I'm surprised that they haven't also tabled motions to ban gay marriage and abortion (and indeed contraception), and put forward laws requiring everyone to be armed at all time. Oh, and of course tax breaks for everyone with more than a few million in the bank. And big companies (gotta keep the overlords happy!).
SilverMK2 wrote: and put forward laws requiring everyone to be armed at all time.
Not just armed, but to fire on anyone who presents even the smallest potential threat, cause you can never be sure if the guy staring at your coffee from across the room isn't actually staring at your heart and intent to shoot it with his gun (required by law)
I also expect someone will propose that we legalize the Purge very soon
SilverMK2 wrote: and put forward laws requiring everyone to be armed at all time.
I also expect someone will propose that we legalize the Purge very soon
Are you kidding? Any country with Terminator as a politician doesn't need the Purge Although they'll probably just rename the US army "The Purge" and send them to whatever oil-producing country they think they can get away with invading... Isn't that being voted next month?
The comments section of that blog is uproariously funny.
My favs:
"Yes we know the facts, but apparently YOU do not. you throw numbers out like they mean something,, how about coming up with something FACTUAL"
" If a Dem is elected president..... Welcome to the USSA..United Socialist States of America
If a GOP is elected president.................Welcome to the USA..United States of America"
"We are living in the USSA right now under the Reign of terror known as Barry's boys"
Dafuq ? Are there really people out there that fething stupid who could possibly, even if they vehemently hate what Obama is doing - which while i don't agree, is their right to believe - that there's ANY Comparison between Stalin's Reign of Terror and the Obama administration?
Because if so, jesus h. christ, who turned up the dial on crazy and tore off the knob ?
Dafuq ? Are there really people out there that fething stupid who could possibly, even if they vehemently hate what Obama is doing - which while i don't agree, is their right to believe - that there's ANY Comparison between Stalin's Reign of Terror and the Obama administration?
Because if so, jesus h. christ, who turned up the dial on crazy and tore off the knob ?
You know how many of the first colonists in what would become the US were persecuted in their home countries and emigrated to free themselves from tyrrany? Ever wondered why they were being persecuted?
Haight wrote: The comments section of that blog is uproariously funny.
My favs:
"Yes we know the facts, but apparently YOU do not. you throw numbers out like they mean something,, how about coming up with something FACTUAL"
" If a Dem is elected president..... Welcome to the USSA..United Socialist States of America
If a GOP is elected president.................Welcome to the USA..United States of America"
"We are living in the USSA right now under the Reign of terror known as Barry's boys"
Dafuq ? Are there really people out there that fething stupid who could possibly, even if they vehemently hate what Obama is doing - which while i don't agree, is their right to believe - that there's ANY Comparison between Stalin's Reign of Terror and the Obama administration?
Because if so, jesus h. christ, who turned up the dial on crazy and tore off the knob ?
The fox news comments section does tend to be pretty good in that regard.
Edit:
Here's a good conversation:
"liberals are trying hard to ignore the reason that republicans control both houses of congress is because of obamacare"
The french thought it was hilarious, but some of my american friends believed this and canceled their holidays in Paris.
Isn't it shocking that you can invent that kind of straight-out lies on a channel called Fox news?
Didn't couple member of Dakka mention the "No Go" Zones around Paris is true in that particular thread? When I took my 4 day pass Paris back before OIF/OEF we were warned to stay out of certain areas.
Dafuq ? Are there really people out there that fething stupid who could possibly, even if they vehemently hate what Obama is doing - which while i don't agree, is their right to believe - that there's ANY Comparison between Stalin's Reign of Terror and the Obama administration?
Yep, and they all vote. And there are more stupid, crazy, or uninformed voters than there are rational, informed voters.
Same as in Russia V Pravde net izvestiy, v Izvestiyakh net pravdy.
Jihadin wrote: Didn't couple member of Dakka mention the "No Go" Zones around Paris is true in that particular thread? When I took my 4 day pass Paris back before OIF/OEF we were warned to stay out of certain areas.
When I was in those areas in Paris two years ago, I did not encounter any trouble. In fact, I did not even know they were supposed to be dangerous "no-go zones".
Jihadin wrote: Didn't couple member of Dakka mention the "No Go" Zones around Paris is true in that particular thread? When I took my 4 day pass Paris back before OIF/OEF we were warned to stay out of certain areas.
That's tough to say. Like any city, I'm sure there are areas that aren't safe and you shouldn't go in, but I'm hesitant to believe there are actual "No non-Muslim" zones that explicitly state it.
The french thought it was hilarious, but some of my american friends believed this and canceled their holidays in Paris.
Isn't it shocking that you can invent that kind of straight-out lies on a channel called Fox news?
The french thought it was hilarious, but some of my american friends believed this and canceled their holidays in Paris.
Isn't it shocking that you can invent that kind of straight-out lies on a channel called Fox news?
SilverMK2 wrote: and put forward laws requiring everyone to be armed at all time.
If you want to be completely technical, the Militia Act of 1792 was never fully repealed, and as such able-bodied men are supposed to own a musket/rifle, with bayonet, belt and 1/4 pound of powder, + 20 shots for their musket
(yes, I know that the law is largely negated by the Militia Act of 1903 which established the National Guard in lieu of the "state militia"... it's still fun to trot it out)
SilverMK2 wrote: and put forward laws requiring everyone to be armed at all time.
If you want to be completely technical, the Militia Act of 1792 was never fully repealed, and as such able-bodied men are supposed to own a musket/rifle, with bayonet, belt and 1/4 pound of powder, + 20 shots for their musket
(yes, I know that the law is largely negated by the Militia Act of 1903 which established the National Guard in lieu of the "state militia"... it's still fun to trot it out)
Which is probably why non-constitutional law should have sunset provisions. After all we still have oil subsidies from about 70 years ago that call the oil business speculative, risky, and low profit.
In other news, after 4 years of making precisely zero effort to actually improve healthcare for the average citizen the GOP has finally decided to actually craft its own health care policy. After, you know, Obamacare emulated most of the Romney/Heritage plans and the GOP decided to disown things like the medical device tax and the individual mandate.
Not going to judge it now, but it will be interesting to see the final product (if there ever is one). Will the try and do what's best for the American people, or will they resort to more partisan bs.
Co'tor Shas wrote: Not going to judge it now, but it will be interesting to see the final product (if there ever is one). Will the try and do what's best for the American people, or will they resort to more partisan bs.
It's the American government. The president doesn't matter nor the administration, because it's all more bullgak.
Co'tor Shas wrote: Not going to judge it now, but it will be interesting to see the final product (if there ever is one). Will the try and do what's best for the American people, or will they resort to more partisan bs.
I'll take a wild guess and say more partisan BS. Considering that even now that they're in the majority it's still "Keystone!" and "Benghazi!" all day long, and meanwhile not a whiff of a vote on Syria until the President brought it up at the SOTU, 6 months after that undeclared war started. For all their exasperation about executive overreach, the GOP seems to be very cavalier about the President's right to wage war without congressional approval.
Jihadin wrote: Didn't couple member of Dakka mention the "No Go" Zones around Paris is true in that particular thread? When I took my 4 day pass Paris back before OIF/OEF we were warned to stay out of certain areas.
From personal experience, the only danger there is dog poo. I lived their, and never noticed them Most parents would let their kids around those areas unnacompanied from, what, 11? They're very safe, the people are friendly: all it's missing is tourists.
If you're warned out of specific areas, it says more about the person warning you than it does about the area...
Maybe they're warning you about pickpockets? I've never noticed any, but maybe they had a bad experience once.
But thanks to fox news, everybody in Paris enjoyed the good laugh
Co'tor Shas wrote: Not going to judge it now, but it will be interesting to see the final product (if there ever is one). Will the try and do what's best for the American people, or will they resort to more partisan bs.
I'll take a wild guess and say more partisan BS. Considering that even now that they're in the majority it's still "Keystone!" and "Benghazi!" all day long, and meanwhile not a whiff of a vote on Syria until the President brought it up at the SOTU, 6 months after that undeclared war started. For all their exasperation about executive overreach, the GOP seems to be very cavalier about the President's right to wage war without congressional approval.
Co'tor Shas wrote: Not going to judge it now, but it will be interesting to see the final product (if there ever is one). Will the try and do what's best for the American people, or will they resort to more partisan bs.
I'll take a wild guess and say more partisan BS. Considering that even now that they're in the majority it's still "Keystone!" and "Benghazi!" all day long, and meanwhile not a whiff of a vote on Syria until the President brought it up at the SOTU, 6 months after that undeclared war started. For all their exasperation about executive overreach, the GOP seems to be very cavalier about the President's right to wage war without congressional approval.
Gotta love the GOP
Isn't that a bit unfair? In the divisive political landscape over there, do you really think dems in the house with republicans in the oval would act differently?
Co'tor Shas wrote: Not going to judge it now, but it will be interesting to see the final product (if there ever is one). Will the try and do what's best for the American people, or will they resort to more partisan bs.
I'll take a wild guess and say more partisan BS. Considering that even now that they're in the majority it's still "Keystone!" and "Benghazi!" all day long, and meanwhile not a whiff of a vote on Syria until the President brought it up at the SOTU, 6 months after that undeclared war started. For all their exasperation about executive overreach, the GOP seems to be very cavalier about the President's right to wage war without congressional approval.
Gotta love the GOP
Isn't that a bit unfair? In the divisive political landscape over there, do you really think dems in the house with republicans in the oval would act differently?
Well, the cynic in me says that it doesn't matter the party, politicians are scumbags and thieves all around. But yes, part of me believes the Dems would actually try to compromise with Republicans, rather than whatever farce Boehner ("Boner") has been trying to pass off the past couple of years.
Co'tor Shas wrote: Not going to judge it now, but it will be interesting to see the final product (if there ever is one). Will the try and do what's best for the American people, or will they resort to more partisan bs.
I'll take a wild guess and say more partisan BS. Considering that even now that they're in the majority it's still "Keystone!" and "Benghazi!" all day long, and meanwhile not a whiff of a vote on Syria until the President brought it up at the SOTU, 6 months after that undeclared war started. For all their exasperation about executive overreach, the GOP seems to be very cavalier about the President's right to wage war without congressional approval.
Gotta love the GOP
Isn't that a bit unfair? In the divisive political landscape over there, do you really think dems in the house with republicans in the oval would act differently?
Well, the cynic in me says that it doesn't matter the party, politicians are scumbags and thieves all around. But yes, part of me believes the Dems would actually try to compromise with Republicans, rather than whatever farce Boehner ("Boner") has been trying to pass off the past couple of years.
O.o
I'll be the first to save I'm hardly impressed with the latest generation of Republicans in Congress... but to actually think that the Dems are more willing to "compromise" then they are... dude you're stretching hard. One just has to look at how many hundreds of bills Harry Reid has let wallow on his desk over the last few years to get an idea of that.
And Boehner let bills die, and kept the government shut down, even though he had a bill that was supported by a majority in the house because it was rejected by a majority in his caucus.
It's a two player game, but that's where Boehmer gets screwed by his own guys.
Co'tor Shas wrote: Not going to judge it now, but it will be interesting to see the final product (if there ever is one). Will the try and do what's best for the American people, or will they resort to more partisan bs.
So what, exactly, is "best" for the American people?
The ACA hasn't been "good" for anyone I work with.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
jreilly89 wrote: But yes, part of me believes the Dems would actually try to compromise with Republicans,
d-usa wrote: To be fair to Boehner, he has actually tried to compromise many times but was stopped by the crazy hardliners in his own party.
I'm not gonna give him any points for continuing the ridiculous tradition of the Hastert Rule.
It's that or get fired.
The idealistic view is that you are send to DC to represent and serve the people and if you have to fall on your sword to make sure that the will of the people is followed then you do it, your own party be damned.
But the reality is that we have a system without term limits and career politicians who will choose job security over doing the right thing. That's not a Republican or Democrat thing, that's a US politics thing.
d-usa wrote: To be fair to Boehner, he has actually tried to compromise many times but was stopped by the crazy hardliners in his own party.
I'm not gonna give him any points for continuing the ridiculous tradition of the Hastert Rule.
It's that or get fired.
The idealistic view is that you are send to DC to represent and serve the people and if you have to fall on your sword to make sure that the will of the people is followed then you do it, your own party be damned.
But the reality is that we have a system without term limits and career politicians who will choose job security over doing the right thing. That's not a Republican or Democrat thing, that's a US politics thing.
Speakers found ways to keep their job for 200+ years before Hastert came along. Pull some votes from the opposition if you must, but the Hastert Rule is what will lead to an inflated executive and a deflated Congress. It is single handedly destroying the separation of powers.
Addendum: that and the reflexive use of the filibuster.
But the reality is that we have a system without term limits and career politicians who will choose job security over doing the right thing. That's not a Republican or Democrat thing, that's a US politics thing.
Yeup.
Our system started as one where people were NOT career politicians. Simply isn't the case anymore.
Jihadin wrote: Didn't couple member of Dakka mention the "No Go" Zones around Paris is true in that particular thread? When I took my 4 day pass Paris back before OIF/OEF we were warned to stay out of certain areas.
No, they did not. Not in the sense some people were showing them.
Some people pointed out how full of gak it was though, so I'm confused as to how that was what you took away from it.
A certain posters link to blatantly bs news that relies on people not being able to actually read another language to put forth half truths and lies did exist though. His next thread was great though! Showed a lot.
Co'tor Shas wrote: Not going to judge it now, but it will be interesting to see the final product (if there ever is one). Will the try and do what's best for the American people, or will they resort to more partisan bs.
So what, exactly, is "best" for the American people?
The ACA hasn't been "good" for anyone I work with.
It's whatever they think is best vs. something for pure political reasons. I wouldn't be surprised if they made a really bad plan just so they could attack Ds for fake hypocrisy.
Jihadin wrote: Didn't couple member of Dakka mention the "No Go" Zones around Paris is true in that particular thread? When I took my 4 day pass Paris back before OIF/OEF we were warned to stay out of certain areas.
From personal experience, the only danger there is dog poo. I lived their, and never noticed them Most parents would let their kids around those areas unnacompanied from, what, 11? They're very safe, the people are friendly: all it's missing is tourists.
If you're warned out of specific areas, it says more about the person warning you than it does about the area...
Maybe they're warning you about pickpockets? I've never noticed any, but maybe they had a bad experience once.
But thanks to fox news, everybody in Paris enjoyed the good laugh
Most of the "No Go" type zones that I've personally read/heard about in France are actually in Marseilles, not Paris... There could be some "bad" areas of Paris, as it's a quite large city. But everything that I've looked at says the real bad areas are in Marseilles.
But the reality is that we have a system without term limits and career politicians who will choose job security over doing the right thing. That's not a Republican or Democrat thing, that's a US politics thing.
Yeup.
Our system started as one where people were NOT career politicians. Simply isn't the case anymore.
Yep, because one you're in the club, you can ride the political gravy train for life. Even if you get voted out of office, there are countless opportunities to get jobs in the political think tanks, committees, lobbies, etc. There is no real incentive for politicians to do the right thing, because they're too well insulated from the consequences of letting the country circle down the drain.
Jihadin wrote: Didn't couple member of Dakka mention the "No Go" Zones around Paris is true in that particular thread? When I took my 4 day pass Paris back before OIF/OEF we were warned to stay out of certain areas.
From personal experience, the only danger there is dog poo. I lived their, and never noticed them Most parents would let their kids around those areas unnacompanied from, what, 11? They're very safe, the people are friendly: all it's missing is tourists.
If you're warned out of specific areas, it says more about the person warning you than it does about the area... Maybe they're warning you about pickpockets? I've never noticed any, but maybe they had a bad experience once.
But thanks to fox news, everybody in Paris enjoyed the good laugh
Most of the "No Go" type zones that I've personally read/heard about in France are actually in Marseilles, not Paris... There could be some "bad" areas of Paris, as it's a quite large city. But everything that I've looked at says the real bad areas are in Marseilles.
Now, I'm loath to point this out because I will always consider it my hope, but I don't think we, as Americans, really have any business flicking gak at others for having "no-go" areas in major cities when we have cities like New Orleans where huge swaths of the city are essentially death traps.
Co'tor Shas wrote: Not going to judge it now, but it will be interesting to see the final product (if there ever is one). Will the try and do what's best for the American people, or will they resort to more partisan bs.
I'll take a wild guess and say more partisan BS. Considering that even now that they're in the majority it's still "Keystone!" and "Benghazi!" all day long, and meanwhile not a whiff of a vote on Syria until the President brought it up at the SOTU, 6 months after that undeclared war started. For all their exasperation about executive overreach, the GOP seems to be very cavalier about the President's right to wage war without congressional approval.
Gotta love the GOP
Isn't that a bit unfair? In the divisive political landscape over there, do you really think dems in the house with republicans in the oval would act differently?
Well, the cynic in me says that it doesn't matter the party, politicians are scumbags and thieves all around. But yes, part of me believes the Dems would actually try to compromise with Republicans, rather than whatever farce Boehner ("Boner") has been trying to pass off the past couple of years.
So... kind of like how instead of proposing policies favorable compromise in the State of the Union address, Obama doubled down on a number of policies that Republicans have described as non-starters? Or how Democratic presidents have started as many wars as Republican presidents? If you're going to be a cynic, at least be a consistent cynic.
So... kind of like how instead of proposing policies favorable compromise in the State of the Union address, Obama doubled down on a number of policies that Republicans have described as non-starters? Or how Democratic presidents have started as many wars as Republican presidents? If you're going to be a cynic, at least be a consistent cynic.
Well at least he's already back tracking on the whole, "taxing 529s" plan. I hope whomever told him THAT was a good idea was immediately fired.
Co'tor Shas wrote: Not going to judge it now, but it will be interesting to see the final product (if there ever is one). Will the try and do what's best for the American people, or will they resort to more partisan bs.
I'll take a wild guess and say more partisan BS. Considering that even now that they're in the majority it's still "Keystone!" and "Benghazi!" all day long, and meanwhile not a whiff of a vote on Syria until the President brought it up at the SOTU, 6 months after that undeclared war started. For all their exasperation about executive overreach, the GOP seems to be very cavalier about the President's right to wage war without congressional approval.
Gotta love the GOP
Isn't that a bit unfair? In the divisive political landscape over there, do you really think dems in the house with republicans in the oval would act differently?
Well, the cynic in me says that it doesn't matter the party, politicians are scumbags and thieves all around. But yes, part of me believes the Dems would actually try to compromise with Republicans, rather than whatever farce Boehner ("Boner") has been trying to pass off the past couple of years.
So... kind of like how instead of proposing policies favorable compromise in the State of the Union address, Obama doubled down on a number of policies that Republicans have described as non-starters? Or how Democratic presidents have started as many wars as Republican presidents? If you're going to be a cynic, at least be a consistent cynic.
Trust me, I absolutely believe there are corrupt and gakky Democratic politicians. That being said, I'm more likely to trust a Democrat than a Republican on making a decision for the betterment of America. Besides, Obama really isn't the first president to double down on policies that the Senate majority refused, he's just the first black president to do it.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
d-usa wrote: And Boehner let bills die, and kept the government shut down, even though he had a bill that was supported by a majority in the house because it was rejected by a majority in his caucus.
It's a two player game, but that's where Boehmer gets screwed by his own guys.
I would like some examples of being screwed by his own guys, because I've seen him doing screwing himself.
So... kind of like how instead of proposing policies favorable compromise in the State of the Union address, Obama doubled down on a number of policies that Republicans have described as non-starters? Or how Democratic presidents have started as many wars as Republican presidents? If you're going to be a cynic, at least be a consistent cynic.
Well at least he's already back tracking on the whole, "taxing 529s" plan. I hope whomever told him THAT was a good idea was immediately fired.
Like most resilient tax policies, 529s overwhelmingly benefit the wealthiest Americans. But they do just enough for the middle class that no one wants them gone. Like the mortgage interest deduction, paying out fat refunds to wealthy homeowners while doing nothing for young and poor renters.
Now, I'm loath to point this out because I will always consider it my hope, but I don't think we, as Americans, really have any business flicking gak at others for having "no-go" areas in major cities when we have cities like New Orleans where huge swaths of the city are eccentrically death traps.
Not saying you are, Ensis, just in general.
You're missing the point. Some countries have no go areas. The US has no go cities!
(and the entire state of New Mexico)
Now, I'm loath to point this out because I will always consider it my hope, but I don't think we, as Americans, really have any business flicking gak at others for having "no-go" areas in major cities when we have cities like New Orleans where huge swaths of the city are eccentrically death traps.
Not saying you are, Ensis, just in general.
You're missing the point. Some countries have no go areas. The US has no go cities!
(and the entire state of New Mexico)
Have you ever been to Gallup, NM? It is my vote for the worst/dirtiest city in the US.
Now, I'm loath to point this out because I will always consider it my hope, but I don't think we, as Americans, really have any business flicking gak at others for having "no-go" areas in major cities when we have cities like New Orleans where huge swaths of the city are eccentrically death traps.
Not saying you are, Ensis, just in general.
You're missing the point. Some countries have no go areas. The US has no go cities!
(and the entire state of New Mexico)
Like most resilient tax policies, 529s overwhelmingly benefit the wealthiest Americans. But they do just enough for the middle class that no one wants them gone. Like the mortgage interest deduction, paying out fat refunds to wealthy homeowners while doing nothing for young and poor renters.
[url]http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-13-64
I can tell you I'm hardly "the wealthiest." I put money in my daughters at the expense of "spending money" for myself to try and help lessen her burden later in the hopes she has it easier than I presently do.
CNBC is posting news otherwise: www.cnbc.com/Id/102376116
Like most resilient tax policies, 529s overwhelmingly benefit the wealthiest Americans. But they do just enough for the middle class that no one wants them gone. Like the mortgage interest deduction, paying out fat refunds to wealthy homeowners while doing nothing for young and poor renters.
[url]http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-13-64
I can tell you I'm hardly "the wealthiest." I put money in my daughters at the expense of "spending money" for myself to try and help lessen her burden later in the hopes she has it easier than I presently do.
CNBC is posting news otherwise: www.cnbc.com/Id/102376116
Indeed. Evidently anyone who sacrifices to save money for their kids are now the wealthiest Americans. Really?
Like most resilient tax policies, 529s overwhelmingly benefit the wealthiest Americans. But they do just enough for the middle class that no one wants them gone. Like the mortgage interest deduction, paying out fat refunds to wealthy homeowners while doing nothing for young and poor renters.
[url]http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-13-64
I can tell you I'm hardly "the wealthiest." I put money in my daughters at the expense of "spending money" for myself to try and help lessen her burden later in the hopes she has it easier than I presently do.
CNBC is posting news otherwise: www.cnbc.com/Id/102376116
Indeed. Evidently anyone who sacrifices to save money for their kids are now the wealthiest Americans. Really?
Only if reading comprehension escapes you. "Overwhelmingly benefit the wealthiest" =/= "only benefits the wealthiest".
Frazzled wrote: Prove it "overwhelmingly benefits the wealthiest"
Well, all them dirty corrupt politicians wrote the law, and we invaded Iraq for oil, and 911 was an inside job, so obviously the 1% is just taking advantage of the 99%... did I hit all the key buzzwords there?
To make it a Dakka Royal Flush you need to add in guns, Obama, Benghazi, the Evilz of religion, and its all Bush's fault.
As in, "Good thing I bought this gun. Thank the Great Pasta Being for Obama, and not those other evilz religionz. He brought us back from all the problems that Bush caused. Benghazi!"
Frazzled wrote: To make it a Dakka Royal Flush you need to add in guns, Obama, Benghazi, the Evilz of religion, and its all Bush's fault.
As in, "Good thing I bought this gun. Thank the Great Pasta Being for Obama, and not those other evilz religionz. He brought us back from all the problems that Bush caused. Benghazi!"
But the reality is that we have a system without term limits and career politicians who will choose job security over doing the right thing. That's not a Republican or Democrat thing, that's a US politics thing.
Make it simple.
Congressional Critters & The President don't get paid unless they've passed actual budgets. (and not the continuing resolutions crap).
That way, they can't kick the can down the road and are forced to make hard decisions.
If it's the wrong decision, then they can be voted out (hopefully).
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Dreadclaw69 wrote: So that's where this week's GOP bashing thread ended up.
And the irony there is that the PPACA is a DEMOCRAT bill.
Now, I'm loath to point this out because I will always consider it my hope, but I don't think we, as Americans, really have any business flicking gak at others for having "no-go" areas in major cities when we have cities like New Orleans where huge swaths of the city are essentially death traps.
Not saying you are, Ensis, just in general.
While yes, we have places like Detroit or New Orleans, where police are probably constantly on guard, or well aware of the dangerous areas, what I've seen reported on Marseilles, is that there are sections of the city where the French government no longer has jurisdiction... They have ZERO police presence for enforcement/protection, they have no State workers (welfare/CPS equivalents, DMVs, etc.) Which, from where I'm comfortably sitting would have the appearance of being worse than some of our own "worst" areas.
I'm sure there's plenty of nice places in France as well, just as there are here in the US. Just as there's places on this planet that even their "nice" areas aren't as safe or whatever you want to say as even some of our bad areas (seriously, Somalia?) It just seems, odd, i guess, that there are places in "1st World Countries" where the standing government no longer operates or has "control".
Jihadin wrote: Didn't couple member of Dakka mention the "No Go" Zones around Paris is true in that particular thread? When I took my 4 day pass Paris back before OIF/OEF we were warned to stay out of certain areas.
No, they did not. Not in the sense some people were showing them.
Some people pointed out how full of gak it was though, so I'm confused as to how that was what you took away from it.
A certain posters link to blatantly bs news that relies on people not being able to actually read another language to put forth half truths and lies did exist though. His next thread was great though! Showed a lot.
I think almost every country has cities with gakky areas that police/ambulances would be reluctant to go to. What was special was it was being claimed these were completely no go, as in, police don't go. Not "reluctant" or "it's harder to do our job", but "no go". Even more hilariously, that they were Sharia Law only areas.
"What was special was it was being claimed these were completely no go, as in, police don't go. Not "reluctant" or "it's harder to do our job", but "no go""
The person you even linked to said "Reluctant", not "refused to serve". And considering that the original thing was exactly what the snopes article disproves, and Jihadin merely said "some people said it was true", well yeah.*
Are there areas that you wouldn't want to go to ever? Yes. Are some of those (or a lot maybe) Muslim majority areas? Quite possible. I don't know. IT's nice to use actual facts though, instead of half truths and outright lies, like some people rely on (see Medium of Deaths news article which was based on an untranslated Swedish report).
*tbh I wouldn't be surprised if there were areas they refused to go, but could someone provide actual evidence and not some unsourced blog?
"In its paper, the Education Sector examined what families derived the most value from the tax benefit in the state of Kansas. Here's what they found: Although 80% of Kansas taxpayers earned less than $75,000 in 2007, they collected only 10% of the 529 tax deductions. In contrast only 1% of Kansans earned more than $250,000, yet they claimed 37% of the total tax benefits for 529 plans. The average deduction for wealthy Kansans was nearly five times larger than the ones claimed by Kansas residents earning less than $50,000."
"In its paper, the Education Sector examined what families derived the most value from the tax benefit in the state of Kansas. Here's what they found: Although 80% of Kansas taxpayers earned less than $75,000 in 2007, they collected only 10% of the 529 tax deductions. In contrast only 1% of Kansans earned more than $250,000, yet they claimed 37% of the total tax benefits for 529 plans. The average deduction for wealthy Kansans was nearly five times larger than the ones claimed by Kansas residents earning less than $50,000."
Yea I'm not real clear on why folks making $250,000+ per year need five times as much incentive to invest in college savings plans, or any financial incentive to save (::cough:: capital gains rate ::cough:: ), but shows what I know...Probably the same mentality that drove the WSJ to publish this graphic a couple years ago, showing how "average" Americans were going to suffer under Obama's new tax plan:
Must be tough out there for that struggling family of *six* getting by on only $450,000 after taxes.
But the reality is that we have a system without term limits and career politicians who will choose job security over doing the right thing. That's not a Republican or Democrat thing, that's a US politics thing.
Term limits are a red herring. All they have ever done is strengthen political parties. Sure, you'll be guaranteed a new face every X years, but its always "New boss, same as the old boss."
Congressional Critters & The President don't get paid unless they've passed actual budgets. (and not the continuing resolutions crap).
All that does is create a series of yes-men in the House, as only Congressmen are likely to depend on the income derived from being a member of the Federal legislature. And, as you're doubtlessly aware, only the House can propose spending bills.
But the reality is that we have a system without term limits and career politicians who will choose job security over doing the right thing. That's not a Republican or Democrat thing, that's a US politics thing.
Term limits are a red herring. All they have ever done is strengthen political parties. Sure, you'll be guaranteed a new face every X years, but its always "New boss, same as the old boss."
Congressional Critters & The President don't get paid unless they've passed actual budgets. (and not the continuing resolutions crap).
All that does is create a series of yes-men in the House, as only Congressmen are likely to depend on the income derived from being a member of the Federal legislature. And, as you're doubtlessly aware, only the House can propose spending bills.
I'm very skeptical about term limits and limits on congressional salary because all it does it empower lobbyists and the federal bureaucracy. It's hard to develop real expertise or loyalty when everyone knows that you're just gonna be out of office in a few terms, and it's easy for a professional lobbyist to influence a Rep who knows nothing about their topic of interest.
Limits on salaries just empowers the independently wealthy and discourages your more average joe candidates from running. Seriously, who's going to go through the hassle and uncertainty of running for office if they might not even have a paycheck when they get there? Someone who's got at least few million in the bank, that's who.
TheSilo wrote: Yea I'm not real clear on why folks making $250,000+ per year need five times as much incentive to invest in college savings plans, or any financial incentive to save (::cough:: capital gains rate ::cough:: ), but shows what I know...Probably the same mentality that drove the WSJ to publish this graphic a couple years ago, showing how "average" Americans were going to suffer under Obama's new tax plan:
Must be tough out there for that struggling family of four getting by on only $450,000 after taxes.
What family of four do they know who makes $450,000?
TheSilo wrote: Yea I'm not real clear on why folks making $250,000+ per year need five times as much incentive to invest in college savings plans, or any financial incentive to save (::cough:: capital gains rate ::cough:: ), but shows what I know...Probably the same mentality that drove the WSJ to publish this graphic a couple years ago, showing how "average" Americans were going to suffer under Obama's new tax plan:
Must be tough out there for that struggling family of four getting by on only $450,000 after taxes.
What family of four do they know who makes $450,000?
Good Idea Fairy was on a roll on whoever made the chart.
Limits on salaries just empowers the independently wealthy and discourages your more average joe candidates from running. Seriously, who's going to go through the hassle and uncertainty of running for office if they might not even have a paycheck when they get there? Someone who's got at least few million in the bank, that's who.
IMO, it's not the monthly salary that is really the issue. It's the idea that once you've done one term, you make that much every month, FOR LIFE.
But the reality is that we have a system without term limits and career politicians who will choose job security over doing the right thing. That's not a Republican or Democrat thing, that's a US politics thing.
Term limits are a red herring. All they have ever done is strengthen political parties. Sure, you'll be guaranteed a new face every X years, but its always "New boss, same as the old boss."
Congressional Critters & The President don't get paid unless they've passed actual budgets. (and not the continuing resolutions crap).
All that does is create a series of yes-men in the House, as only Congressmen are likely to depend on the income derived from being a member of the Federal legislature. And, as you're doubtlessly aware, only the House can propose spending bills.
d-usa wrote: Are they already out of any actual real work to do?
Weren't they electedto try just that?
They say they were. That doesn't make it true. As the voting ballots pretty much offer only a binary choice (R or D), and offer little in the way of expressing your actual opinion on the major issues, we're left with politicians who, instead of representing their districts like they should, are just going to D.C. to represent their party, which they shouldn't. Every time you hear a politician say that the election was a "mandate of the people" (so that they can do what their party tells them to do), what they really mean is that they're continuing to rely on the stupidity of the American voter to take those statements at face value (because they don't want voters to learn to vote for competent individuals, rather than whoever the party decided on ahead of time).
Yes, I am bitter and cynical. Politicians are too well insulated from the consequences of their mismanagement of the nation to actually be willing to do what is best for the nation.
Frazzled wrote: Pro-tip if you're wealthy the tax savings is helpful but you have surplus anyway. If you're not the tax savings is much more critical.
Sbuh? So now we measure tax benefits to people by how much they personally benefit from the extra money? So if we gave Buffet a billion dollars it wouldn't matter because he doesn't really need it?
Um, you measure the cost of a thing by what it actually costs, because that's the number that will tell you what other possible spending you're giving up, or what revenue you have to raise from other sources to fund the scheme. If the benefit to the rich person is less because he's already got lots of money... well that's an argument against the scheme, not for it.
Now, that doesn't mean tax allowances for savings schemes are automatically bad, even though a disproportionate part of the benefit goes to the rich. The benefits (like increased savings and increased self-funded retirement) often outweigh the impact on income allocation, but you don't just get to ignore the effect on income distribution.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
whembly wrote: Also, because it's utter and completely crap.
Elected to make an empty, symbolic effort at removing ACA with no hope of success? Yeah, I guess that is what a lot of the electorate was ultimately voting for.
Make it simple.
Congressional Critters & The President don't get paid unless they've passed actual budgets. (and not the continuing resolutions crap).
That way, they can't kick the can down the road and are forced to make hard decisions.
There's nothing magical about passing a budget that makes you put through more hard choices than would otherwise happen. And as a budgets guy I can tell you that a signed off, approved budget that sucks can be way more harmful than no budget at all.
In my previous job we were all been given a directive to budget for break even that year, and we were meeting to discuss when we'd have our first round budgets ready for presentation. One guy who was working with a faculty that was really struggling said it was going to be another week and there was going to be a loss this year. He was told it needed to be breakeven, and it was needed within a couple of days. He paused for a second, said 'well I can get you a breakeven budget with half an hour, but...'
For a more specific American example, in 2001 the budget forecast the end of the US deficit in 10 years. The Economist actually ran stories worrying about the issues this would cause with financial markets, if the biggest source of risk free bonds disappeared. They were wrong by about $15 trillion dollars.
The point I'm trying to make is that passing a budget that's just a bunch of optimistic forecasts is worse than not passing a budget at all. Setting up a mechanistic system that requires just a budget of any kind will just encourage junk budgets full of wild assumptions.
Proper long term planning, of which the budget is as much an output as a input, requires real intent and commitment that you just can't simulate with a mechanical requirement like making people pass budgets or they don't get paid.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ensis Ferrae wrote: While yes, we have places like Detroit or New Orleans, where police are probably constantly on guard, or well aware of the dangerous areas, what I've seen reported on Marseilles, is that there are sections of the city where the French government no longer has jurisdiction... They have ZERO police presence for enforcement/protection, they have no State workers (welfare/CPS equivalents, DMVs, etc.) Which, from where I'm comfortably sitting would have the appearance of being worse than some of our own "worst" areas.
Except the stories of 'no go' zones are fantasy.
The oft-quoted 750 sites are the exact opposite of 'no-go', they've been identified as needing additional resources - there are more police and more social security in those zones and elsewhere. And they aren't difficult regions because of Islam, the areas are simply poor areas, with all kinds of populations.
Thing is, there are problems and issues with multi-culturalism that need to be discussed. But we make that discussion infinitely harder when we allow ridiculous myths like this to continue.
Congressional Critters & The President don't get paid unless they've passed actual budgets. (and not the continuing resolutions crap).
That way, they can't kick the can down the road and are forced to make hard decisions.
There's nothing magical about passing a budget that makes you put through more hard choices than would otherwise happen. And as a budgets guy I can tell you that a signed off, approved budget that sucks can be way more harmful than no budget at all.
In my previous job we were all been given a directive to budget for break even that year, and we were meeting to discuss when we'd have our first round budgets ready for presentation. One guy who was working with a faculty that was really struggling said it was going to be another week and there was going to be a loss this year. He was told it needed to be breakeven, and it was needed within a couple of days. He paused for a second, said 'well I can get you a breakeven budget with half an hour, but...'
For a more specific American example, in 2001 the budget forecast the end of the US deficit in 10 years. The Economist actually ran stories worrying about the issues this would cause with financial markets, if the biggest source of risk free bonds disappeared. They were wrong by about $15 trillion dollars.
The point I'm trying to make is that passing a budget that's just a bunch of optimistic forecasts is worse than not passing a budget at all. Setting up a mechanistic system that requires just a budget of any kind will just encourage junk budgets full of wild assumptions.
Proper long term planning, of which the budget is as much an output as a input, requires real intent and commitment that you just can't simulate with a mechanical requirement like making people pass budgets or they don't get paid.
I was trying to come up with something simple.
The point to enforce some sort of accountability. Can you honestly say that's in place NOW?
If you were an omnipotent Emperor for a day, who was tasked to instill greater accountability for our politicians... how would you do it?
If "do your fething job or get fired" doesn't hold them accountable, you really think the guys not doing their job are going to invent some system that fires them automatically?
d-usa wrote: If "do your fething job or get fired" doesn't hold them accountable, you really think the guys not doing their job are going to invent some system that fires them automatically?
You're not accounting for bribes, political favors, and other shenanigans...
d-usa wrote: If "do your fething job or get fired" doesn't hold them accountable, you really think the guys not doing their job are going to invent some system that fires them automatically?
Uh... I guess you think they're doing a fine job then.
Now, I'm loath to point this out because I will always consider it my hope, but I don't think we, as Americans, really have any business flicking gak at others for having "no-go" areas in major cities when we have cities like New Orleans where huge swaths of the city are essentially death traps.
Not saying you are, Ensis, just in general.
While yes, we have places like Detroit or New Orleans, where police are probably constantly on guard, or well aware of the dangerous areas, what I've seen reported on Marseilles, is that there are sections of the city where the French government no longer has jurisdiction... They have ZERO police presence for enforcement/protection, they have no State workers (welfare/CPS equivalents, DMVs, etc.) Which, from where I'm comfortably sitting would have the appearance of being worse than some of our own "worst" areas.
I'm sure there's plenty of nice places in France as well, just as there are here in the US. Just as there's places on this planet that even their "nice" areas aren't as safe or whatever you want to say as even some of our bad areas (seriously, Somalia?) It just seems, odd, i guess, that there are places in "1st World Countries" where the standing government no longer operates or has "control".
Oh, the government does operate and have control. The trouble is, most of the population in those areas are poor (that's why they live there), and disillusioned with the last few political parties controling the government (UMP and PS - rightly or wrongly, that's not the debate). So the people there elect extreme-right wing (for france, those people sadly are even more extreme in the US apparently :( ) candidates, and riot every few years when something like the Ferguson shooting happens in France like in 2005.
Yes, there are problems of "gang violence" and drive by shootings - 20 people were shot in the entire 2013 year. I know that this might not sound like much to some americans, but that's comppletely scandalous in France where we actually have Gun Control
d-usa wrote: If "do your fething job or get fired" doesn't hold them accountable, you really think the guys not doing their job are going to invent some system that fires them automatically?
Uh... I guess you think they're doing a fine job then.
Carry on.
Am I truly completely incapable of actually verbalizing what my thoughts are, or is this a problem with comprehension?
If you can point me to a post that says "they are doing a fine job whembly" then please feel free to quote it, until then maybe you can actually address the actual points raised instead of debating against imaginary arguments.
Let's try to put it in simple terms:
Imaginary scenario: Keep whembly from looking at porn at work.
Accountability system in place: Fire whembly if he looks at porn at work.
The accountability system is there. If whembly's boss is refusing to fire him then that renders the system useless, but it still exists.
Now is whembly going to write a piece of software that automatically alerts HR and instructs them to fire him if he looks at porn since his boss refuses to fire him? Not very likely.
And that is the argument I'm making. There is no higher system of accountability than the ability of voters to fire politicians that don't do their job. There are no systems in place for voters to write their own laws and pass them via ballot measures at the federal level. The only way to put a system in place is for the people that won't do their job to fire themselves. And that will never happen.
But stop pretending that there is no system of accountability just because the voting public refuses to actually use it.
d-usa wrote: If "do your fething job or get fired" doesn't hold them accountable, you really think the guys not doing their job are going to invent some system that fires them automatically?
Uh... I guess you think they're doing a fine job then.
Carry on.
I'd love if that actually happened though It'd finally restore my faith in politicians.
d-usa wrote: If "do your fething job or get fired" doesn't hold them accountable, you really think the guys not doing their job are going to invent some system that fires them automatically?
Uh... I guess you think they're doing a fine job then.
Carry on.
Am I truly completely incapable of actually verbalizing what my thoughts are, or is this a problem with comprehension?
If you can point me to a post that says "they are doing a fine job whembly" then please feel free to quote it, until then maybe you can actually address the actual points raised instead of debating against imaginary arguments.
Let's try to put it in simple terms:
Imaginary scenario: Keep whembly from looking at porn at work.
Accountability system in place: Fire whembly if he looks at porn at work.
The accountability system is there. If whembly's boss is refusing to fire him then that renders the system useless, but it still exists.
Now is whembly going to write a piece of software that automatically alerts HR and instructs them to fire him if he looks at porn since his boss refuses to fire him? Not very likely.
And that is the argument I'm making. There is no higher system of accountability than the ability of voters to fire politicians that don't do their job. There are no systems in place for voters to write their own laws and pass them via ballot measures at the federal level. The only way to put a system in place is for the people that won't do their job to fire themselves. And that will never happen.
But stop pretending that there is no system of accountability just because the voting public refuses to actually use it.
I understand d... I'm simply advocating more accountability. Because right now, the only accountability is how well the candidate fares in "retail politicks".
How are you going to get politicians to fire themselves for not doing their job?
Are voters going to fire politicians for refusing to fire themselves after the same voters refused to fire them to begin with?
What higher level of accountability is there than "we control your fate, do your job or be gone"?
With respect to the PPACA?
I'd been on record in advocating the repeal of the 17th Amendment. So that the Federal critters are beholden to their state's legislatures. Had that been the case prior to the passage of the PPACA, I'd bet substantially that it would've never made it to the President's desk for signature.
How are you going to get politicians to fire themselves for not doing their job?
Are voters going to fire politicians for refusing to fire themselves after the same voters refused to fire them to begin with?
What higher level of accountability is there than "we control your fate, do your job or be gone"?
With respect to the PPACA?
I'd been on record in advocating the repeal of the 17th Amendment. So that the Federal critters are beholden to their state's legislatures. Had that been the case prior to the passage of the PPACA, I'd bet substantially that it would've never made it to the President's desk for signature.
So how are you going to get senators to vote for a law that, as least as far as the law's advocates are concerned, is going to result in them getting fired more easily?
d-usa wrote: We have the perfect system of accountability: the ability to fire every person that doesn't do their job.
The fact that we refuse to utilize that system and continue to elect them doesn't mean the system isn't there.
When your choice is between one person who will lie, in a way to appease the left, but will still lie and do their job poorly, vs the exact same thing but with lies that appeal to the right, its not a mechanism for ensuring competent leadership.
Its a mechanism for convincing people we have a working mechanism by giving them the illusion of choice, and the illusion that their elected officials are accountable to them, and have their best interests at heart.
Unions
I blame it on the Unions that prevent people from getting fired doing piss poor performance in carrying out their responsibilities they were hired for........wait...House and Senate are Unions?
How does "public unions" really fit anywhere under any definition of capitalism?
I mean public workers should have rights to organize. They are free to associate and lobby government, for better wages and working conditions ... right?
The issue stems from collective bargaining rules and union protectionisms... as there is no one at the bargaining table representing the folks who are actually going to pay whatever is negotiated, ie TAX PAYERS.
whembly wrote: I understand d... I'm simply advocating more accountability. Because right now, the only accountability is how well the candidate fares in "retail politicks".
I think there’s a big factor in this discussion that people are missing – that it is kind of pointless to hold the individual accountable for the dysfunction of the group.
Consider if you were put on a jury, you’re one of 12 people. You debate and discuss for a day, and it’s pretty friendly but ultimately the jury is split between innocent and guilty. You tell the judge you need another day. Another day passes, and the debate gets more heated but ultimately the two sides can’t come to terms on whether the guy is guilty or not. The judge is getting pretty frustrated, and he tells you he’s going to keep you locked up in your hotel, unable to see you family until you do come to a conclusion. And he’s going to turn the air-con off.
So you go back to the table, full of endeavour to get this thing done. You go through your arguments again, sure that this time you’ve made your point so well that you’ll sway the other side. But the other side is thinking exactly the same thing.
So what do you do? Failing to reach an agreement is a failure of your duty as jury, but giving up on your own belief just to reach a consensus is giving up on your own duty as a juror. Having some other party tell you they’re going to punish you for being stuck in that predicament really, really doesn’t help.
In politics, the answer, I think, is to understand that unlike the jury politics isn’t a binary state of guilt or innocence. That there is plenty of scope to give up ground in one place in order to get something somewhere else. But US politics and the electorate is refusing to believe that in ever increasing intensity – we’re now at the point where a Republican who says he’s willing to trade a tax increase for welfare reform won’t just be labelled a RINO, he’ll probably be called a traitor. And Democrats are now beginning to act from the same playbook. That’s the problem.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
whembly wrote: The issue stems from collective bargaining rules and union protectionisms... as there is no one at the bargaining table representing the folks who are actually going to pay whatever is negotiated, ie TAX PAYERS.
You don't think the politicians have an incentive to negotiate a lower rate of pay? Afterall, their job will be on the line if they pay too much and their budget blows out.
In politics, the answer, I think, is to understand that unlike the jury politics isn’t a binary state of guilt or innocence. That there is plenty of scope to give up ground in one place in order to get something somewhere else. But US politics and the electorate is refusing to believe that in ever increasing intensity – we’re now at the point where a Republican who says he’s willing to trade a tax increase for welfare reform won’t just be labelled a RINO, he’ll probably be called a traitor. And Democrats are now beginning to act from the same playbook. That’s the problem.
Agreed... There used to be a breed of politician in the US called a Statesman. People like Mark O. Hatfield (he's from my home state, so he kind of sticks out to me) he had a set of personal beliefs, as well as a set of beliefs that he felt would better the people of his constituency: Oregon. He was quite well known for voting across party lines (though, pre-internet, those lines were much more hazy than they are today) on issues, IF he felt that his people/his state would benefit or be hindered from his vote... Ie. voting for a democrat led bill because it helped more people than it hurt, while voting against a republican led bill because he felt it hurt them far more than it helped.
With the advent of 24 hour "news", I quite simply feel that the days of the Statesman are left in "the good ol' days"
Ensis Ferrae wrote: Agreed... There used to be a breed of politician in the US called a Statesman. People like Mark O. Hatfield (he's from my home state, so he kind of sticks out to me) he had a set of personal beliefs, as well as a set of beliefs that he felt would better the people of his constituency: Oregon. He was quite well known for voting across party lines (though, pre-internet, those lines were much more hazy than they are today) on issues, IF he felt that his people/his state would benefit or be hindered from his vote... Ie. voting for a democrat led bill because it helped more people than it hurt, while voting against a republican led bill because he felt it hurt them far more than it helped.
With the advent of 24 hour "news", I quite simply feel that the days of the Statesman are left in "the good ol' days"
I agree that right now US politics is driven by an insistence on the party line, and that people willing to cross the floor are a rare breed. I'm not sure it's due to 24 hour news, though. I mean, I think the partisan hacks have certainly played a part, but I think it goes deeper than that. For a lot of reasons identity politics has crept in in a huge way, where people identify very strongly with being a D or an R, and hate people who don't identify similarly. It's a very silly kind of tribalism, basically.
Ensis Ferrae wrote: Agreed... There used to be a breed of politician in the US called a Statesman. People like Mark O. Hatfield (he's from my home state, so he kind of sticks out to me) he had a set of personal beliefs, as well as a set of beliefs that he felt would better the people of his constituency: Oregon. He was quite well known for voting across party lines (though, pre-internet, those lines were much more hazy than they are today) on issues, IF he felt that his people/his state would benefit or be hindered from his vote... Ie. voting for a democrat led bill because it helped more people than it hurt, while voting against a republican led bill because he felt it hurt them far more than it helped.
With the advent of 24 hour "news", I quite simply feel that the days of the Statesman are left in "the good ol' days"
I agree that right now US politics is driven by an insistence on the party line, and that people willing to cross the floor are a rare breed. I'm not sure it's due to 24 hour news, though. I mean, I think the partisan hacks have certainly played a part, but I think it goes deeper than that. For a lot of reasons identity politics has crept in in a huge way, where people identify very strongly with being a D or an R, and hate people who don't identify similarly. It's a very silly kind of tribalism, basically.
I definitely agree with you, it's just that, when I look back at when Hatfield retired, and he blamed the partisanship, it was in a time when the 24 hour news were in their infancy, so I can't really blame them. As they've picked up steam, they certainly don't help anything. I'm sure we all can see some kind of relationship exists, even if it isn't necessarily Cause and Effect. Also, we can look to the rise of the internet. It used to be that Dems from "the South" were quite a bit different from those from the Northeast, the Northwest and even California. The same could be said of Republicans. Each state seemingly had their own stances on issues, and Conservative or Liberal were a label that were applied to an individual, regardless of his/her party affiliation. Now, you almost cant do that, because you have the "Tea Party Republicans", or super conservative; the fiscal conservative types, the "RINO" (I really hate that term) type all within one party, and it's much the same on the other side, where much more rarely you'll hear "DINO", Liberal democrat, etc.
Also, since I end up talking politics with people my age and younger (I am in college ATM afterall), I do think that there is hope... Most of us currently in our 20s are sick and tired of the BS party lines. At least anecdotally, many people around my age group detest all party affiliations because they feel strongly about a wide variety of issues, and the way they feel doesn't line up with ANY party's stance. Of course, this isn't universally true, because I just had to unfriend someone on FB, because he's of this cancerous mindset that if you don't think like he does, you're a liar a cheat, a dirty liberal commie, etc (he's seriously that republican) and I just got tired of his gak.
How does "public unions" really fit anywhere under any definition of capitalism?
The people selling a service banding together to form a corporation is OK, but a Union isn't? Why do you hate freedom, you communist?
Unions are ok, except when they start actively harming the overall economy.
Unions are at a point where they're really desperate to try and justify their continuing existence, especially since Union membership has taken a nosedive.
The reasons we needed unions in the past don't really exist anymore, they've made themselves obsolete.
Ensis Ferrae wrote: As they've picked up steam, they certainly don't help anything. I'm sure we all can see some kind of relationship exists, even if it isn't necessarily Cause and Effect.
I agree that 24 hour news is definitely part of the problem, one part of a complex system
Also, we can look to the rise of the internet. It used to be that Dems from "the South" were quite a bit different from those from the Northeast, the Northwest and even California. The same could be said of Republicans. Each state seemingly had their own stances on issues, and Conservative or Liberal were a label that were applied to an individual, regardless of his/her party affiliation. Now, you almost cant do that, because you have the "Tea Party Republicans", or super conservative; the fiscal conservative types, the "RINO" (I really hate that term) type all within one party, and it's much the same on the other side, where much more rarely you'll hear "DINO", Liberal democrat, etc.
Yeah, I think the decline of regional identities is a big part of the problem. When parties were more complex and diverse internally then the kind of people and the kind of culture that would succeed would be more willing to work with the other side. These days you just keep bashing heads and back your side to win absolute majority in the next election.
I remember a while ago I was reading about the evolution of the value voters of the Republican party. When they originally came to the party there was friction because while they strongly on board with conservative social politics, they largely disagreed with conservative economic politics - they weren't automatically opposed to taxing the rich and giving to the poor. Over time that changed, they blended in to the party line - their religious convictions changed to suit their political allegiances. On the other side of the floor, how often do we hear unions complaining about immigration anymore - used to be they recognised their own best interests and opposed immigration quite strongly, but again their convictions are changing to suit their political masters.
Here's a strange thought - were the old super-racist Southern Democrats actually a good thing overall? I mean, sure, they were racist, but as a distinct faction within the Democrats who kept their own identities and thought nothing of voting against their colleagues when it suited them, they were part of that old order of give and take politics. Southern Democrats - America's most useful racists?
Also, since I end up talking politics with people my age and younger (I am in college ATM afterall), I do think that there is hope... Most of us currently in our 20s are sick and tired of the BS party lines. At least anecdotally, many people around my age group detest all party affiliations because they feel strongly about a wide variety of issues, and the way they feel doesn't line up with ANY party's stance. Of course, this isn't universally true, because I just had to unfriend someone on FB, because he's of this cancerous mindset that if you don't think like he does, you're a liar a cheat, a dirty liberal commie, etc (he's seriously that republican) and I just got tired of his gak.
Here's hoping there's a change coming up through the electorate. The problem, though, is that even if the majority of the electorate wants moderates, it's the hard liners who vote in primaries.
Ensis Ferrae wrote: Agreed... There used to be a breed of politician in the US called a Statesman. People like Mark O. Hatfield (he's from my home state, so he kind of sticks out to me) he had a set of personal beliefs, as well as a set of beliefs that he felt would better the people of his constituency: Oregon. He was quite well known for voting across party lines (though, pre-internet, those lines were much more hazy than they are today) on issues, IF he felt that his people/his state would benefit or be hindered from his vote... Ie. voting for a democrat led bill because it helped more people than it hurt, while voting against a republican led bill because he felt it hurt them far more than it helped.
With the advent of 24 hour "news", I quite simply feel that the days of the Statesman are left in "the good ol' days"
I agree that right now US politics is driven by an insistence on the party line, and that people willing to cross the floor are a rare breed. I'm not sure it's due to 24 hour news, though. I mean, I think the partisan hacks have certainly played a part, but I think it goes deeper than that. For a lot of reasons identity politics has crept in in a huge way, where people identify very strongly with being a D or an R, and hate people who don't identify similarly. It's a very silly kind of tribalism, basically.
Agreed, It's why I'm not particularly excited by a two party system as it stops the public discussion of ideas as these things tend to get heated. People generally hold up the two party of system as better than multi party as it's stable and things get done, it doesn't seem to be working that way in the US atm. It also makes the parties less likely to be able to negotiate to get things done.
Yeah, here in the UK we have what basically amounts to a 3 party system when it comes to national government.
It doesn't help that those three parties are effectively exactly the same in practice and all come from the same elite schools and universities with soft degrees for the role they intend to fill (2:1 in History makes you qualified to run an entire nations economy, apparently. Amusingly he didn't appear to have studied the Great Depression judging from his tactics of coming out of the recession). Having that limited a scope of candidates and the fact that they are loyal to party first and the voters never (such as voting to give themselves an 11% pay increase when all other public sector personnel had a pay freeze and were paid less, to boot) and it just makes ridiculous arguments and cooperation next to impossible (as can be seen by the hate spewed at the idea of having another coalition government).
Compare that with Germany and some other countries with political systems that result in governments formed as coalitions of different parties and how that affects their politics. Much more focus on working together (from the outside at least) to get stuff done and help the country.
I'm not sure who votes are tallied in the UK, but here we do FPTP. FPTP is a bad system, that almost always leads to a two party system. Not only that, the problems we have with gerrymandering allows extremist to get in that would not otherwise. We also have the problem that there is very little intensive to so a good job. They get paid the same, regardless of how bad the economy is doing, and are prretty much guaranteed to get a "consulting" job or whatnot as soon as they leave office.
This 3 part video series goes into more detail if anyone is interested.
A couple of years ago there was a referendum on changing it to an Alternative Vote system (which I had hoped would be the first step to proportional representation) as part of the Tory-LibDem coalition deal.
The Tories promptly took a hatchet to it in the run up to the referendum in the form of a massive smear campaign claiming it would let in parties like UKIP and the BNP and allow someone who came in third in a local election to win (?)
The hilarity is now the Tories are clamouring to steal votes from UKIP with promises like ending the ban on fox hunting, EU referendum etc.
I agree that right now US politics is driven by an insistence on the party line, and that people willing to cross the floor are a rare breed. I'm not sure it's due to 24 hour news, though. I mean, I think the partisan hacks have certainly played a part, but I think it goes deeper than that. For a lot of reasons identity politics has crept in in a huge way, where people identify very strongly with being a D or an R, and hate people who don't identify similarly. It's a very silly kind of tribalism, basically.
It's almost as if "compromise" is becoming a lost art.
I mean, just look at the recent filibuster by Senate Democrats on the DHS funding, which contain riders to prohibit money spent on Obama's executive immigration policies.
Here you have the majority in congress legitimately using the "power of the purse" to "check" executive overreach. Alas... party-line tribalism strikes again.
whembly wrote: The issue stems from collective bargaining rules and union protectionisms... as there is no one at the bargaining table representing the folks who are actually going to pay whatever is negotiated, ie TAX PAYERS.
You don't think the politicians have an incentive to negotiate a lower rate of pay? Afterall, their job will be on the line if they pay too much and their budget blows out.
Public Unions heavily contribute to Democratic candidates. So, no... the incentive is to keep those contributions flowing... thus, negotiating with these unions is heavily slanted towards the union side, as opposed to any honest negotiations.
I agree that right now US politics is driven by an insistence on the party line, and that people willing to cross the floor are a rare breed. I'm not sure it's due to 24 hour news, though. I mean, I think the partisan hacks have certainly played a part, but I think it goes deeper than that. For a lot of reasons identity politics has crept in in a huge way, where people identify very strongly with being a D or an R, and hate people who don't identify similarly. It's a very silly kind of tribalism, basically.
It's almost as if "compromise" is becoming a lost art.
I mean, just look at the recent filibuster by Senate Democrats on the DHS funding, which contain riders to prohibit money spent on Obama's executive immigration policies.
Here you have the majority in congress legitimately using the "power of the purse" to "check" executive overreach. Alas... party-line tribalism strikes again.
So were the republicans actually trying to compromise there or was it similar to their government shutdown "compromise" offers?
Because if they weren't then that's not really an example of the Democrats refusing to compromise, just using what ability they have to block a bill which is what they should be doing if it is in the best interests of the people they represent.
I agree that right now US politics is driven by an insistence on the party line, and that people willing to cross the floor are a rare breed. I'm not sure it's due to 24 hour news, though. I mean, I think the partisan hacks have certainly played a part, but I think it goes deeper than that. For a lot of reasons identity politics has crept in in a huge way, where people identify very strongly with being a D or an R, and hate people who don't identify similarly. It's a very silly kind of tribalism, basically.
It's almost as if "compromise" is becoming a lost art.
I mean, just look at the recent filibuster by Senate Democrats on the DHS funding, which contain riders to prohibit money spent on Obama's executive immigration policies.
Here you have the majority in congress legitimately using the "power of the purse" to "check" executive overreach. Alas... party-line tribalism strikes again.
So were the republicans actually trying to compromise there or was it similar to their government shutdown "compromise" offers?
Because if they weren't then that's not really an example of the Democrats refusing to compromise, just using what ability they have to block a bill which is what they should be doing if it is in the best interests of the people they represent.
Yeah... by fully funding the DHS and putting caveats on that budget that Obama couldn't use the money to fund programs that Congress deemed the executive branch is overstepping it's authority.
whembly wrote: Public Unions heavily contribute to Democratic candidates. So, no... the incentive is to keep those contributions flowing... thus, negotiating with these unions is heavily slanted towards the union side, as opposed to any honest negotiations.
Well yes, given the close ties in that situation there's a clear issue. But it's no different to, say, politicians negotiating the sale of mining rights, when the companies making the bid contribute heavily to the campaigns of the politicians involved. That is, the issue is the potential for corruption in any representative system... it isn't inherent to, or exclusive to negotiating with unions.
whembly wrote: Public Unions heavily contribute to Democratic candidates. So, no... the incentive is to keep those contributions flowing... thus, negotiating with these unions is heavily slanted towards the union side, as opposed to any honest negotiations.
Well yes, given the close ties in that situation there's a clear issue. But it's no different to, say, politicians negotiating the sale of mining rights, when the companies making the bid contribute heavily to the campaigns of the politicians involved. That is, the issue is the potential for corruption in any representative system... it isn't inherent to, or exclusive to negotiating with unions.
I'd argue that there is a distinct difference.
Companies contributing to politicians (usually to both parties) in the hopes of getting some favorable legislation is VASTLY different than Public Unions contributing to one party (Democrats in this case) to steer public policies to the Union's benefit (and to hell what makes sense for all taxpayers).
Why do you think Right to Work laws are so vehemently opposed by Unions/Democrats?
whembly wrote: Yeah... by fully funding the DHS and putting caveats on that budget that Obama couldn't use the money to fund programs that Congress deemed the executive branch is overstepping it's authority.
Why is it a failure to compromise when you want nothing to do with what the other side is putting up?
As we've discussed plenty of times before, especially on ACA, the issue comes down to the actual substance of the issues being debated - simply saying no isn't obstructionism by itself, it is only obstructionism when it can be clearly established that the proposals in place are being rejected only out of tribalism, that there is nothing of substance that we know the party would normally be in favour of.
I mean, I agree with you in general that there's a strong tribalist element in 'executive authority' - that whoever has one of their team in power is fine with expansion, while the team who don't have the White House will make lots of noises about expanded powers being a direct threat to freedom etc... but it's a long bow to see any instance of the two sides butting heads on the issue and declaring it can only be tribalism to blame.
whembly wrote: Yeah... by fully funding the DHS and putting caveats on that budget that Obama couldn't use the money to fund programs that Congress deemed the executive branch is overstepping it's authority.
Why is it a failure to compromise when you want nothing to do with what the other side is putting up?
As we've discussed plenty of times before, especially on ACA, the issue comes down to the actual substance of the issues being debated - simply saying no isn't obstructionism by itself, it is only obstructionism when it can be clearly established that the proposals in place are being rejected only out of tribalism, that there is nothing of substance that we know the party would normally be in favour of.
I mean, I agree with you in general that there's a strong tribalist element in 'executive authority' - that whoever has one of their team in power is fine with expansion, while the team who don't have the White House will make lots of noises about expanded powers being a direct threat to freedom etc... but it's a long bow to see any instance of the two sides butting heads on the issue and declaring it can only be tribalism to blame.
DHS budget that was passed in the House and filibuster'ed in the Senate is being fully funded.
That is, the wages/hikes for TSA/Border Patrols/Immigrations Officers/Coast Guards/$$$ for Pet projects are ALL included.
However, the budget stipulates that Obama can't use $$ from that budget for his executive amnesty program.
One could argue that the people who elected the current majority were promised that funding for that would not be supported. If Obama would really like to see it happen, I’m sure the majority could draft up a separate bill funding just those activities and see how many votes it attracts. Who knows, maybe if he compromised on other things, things can happen.
But, all I've seen in these last few years is this "my way or the highway" mindset. That's tribalism in action.
I put the blame squarely on both parties... but, at this point on this DHS budget, there's opportunity move forward. Something gotta give man.
I mean, if Republicans were smart (and they ain't) and the Democrats maintain this filibuster (or Obama vetos the final bill). Then, the republican can then go back to the public and say: "Democrats and President Obama puts the rights if illegal immigrants over your safety" or whatever easy zinger. Then, we'd be back to square one again as the two sides drift further apart.
Or Democrats will to "the Republicans would rather have another 9/11 than give a penny to immigrants, they hate foreigners more than you love your children!"
But hey, it's easy to pretend that politics are simple when viewed through partisan rose-colored glasses.
d-usa wrote: Or Democrats will to "the Republicans would rather have another 9/11 than give a penny to immigrants, they hate foreigners more than you love your children!"
But hey, it's easy to pretend that politics are simple when viewed through partisan rose-colored glasses.
Part of the problem for the Republicans is the fact that they now control both sides of Congress.
It was beneficial for both parties when Congress was split because both sides could go "The House/Senate did their job and passed a bill, it's the guys in the Senate/House who are preventing stuff from passing". Because in the end the burden will be on the majority as we often saw with Reid getting hammered for not being able to get anything past Republican filibusters. Both sides could dig in and blame the other side.
Now they run the risk of developing a case of "you control both chambers, and you still can't get anything done" syndrome. They ran on a message of "the Senate will be less dysfunctional than when Reid was in charge", so it is in their interest to get stuff done even if it means going moderate.
d-usa wrote: Part of the problem for the Republicans is the fact that they now control both sides of Congress.
It was beneficial for both parties when Congress was split because both sides could go "The House/Senate did their job and passed a bill, it's the guys in the Senate/House who are preventing stuff from passing". Because in the end the burden will be on the majority as we often saw with Reid getting hammered for not being able to get anything past Republican filibusters. Both sides could dig in and blame the other side.
Now they run the risk of developing a case of "you control both chambers, and you still can't get anything done" syndrome. They ran on a message of "the Senate will be less dysfunctional than when Reid was in charge", so it is in their interest to get stuff done even if it means going moderate.
I think you're absolutely right.
The big fireworks would be is if the Supreme Court rules Halbig in favor of the plantiff this summer, thus removing the subsidies from the Federal Exchange... what would Congress, and by extension Republicans, do?
Changing House terms to 4 years might help, but not much, and its politically impossible as the only people who really take an interest in altering term length or instituting terms limits want to see more turnover in Congress, not less. Plus there's that whole matter of amending the Constitution.
But, honestly, I don't think there's all that much wrong with the basic structure of Congress. The problem is with the American political climate, and the effect information technology has had on it. I mean, it wasn't so long ago that finding out what a candidate said a year ago at some obscure political event would have taken actual effort, now there's Google. The real issue is that the American people, and by extension politicians, have yet to adapt to this new phenomenon; this especially true of older generations who aren't as internet savvy.
Now they run the risk of developing a case of "you control both chambers, and you still can't get anything done" syndrome. They ran on a message of "the Senate will be less dysfunctional than when Reid was in charge", so it is in their interest to get stuff done even if it means going moderate.
For the Republican Senate as a whole, perhaps, but not necessarily for individual Republican Senators. And, even if they can function as a unified body, I suspect it will be a while before we see the "feth the Democrats!" high wear off, if it ever does.
The big fireworks would be is if the Supreme Court rules Halbig in favor of the plantiff this summer, thus removing the subsidies from the Federal Exchange... what would Congress, and by extension Republicans, do?
The same they do every night, Pinky...try to repeal Obamacare. Though if Supcom rules in favor of the amalgamated plaintiff they will likely have an easier time of it.
The Democrats would likely propose an amendment to Obamacare striking the word "State" from the disputed section of the law.
