U.S. Credit Rating Downgraded

[Asuras]

I am a hearty supporter of term limits, too many folks in DC are career politicians. That wasn't what was intended. It was supposed to be people representing people, not people being sponsored by folks like the Koch brothers.

That's actually my point though. Term limits and campaign contributions matter because people don't take the time to see past them. A guy's in congress for 20 years and people just assume he's good, even though he might actually be a corrupt goon of the political machine. A guy spams his constituents with ads and mails and gets reelected because he gets to tout his achievements because the Koch brothers pay for it.

People vote for this guy because hey, he's got experience, he gets pork for the district - we can point to that road that he got us - I can read the list of achievements on this letter the Koch brothers paid for...

And they don't look past that. They don't look into his voting record, they don't understand the issues other than pet peeve A and B: the guy made one big vote on abortion that makes it into the Koch mailing list but also billions in oil subsidies that somehow didn't make it on the list of legislative accomplishments he sends to his constituents...

Hence the Congress America deserves.

If you get past the "OMG liberals = commies = they hate Amercia" and the "Libertarian = Nazis!" rhetoric that gets thrown around by both sides then on a number of key issues (modern) liberals and (classic) liberals/libertarians share a number of key positions

The one consistent feature I've seen in libertarians is economic libertarianism. A lot of my libertarian friends (and mind you I'm from Texas) either have a blase attitude toward social libertarianism or sometimes even have outright conservative views while claiming to be libertarian. Similarly on foreign affairs it runs the gamut.

"Bailing out the bankers" is another one.

And that's one huge thing that makes me shy away from calling myself a libertarian or a liberal because the point was not to bail out the banks.

[Callie Del Noire]

That's actually my point though. Term limits and campaign contributions matter because people don't take the time to see past them. A guy's in congress for 20 years and people just assume he's good, even though he might actually be a corrupt goon of the political machine. A guy spams his constituents with ads and mails and gets reelected because he gets to tout his achievements because the Koch brothers pay for it.

People vote for this guy because hey, he's got experience, he gets pork for the district - we can point to that road that he got us - I can read the list of achievements on this letter the Koch brothers paid for...

And they don't look past that. They don't look into his voting record, they don't understand the issues other than pet peeve A and B: the guy made one big vote on abortion that makes it into the Koch mailing list but also billions in oil subsidies that somehow didn't make it on the list of legislative accomplishments he sends to his constituents...

Hence the Congress America deserves.

Thing is.. all 'career' politicians aren't bad. I mean look at the late Senator Jesse Helms, one I know of. Was he a plotting manipulative man? Possibly. Did he do things I disagree with. Definitely. He also did things that weren't in perspective with a man out purely for himself, turning down a position on a joint committee to stay on the Senate Farming committee, where he could do more for his voters.

He was one of the guys who stood with Tipper Gore about musical standards but he also was the guy who stood with Bono and pushed for foreign debt forgiveness. (Let me tell you, I about fell out my chair when that happened)

He, among a few others, is a good example of why you don't want to cut anyone off as totally straight wired for one side or the other. I like to think that he was one of the old 'statesmen' politicians who understood something the modern office holders have forgotten. How to build a consensus.

I have become more and more convinced that we need a system where the parties have to work together to offer a canidate. Clearly the two party system has failed us over the last decade or so. We're getting more and more divided and the lines between parties is too well defined. We've (as a governement) have forgotten that somewhere between the two extremes is where our needs are truly met.

I've yet to find a party that truly represented the majority needs of the country and to be brutally honest I feel both parties have been hijacked by the special interests. By which I mean minority segments of the party, the back room dealers, and folks like the Koch brothers. (Who I feel hijacked/engineered a portion of the Tea Party movement to get what they want).

 

[Genbu83]

Thing is.. all 'career' politicians aren't bad. I mean look at the late Senator Jesse Helms, one I know of. Was he a plotting manipulative man? Possibly. Did he do things I disagree with. Definitely. He also did things that weren't in perspective with a man out purely for himself, turning down a position on a joint committee to stay on the Senate Farming committee, where he could do more for his voters.

He was one of the guys who stood with Tipper Gore about musical standards but he also was the guy who stood with Bono and pushed for foreign debt forgiveness. (Let me tell you, I about fell out my chair when that happened)

He, among a few others, is a good example of why you don't want to cut anyone off as totally straight wired for one side or the other. I like to think that he was one of the old 'statesmen' politicians who understood something the modern office holders have forgotten. How to build a consensus.

I have become more and more convinced that we need a system where the parties have to work together to offer a canidate. Clearly the two party system has failed us over the last decade or so. We're getting more and more divided and the lines between parties is too well defined. We've (as a governement) have forgotten that somewhere between the two extremes is where our needs are truly met.

I've yet to find a party that truly represented the majority needs of the country and to be brutally honest I feel both parties have been hijacked by the special interests. By which I mean minority segments of the party, the back room dealers, and folks like the Koch brothers. (Who I feel hijacked/engineered a portion of the Tea Party movement to get what they want).

Callie I seriously think you are my thoughts incarnate at times.

[Missy]

Honestly everythin that's wrong is because of one thing. A lack of political accountability.

We need politicians who don't view their job descriptions as thus:

"Say nice things to people every couple of years, so I can make my own hours, decide my own pay AND! if I ever fuck anything up I get to decide how much I get paid overtime"

To be honest its all about them, nobody cares about anyone else anymore. There just aren't many people qualified to lead because leadership isn't about the man, it's about the followers.

[Callie Del Noire]

Honestly everythin that's wrong is because of one thing. A lack of political accountability.

We need politicians who don't view their job descriptions as thus:

"Say nice things to people every couple of years, so I can make my own hours, decide my own pay AND! if I ever fuck anything up I get to decide how much I get paid overtime"

To be honest its all about them, nobody cares about anyone else anymore. There just aren't many people qualified to lead because leadership isn't about the man, it's about the followers.

No, not quite true. It's, however, in the interests of those in office to maintain the status quo and not mediate/compromise. Instead of being seen as a 'statesman' or 'consensus builder', you're a  'troublemaker' or such.

Here is my outlook on the whole thing. Neither party by themselves represent the public's interest, it's the process of compromise, mediation and such that most of good comes out of the system. Do you honestly think that someone like Nancy Pelosi or her counterparts in the tea party faction or GOP have our interests in mind?

[Genbu83]

I would think that part time politicians would be able to compromise and run our country while serving the needs of many. /fantasy.

[TheGlyphstone]

When Mr. Smith Goes To Washington was released in 1939, it was an acclaimed drama. If it was remade today, it would be a comedy, because the idea of a senator with the interests of his constituency in mind is laughable.

(Also besides Hollywood thinks old movies can't be remade except as slapstick formula comedies, but that's another issue).

[Asuras]

(edit: oh, and for reasons surpassing understanding, gold is now worth more than platinum as of around 2 PM this afternoon)

Thing is.. all 'career' politicians aren't bad. I mean look at the late Senator Jesse Helms, one I know of. Was he a plotting manipulative man? Possibly. Did he do things I disagree with. Definitely. He also did things that weren't in perspective with a man out purely for himself, turning down a position on a joint committee to stay on the Senate Farming committee, where he could do more for his voters.

He was one of the guys who stood with Tipper Gore about musical standards but he also was the guy who stood with Bono and pushed for foreign debt forgiveness. (Let me tell you, I about fell out my chair when that happened)

He, among a few others, is a good example of why you don't want to cut anyone off as totally straight wired for one side or the other.

Right, and I'm not saying career politicians are all bad...this guy was in the senate for 30 years. I'm a bit confused about how this tribute to a 30-year dean of the senate coheres with your position supporting term limits.

I like to think that he was one of the old 'statesmen' politicians who understood something the modern office holders have forgotten. How to build a consensus.

I have a philosophy: never assume that people will play nice.

Maybe there was a time when we had old statesmen that would reach for consensus out of a patriotic spirit. Maybe there was a time when businesses were philanthropic, charitable, and fair to their competitors. They do not now because the incentives don't exist for them to play nice.

I make it my business never to rely on the kindness of strangers. Or the benevolence of corporations or politicians.

And I go even further than that: it isn't the job of corporations or politicians to play nice. Corporations are built to make money for their shareholders. Politicians are elected to represent their constituents. We should expect every nasty trick from corporations to make money for their shareholders and every nasty trick from politicians to get pork from their constituents.

The viable solution isn't trying to elect nicer legislators (who would get trampled on anyway by the smart ones) but to change the rules so that these things that ruin the country are no longer palatable. For instance, it should not be possible for the House to hold the rest of the government hostage or else we default.

Honestly the fact that that's even possible is a perversion of the separation of powers envisioned by the Constitution.

I have become more and more convinced that we need a system where the parties have to work together to offer a canidate. Clearly the two party system has failed us over the last decade or so. We're getting more and more divided and the lines between parties is too well defined. We've (as a governement) have forgotten that somewhere between the two extremes is where our needs are truly met.

To be honest, I don't see the present situation as two extremes - I see the present situation as a moderate option (Obama) versus a radical option (the Republicans).

The other thing is that while I'm not impressed with our two party system, we'd have to basically abolish the entire way the Constitution made Congress in order to get rid of it (in political science the constitution mandates a "first past the post system" and because of Duverger's law this dooms us to two parties)

Also, the countries that have a multiparty system like Israel and Germany...their systems lead to a huge amount of gridlock too, the advantage is dubious.

[Oniya]

This just occurred to me - why is it that the Legislative branch was able to hold the country hostage?  We have a system of checks and balances - there should be some way to prevent that.

[Callie Del Noire]

This just occurred to me - why is it that the Legislative branch was able to hold the country hostage?  We have a system of checks and balances - there should be some way to prevent that.

Unfortunately the democrats have TWICE cut the numbers needed to stymie a vote for resolutions. It now only takes 50% or so for congress to hold the process up. Once upon a time you had to have a 2/3s majority it I recall things rightly. 

[Oniya]

But that's internal to the Legislative branch.  Why isn't there an Executive or Judicial power that prevents this?  Something like the 'Dynamite' charge that a judge gives a jury that announces they're deadlocked. 

[TheGlyphstone]

In theory, that's the Vice President's job (his only official job, in fact) - to break ties in the Senate. But when A) it's not a even-split tie, and B) the VP is on the side of the majority party anyways, it's hairier.

[Asuras]

This just occurred to me - why is it that the Legislative branch was able to hold the country hostage?  We have a system of checks and balances - there should be some way to prevent that.

It is something I find fascinating...

The authors of the Constitution were concerned about the government passing stupid laws. So they made four steps to keep that from happening: the House, the Senate, the President, and the Supreme Court.

I don't think they envisioned the debt ceiling: a situation in which the government -has- to pass a law in order to prevent an insane outcome. Any one piece (in this case the House) can stop this from happening. It turns the entire separation of powers backwards.

[Vekseid]

It's rather unique, though, and probably fixable via amendment.

On topic, my prediction was right. The yield is down a quarter of a percent.

[Zakharra]

 That would require a Constitutional amendment though and that's not an easy thing to do. Approval of both houses of Congress and passage by 3/4 of the States to be made into law. You can bet though that the wording would be looked at -very- closely by everyone.

[Oniya]

That would require a Constitutional amendment though and that's not an easy thing to do. Approval of both houses of Congress and passage by 3/4 of the States to be made into law. You can bet though that the wording would be looked at -very- closely by everyone.

Not to mention, you'd be asking Congress to vote to take away some of its own power.  I see that going over like a lead dirigible.

[Zakharra]

 A solid lead dirigible.

[TheGlyphstone]

With lead plating and a solid lead carriage underneath.

[Missy]

No, not quite true. It's, however, in the interests of those in office to maintain the status quo and not mediate/compromise. Instead of being seen as a 'statesman' or 'consensus builder', you're a  'troublemaker' or such.

Here is my outlook on the whole thing. Neither party by themselves represent the public's interest, it's the process of compromise, mediation and such that most of good comes out of the system. Do you honestly think that someone like Nancy Pelosi or her counterparts in the tea party faction or GOP have our interests in mind?

Not sure what your saying or if you understood my statement correctly.

I doubt the majority of politicians have the citizens interest in mind.

I do agree with you though, they continueally push their own extreme agenda, neither of which I fully agree with either.

As a political moderate I couldn't agree with you more on the compromise thing.

[Oniya]

I think the two of you are saying about the same thing.  We haven't seen much compromise (if any) in recent years, because everyone's 'playing to their own side'.  They don't think about the possibility of gaining the moderates as much as they think about the possibility of losing the people who fanatically support Issue X.

[TheGlyphstone]

Yeah - no one is going to support a bill or amendment that does anything to weaken the majority party's control of issues. The majority party isn't going to support it because that'd be shooting themselves in the foot, and the minority party isn't going to support it because their long-term goal is to become the majority, so they're shooting themselves in the foot pre-emptively.

[Asuras]

In the particular case of the debt ceiling, all it would take is a simple majority to vote "We abolish the debt ceiling." No amendments.

[Jude]

I think the two of you are saying about the same thing.  We haven't seen much compromise (if any) in recent years, because everyone's 'playing to their own side'.  They don't think about the possibility of gaining the moderates as much as they think about the possibility of losing the people who fanatically support Issue X.

And those people are the real problem because they make a virtue of their zealotry and control who gets nominated during primaries.  As a result, we have candidates who got there by being extreme, and when the general election actually starts they have to maneuver towards the center to appeal to everyone who isn't actually insanely devoted to political ideology over their practical every day life (as these normal, moderate folks don't really participate in party politics that much).  We're basically requiring our politicians to be good bullshitters by the very structure of our electoral process, but those who are the most involved don't care because they're seeing the fight they want to in the general election.

Very, very few citizens participate in primaries: 

[Oniya]

It doesn't help that the primary elections aren't publicized nearly as much as they should be.  Mr. Oniya has always been more politically active than I am (although I'm starting to catch up), and even he's been blindsided by them.  It almost feels as though the primaries are an invite-only event for the politically-obsessed.

[Jude]

I'm certainly not gonna play holier than thou; I haven't attended a primary in my life either.  Though that's partly because I refuse to register as a member of either party.

INDEPENDENT 4 LIFE YA'LL.
(bliiiing)