They're being fiscally sound. Then you have the same percentage of folks on the left who want all the social programs and say we should tax the hell out of people to pay for them. They're being fiscally sound too. The problem is the 20% of so-called swing people who won't take a principled stand either way, and they're the block that gets catered to in elections.

Just a thought -- who knows.

Except a large portion of the Right are the "Keep Government out of my Medicare!!!!" types.

[TrackerNeil]

Neil, I would just point out that if you eliminated the filibuster, which is what you seem to be advocating, one of the primary effects would be that a Republican Senate and a Republican President could appoint whatever wild-eyed conservatives they wanted to the Supreme Court. It would also mean that they would have the ability to repeal overnight tons of programs you likely support.

I agree with Guy Kilmore on this; the filibuster, which was once a last-ditch option, has now become a standard parliamentary tactic that happens far more often than not. That's abuse.

However, I will engage your point more directly. Yes, a filibuster-less Senate would lose much of its ability to stymie legislation, and this would mean that the Republicans, when they regain the majority, would more more freedom to legislate their policies. Try as I might, I cannot think of any substantial Republican initiative from 2001-2006 that Democrats successfully filibustered. The PATRIOT Act wasn't. The nominations of Alito and Roberts weren't. The resolution to permit Bush to invade Iraq wasn't. Seems to me the filibuster benefits conservatives far more than it does liberals, so why would I want to keep in the tool box a hammer my side never really uses?

Also, I have been thinking that democracy works best when the voters are not shielded from the consequences of their votes. In the current system, Republican candidates for office can promise to dismantle the IRS, privatize Social Security, and other conservative nonsense because they know they'll never be called up to deliver. Americans, therefore, feel free to vote for those candidates. If Republicans could actually be expected to do these things, voters would have to face up to the consequences of their votes. Don't like Social Security? Vote Republican and you'll actually lose it! Sick and tired of Iran? Vote Republican and the US will invade it! Perhaps after a few more fruitless wars and significant rollback of popular social programs, voters might start to think more carefully about voting for candidates who make crazy promises.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Tracker,

What did you think of the provision in the Senate Health Care Bill that required a Senate Supermajority to repeal the law if passed? Consitutional or not?

[TrackerNeil]

Tracker,

What did you think of the provision in the Senate Health Care Bill that required a Senate Supermajority to repeal the law if passed? Consitutional or not?

I'm not a lawyer, Ser Scot, so I will leave that judgment to those who are.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Tracker,

I'm not a lawyer, Ser Scot, so I will leave that judgment to those who are.

Because you never offer opinions on legal issues? If the filibuster is eliminated and this is used regularly isn't it just a back door to keep the filibuster in place on issues important to the current majority?

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

Try as I might, I cannot think of any substantial Republican initiative from 2001-2006 that Democrats successfully filibustered.

That's often because you don't even bother with stuff you know won't get 60 votes. For example, it is entirely possible that the current health care bill will never even get out of the House because they know it will never pass the Senate. The actual filibuster may never happen. The GOP never had more than 55 votes, so they knew that anything controversial would not make it anyway.

The PATRIOT Act wasn't. The nominations of Alito and Roberts weren't.

No, but there was the "Gang of 14 compromise" on federal judges that was forced by procedural delays by the Democratic minority.

Also, I have been thinking that democracy works best when the voters are not shielded from the consequences of their votes. In the current system, Republican candidates for office can promise to dismantle the IRS, privatize Social Security, and other conservative nonsense because they know they'll never be called up to deliver. Americans, therefore, feel free to vote for those candidates. If Republicans could actually be expected to do these things, voters would have to face up to the consequences of their votes. Don't like Social Security? Vote Republican and you'll actually lose it! Sick and tired of Iran? Vote Republican and the US will invade it! Perhaps after a few more fruitless wars and significant rollback of popular social programs, voters might start to think more carefully about voting for candidates who make crazy promises.

No argument with that.

[Swordfish]

The top marginal rate came precipitously down with Reagan. He and Clinton might've raised taxes a little to help cover Medicare and Social Security, but they didn't raise it enough to fully fund it. Still even a half-measure to address a funding gap seems both incredibly noble and incredibly distant in comparison to this decade's climate. Anyone who tried in this climate will get crucified by the opposition for raising taxes in a recession or cutting benefits to those who need it most. Really the greatest failing of our current political cilmate is it's impossible to even discuss these kind of things.

Quite right.

It's exactly this concept that makes UHC an almost guaranteed disaster in the mid to long term.

[Mack Kilimaro]

Also, I have been thinking that democracy works best when the voters are not shielded from the consequences of their votes. In the current system, Republican candidates for office can promise to dismantle the IRS, privatize Social Security, and other conservative nonsense because they know they'll never be called up to deliver. Americans, therefore, feel free to vote for those candidates. If Republicans could actually be expected to do these things, voters would have to face up to the consequences of their votes. Don't like Social Security? Vote Republican and you'll actually lose it! Sick and tired of Iran? Vote Republican and the US will invade it! Perhaps after a few more fruitless wars and significant rollback of popular social programs, voters might start to think more carefully about voting for candidates who make crazy promises.

On the other hand, maybe it works precisely because voters are shielded from the consequences of their votes. Like you say, Republican candidates can run for office promising all sorts of things and you know it'll never actually happen. The best they can try to do is chip away, and try they certainly do, but that's always subject to a course correction. Big overhauls are rare because despite all the bitching, most people like the way things are, even if the only reason they like the way things are is because that's the only way they know for it to be.

Most of the people in this thread are pretty down on American democracy, but I'm going to step in and say "working as intended". I'm certainly left-leaning in my beliefs and I find the current situation vis-a-vis health care reform and anything else to be quite frustrating. I mean really, super, ridiculously frustrating. Where something that I believe can be very helpful to the country gets derailed by a clown like Joe Lieberman, and then further derailed because some idiot in Massachusetts ran a terrible campaign, that sucks.

But let's keep in mind that the totally efficient government can be set to help you and it can be set to be a wrecking ball. Efficient governments can quite efficiently deprive you of your rights. I think we can all, for the most part, agree that whatever your opinion on the political priorities of President Obama, this is not a likely outcome in his administration; and more or less we can make the same statement about the Bush II administration. Much as I feel their national security agenda was horribly misguided, I don't think concentration camps for Democrats were ever in the cards. It's a slippery slope kind of thing, though. Better if things aren't getting to a place where the next guy can take the same baton and run it a little farther.

In this recent political bout, Democrats were very poor in playing the system. I don't think that means it's time to change the system. Just means we need some Democrats in Congress who understand the game they're playing.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

In this recent political bout, Democrats were very poor in playing the system. I don't think that means it's time to change the system. Just means we need some Democrats in Congress who understand the game they're playing.

Democrats still have more votes in the Senate than the Republicans have had at any time since 1923, so that's no excuse.