T
train
Guest
Anyone else glad there isn't a solid filibuster in the US Senate anymore?
I think this is great. It's horrible for the American public to be represented in Congress by only 1 party (essentially). While it slows down progress for the time being, it prevents the 3/5 majority from ignoring the minority party.
Politics are most fruitful when every side is considered, not just those in power.
Ransac, cpa trash man
Politics are most fruitful when every side is considered, not just those in power.
Ransac, cpa trash man
On paper, it looks good. In reality, it's terrible - I'm talking overall, not just now, when the Democrats lost the majority - it goes both ways.
Why? Because Congress sucks the way it is right now anyway. Too many politicians are in it for the senority and all the perks that they get - hardly anything gets done that matters. If a party has a majority, slim as it was by one vote, at least things have a better chance of getting done. Now the minority party can filibuster all they want on whatever they want to hold up things, not to mention holding up bills in committees so (more) deals have to be made to see if the bill makes it to the floor for a vote, let alone pass.
A majority by one vote was a slim edge anyways - look how long it took for a health care bill to get to where it's at right now, even with that majority. Any of the Democrats could "defect" and vote with the Republicans and bills would still be stalled.
I agree with Ransac's view, just not with our political system, as I think it's gotten to be too bloated and corrupted to really follow his post in reality.
Why? Because Congress sucks the way it is right now anyway. Too many politicians are in it for the senority and all the perks that they get - hardly anything gets done that matters. If a party has a majority, slim as it was by one vote, at least things have a better chance of getting done. Now the minority party can filibuster all they want on whatever they want to hold up things, not to mention holding up bills in committees so (more) deals have to be made to see if the bill makes it to the floor for a vote, let alone pass.
A majority by one vote was a slim edge anyways - look how long it took for a health care bill to get to where it's at right now, even with that majority. Any of the Democrats could "defect" and vote with the Republicans and bills would still be stalled.
I agree with Ransac's view, just not with our political system, as I think it's gotten to be too bloated and corrupted to really follow his post in reality.
T
train
Guest
Both of you had good points... What I take into account is that though a perfect system will never be created via legislation - there shouldn't be a rush on something this huge.
I honestly feel that there should probably be legislation placed that holds legislators accountable for "not getting things done".... Does this get hard to enforce when fingers start getting pointed... Possibly - but there can still be something done - with all parts considered.
Maybe there should be 2 levels of plans - one that corporations and industrial entities must be part of, and one that small business and individual citizens should be part of...
Should every citizen have to be part of it - no - but ensure there are laws the prevent them from abusing any healthcare and placing the cost on the taxpayers...
I think the republicans gaining the one vote all there to be a better look and possibly better output for the health care legislation - but something that, like everything else they do, will need to be revised, amended, etc. in the future.
Doing something along party lines for the hell of doing it along party lines should be something that can be prevented.
I honestly feel that there should probably be legislation placed that holds legislators accountable for "not getting things done".... Does this get hard to enforce when fingers start getting pointed... Possibly - but there can still be something done - with all parts considered.
Maybe there should be 2 levels of plans - one that corporations and industrial entities must be part of, and one that small business and individual citizens should be part of...
Should every citizen have to be part of it - no - but ensure there are laws the prevent them from abusing any healthcare and placing the cost on the taxpayers...
I think the republicans gaining the one vote all there to be a better look and possibly better output for the health care legislation - but something that, like everything else they do, will need to be revised, amended, etc. in the future.
Doing something along party lines for the hell of doing it along party lines should be something that can be prevented.
Well, DUH. I never claimed that those elected into the system were angels. The new absence of 60% 1 party is much better than the 1 part lock-out in theory.Spiderman;289192 said:
This never would have become so corrupted had I won the election this past time around. The worst you would have to worried about would be cleaning the floors of Congress after a poo-flinging argument.
Ransac, cpa trash man
train: I'm not talking just about the healthcare bill, I'm talking about the business of Congress/Senate in general. For instance, for several years now, they have NEVER passed the appropriations/budget bill on time, by the start of the federal fiscal year which starts on Oct. 1. Every agency operates on a "continuing resolution" until the bill gets passed, which I think this time around was late December/early January. Until then, everything is pretty much "frozen" - no hires, no major undertakings of projects, etc until everyone knows how their agency gets funded.
Now how hard is it to pass a budget? If they do what they're supposed to do and read it and debate it and whatever, they can discuss and pass it on time. Of course their pay isn't tied to the bill so they don't have a sense of urgency to do it (their pay and compensation is ANOTHER rant, much like a lot of elected officials - like Baltimore's, since we were in the news for a while with the mayor stuff and all).
Ransac: You need to get the grassroots movement going!
Now how hard is it to pass a budget? If they do what they're supposed to do and read it and debate it and whatever, they can discuss and pass it on time. Of course their pay isn't tied to the bill so they don't have a sense of urgency to do it (their pay and compensation is ANOTHER rant, much like a lot of elected officials - like Baltimore's, since we were in the news for a while with the mayor stuff and all).
Ransac: You need to get the grassroots movement going!
R
rokapoke
Guest
I don't know about the rest of you, but I'm sort of worried about that as it is!Ransac;289197 said:
turgy22
Nothing Special
I'm not quite sure what side I'm on yet. Time will tell.
In general, I'm all for better checks and balances. I think the country operates better when the executive branch and legislative branch are run by different parties, because they sort of keep each other in line. I was worried when there was a Democrat majority after the 2008 election, because I expected the government to start spending money like crazy with no accountability (and it didn't disappoint!)
But when it comes to this health care debate, specifically, I think things are a bit different. The impression I got when the debate started was that the Republicans wanted to do absolutely nothing to improve our health care system. They just wanted to filibuster the debate and let it die so they could claim a political victory (or, more specifically, a political "loss" for Obama). On the other side, it seemed as though the Democrats were split between the ultra-liberals and the moderates and they were working together to hash out a good solution. So instead of Republicans keeping Democrats in check, it was moderate Democrats keeping liberal Democrats in check. And things seemed to be moving in the right direction.
Now, everything changes, but I don't know how. If the Republicans decide to entrench and work together to shoot down any health care legislation, I'll be upset and see it as a move for the worse. If both parties start working together and spend time reaching some compromises on legislation that will actually improve the country, I think the final result will be even better than what we would have seen otherwise.
So, like I said, time will tell.
In general, I'm all for better checks and balances. I think the country operates better when the executive branch and legislative branch are run by different parties, because they sort of keep each other in line. I was worried when there was a Democrat majority after the 2008 election, because I expected the government to start spending money like crazy with no accountability (and it didn't disappoint!)
But when it comes to this health care debate, specifically, I think things are a bit different. The impression I got when the debate started was that the Republicans wanted to do absolutely nothing to improve our health care system. They just wanted to filibuster the debate and let it die so they could claim a political victory (or, more specifically, a political "loss" for Obama). On the other side, it seemed as though the Democrats were split between the ultra-liberals and the moderates and they were working together to hash out a good solution. So instead of Republicans keeping Democrats in check, it was moderate Democrats keeping liberal Democrats in check. And things seemed to be moving in the right direction.
Now, everything changes, but I don't know how. If the Republicans decide to entrench and work together to shoot down any health care legislation, I'll be upset and see it as a move for the worse. If both parties start working together and spend time reaching some compromises on legislation that will actually improve the country, I think the final result will be even better than what we would have seen otherwise.
So, like I said, time will tell.
T
train
Guest
@spidey... The whole reason I looked for some sort of legislation to hold them accountable was for the reasons you stated. Make their pay tie to the budget - why shouldn't it, it is coming from the same coffers.
Basically I want accountability... and I don't want it to = someone loses their seat in the next election. Recall their oink, remove them from their privileges, etc.
Basically make them more of a "better get something accomplished or else" type of entity... We should have the power to remove representatives that are not doing what the majority of their constituents wants them to do...
Basically I want accountability... and I don't want it to = someone loses their seat in the next election. Recall their oink, remove them from their privileges, etc.
Basically make them more of a "better get something accomplished or else" type of entity... We should have the power to remove representatives that are not doing what the majority of their constituents wants them to do...
train: I agree, but it seems that the political bodies (executive branch, legislative branch) in general all over are like the "foxes guarding the henhouse". They have the power to set their own pay and compensation, so of course they do so with it not being tied to what the rest of the government employees (to say the least) are tied to.
For instance, federal SSI benefits are tied to the COLA, which for this year was 0% (well, actually it was negative, but there's a law stating that benefits can't decrease), so for the first time in either SSI's history or in a LONG time, the amount in benefit checks will stay the same*. Congresspeople get an automatic pay increase which they have to vote to reject (which, admittedly, sometimes they do) - not sure if it's a flat rate or a percentage of something though.
Or, making it more parallel, the president/executive branch decides the pay increase for federal employees for each year, which is not tied to how much he or the congressepeople make. He gets the same flat rate or percentage increase every year (unless that's also tied to the congresspeople's reject vote).
Same with the political entities all over; I guess I'll use Baltimore/Maryland as an example. There's all these budget cuts and furloughs and early-out offerings, but do the top people's pay get cut also to help balance the budget? Of course not... I think I've read maybe a couple of cases where the head honcho voluntarily decided not to take their pay or a pay cut in other areas of the country, but it's very rare (unless it's not making the news). But the top people keep their pay while the "grunts" get cut.
*Of course, they also had one of the biggest increases in one of the past couple of years due to the COLA skyrocketing for that year and no one complained
So it kinda just evens out in the end, historically
For instance, federal SSI benefits are tied to the COLA, which for this year was 0% (well, actually it was negative, but there's a law stating that benefits can't decrease), so for the first time in either SSI's history or in a LONG time, the amount in benefit checks will stay the same*. Congresspeople get an automatic pay increase which they have to vote to reject (which, admittedly, sometimes they do) - not sure if it's a flat rate or a percentage of something though.
Or, making it more parallel, the president/executive branch decides the pay increase for federal employees for each year, which is not tied to how much he or the congressepeople make. He gets the same flat rate or percentage increase every year (unless that's also tied to the congresspeople's reject vote).
Same with the political entities all over; I guess I'll use Baltimore/Maryland as an example. There's all these budget cuts and furloughs and early-out offerings, but do the top people's pay get cut also to help balance the budget? Of course not... I think I've read maybe a couple of cases where the head honcho voluntarily decided not to take their pay or a pay cut in other areas of the country, but it's very rare (unless it's not making the news). But the top people keep their pay while the "grunts" get cut.
*Of course, they also had one of the biggest increases in one of the past couple of years due to the COLA skyrocketing for that year and no one complained
So it kinda just evens out in the end, historically
T
train
Guest
Train for president:
Death Penalty - bring it on
Health Care - Optional
Abortion - only if medically necessary to save the mother
same-sex marriage - why not, then everyone can be miserable in marriage... haha...
Iran with nukes - why not...
Korea with nukes - why not...
Federal income tax - to be reduced so everyone can afford Magic Cards
Death Penalty - bring it on
Health Care - Optional
Abortion - only if medically necessary to save the mother
same-sex marriage - why not, then everyone can be miserable in marriage... haha...
Iran with nukes - why not...
Korea with nukes - why not...
Federal income tax - to be reduced so everyone can afford Magic Cards
Ransac/Monkey 2012
Death Penalty - Death by fleas is acceptable
Health Care - free social grooming for all!!
Abortion - um.... (checks dictionary), I'm sorry but I don't listen to hiphop
Same-sex marriage - Monkey has informed me that having the same type of sex over and over again is boring
Iran with nukes - You shouldn't do that. It's like running with scissors. Dangerous
Korea with nukes - (checks dictionary) ... Umm... no hiphop. Really...
Federal Incomes tax - The driving point of the campaign involves a 1500% FDI increase in order to fund a Giant Banana machine that can cover our nation. IT WILL RAIN 'NANAS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Ransac, cpa trash man
Death Penalty - Death by fleas is acceptable
Health Care - free social grooming for all!!
Abortion - um.... (checks dictionary), I'm sorry but I don't listen to hiphop
Same-sex marriage - Monkey has informed me that having the same type of sex over and over again is boring
Iran with nukes - You shouldn't do that. It's like running with scissors. Dangerous
Korea with nukes - (checks dictionary) ... Umm... no hiphop. Really...
Federal Incomes tax - The driving point of the campaign involves a 1500% FDI increase in order to fund a Giant Banana machine that can cover our nation. IT WILL RAIN 'NANAS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Ransac, cpa trash man
Oversoul
The Tentacled One
Giant Squid/Knife Fight Monkey 2012
Death Penalty - Don't think of it as a penalty. Think of it as a civic duty.
Health Care - Will consist of being fed to GIANT SQUID.
Abortion - All children born after the inauguration will be fed to GIANT SQUID.
same-sex marriage - All newlyweds will be fed to GIANT SQUID.
Iran with nukes - Iran will be fed to GIANT SQUID.
Korea with nukes - Korea will be fed to GIANT SQUID.
Federal income tax - Taxes will continue at the same rate, but all spending other than military and police will be eliminated. Tax resisters will be fed to GIANT SQUID.
Death Penalty - Don't think of it as a penalty. Think of it as a civic duty.
Health Care - Will consist of being fed to GIANT SQUID.
Abortion - All children born after the inauguration will be fed to GIANT SQUID.
same-sex marriage - All newlyweds will be fed to GIANT SQUID.
Iran with nukes - Iran will be fed to GIANT SQUID.
Korea with nukes - Korea will be fed to GIANT SQUID.
Federal income tax - Taxes will continue at the same rate, but all spending other than military and police will be eliminated. Tax resisters will be fed to GIANT SQUID.
T
train
Guest
See - we've got 3 viable tickets already!...
E
EricBess
Guest
The founding fathers didn't originally allow for a federal tax. They felt that the purpose of taxation was to pay for public goods (roads, police, fire, etc.) and that as much as possible that should be handled as close to the people as possible so that people had some say in the matter.
I think that the fact that congress always feels like they need to be making "progress" is a mistake just in general. Obviously, the president and congress need salaries, so some money at the federal level is necessary, but right now, things are out of control and have been for some time.
It's clearly not just the democrats, but right now, they are still "in power" and have been for a while with no checks. Concerning the health bill, they only need a 50% majority to pass it now. My opinion - it's a huge mistake. Instead, if they are determined to have health care reform, they should require each state to address health care reform in whatever matter the state wants and re-address in 5 years which states have been successful and which haven't.
But the bigger problem is that right now, they are trying to do too much. Heath care, economic reform, cap-and-trade, "economic stimulous packages", bailouts...all huge agenda items. If they really want to stimulate the economy, they need to stop trying to do so much. Right now, no one wants to hire or start anything new job-wise because there is too much uncertainty as to what the new rules are going to be once everything pans out.
My hopes is that now that the democrats don't control everything solidly, they will reprioritize and drop half of their agenda items so we can get this country moving again.
I think that the fact that congress always feels like they need to be making "progress" is a mistake just in general. Obviously, the president and congress need salaries, so some money at the federal level is necessary, but right now, things are out of control and have been for some time.
It's clearly not just the democrats, but right now, they are still "in power" and have been for a while with no checks. Concerning the health bill, they only need a 50% majority to pass it now. My opinion - it's a huge mistake. Instead, if they are determined to have health care reform, they should require each state to address health care reform in whatever matter the state wants and re-address in 5 years which states have been successful and which haven't.
But the bigger problem is that right now, they are trying to do too much. Heath care, economic reform, cap-and-trade, "economic stimulous packages", bailouts...all huge agenda items. If they really want to stimulate the economy, they need to stop trying to do so much. Right now, no one wants to hire or start anything new job-wise because there is too much uncertainty as to what the new rules are going to be once everything pans out.
My hopes is that now that the democrats don't control everything solidly, they will reprioritize and drop half of their agenda items so we can get this country moving again.
Didn't they only gain the majority in 2006? And so before, that, the Republicans were "in power" from Gringich's "revolution" in '94 or '96 until 2006?
I think the corollary problem to that is that there's too much opposition everywhere; people want things to go their way or not at all. If the Republicans and Democrats could actually work together, those "big agenda items" wouldn't be a big deal. But from what I see, the minority party is too busy sabotaging the majority party so they can say that the majority party either can't deliver or what they do deliver is so watered down that it's ineffective (and this goes both ways). If Congress gets off their rear and actually work together, maybe they can do some good for the country as a whole, rather than further their own self-interests.
T
train
Guest
Aside from the accountability - I've always felt there should be a 'Spring Cleaning'...
Basically - laws that are not applicable, or should be absorbed by others should go by the wayside. There shouldn't be any gray areas, ever. It either is, or isn't.
Every time the exception has to be legislated, there is more BS that piles up and then more red tape, and more bureaucracy, and more crap all the way around.
It doesn't matter who's in power if the people can be the ones deciding whether they stay in power. and create a means to remove them from their elected position if they don't do that at any time. - not just every 2,4, or 6 years.
Basically - laws that are not applicable, or should be absorbed by others should go by the wayside. There shouldn't be any gray areas, ever. It either is, or isn't.
Every time the exception has to be legislated, there is more BS that piles up and then more red tape, and more bureaucracy, and more crap all the way around.
It doesn't matter who's in power if the people can be the ones deciding whether they stay in power. and create a means to remove them from their elected position if they don't do that at any time. - not just every 2,4, or 6 years.
T
train
Guest
Well - I don't have a problem with saying terms are 2,4,6 - but if someone needs to be "let go" early - then have a way to do it.
I haven't seen the email - but it makes perfect sense to me...
Maybe I should run...
I haven't seen the email - but it makes perfect sense to me...
Maybe I should run...