January 6, 2015: peaceful transition of power

[FA_Q2]

.

We have a national political system that is almost completely controlled by money.

Unless & until that changes, our "leaders" will continue to disappoint.

(That won't stop their flocks from spinning for them, however)

.

What would you like it to be controlled by, military force?

Nope, just a better system:

1. Balanced Budget Amendment
2. Short, strict term limits
3. Publicly-funded elections

We would see the behavior of these thugs & liars change overnight, and we would see a better class of "leader".

.

1 - Balanced budget amendments don't really accomplish much considering that the government will ALWAYS have an 'out' and, quite frankly, they should. You cannot always run a balanced budget. War, natural disaster etc need funds and sometimes need to be borrowed against. I am all for fiscal responsibility but I don't see a balanced budget actually accomplishing that tbh.

2 - Why? Do you really think that forcing people to vote in new jackasses solves the problem that they vote for jackasses? Freedom is not enshrined in voting restrictions - that is the opposite. I don't feel the need to protect people from their own asinine voting patters because they are simply going to vote in another moron. The monied interests are not buying off CANDIDATES. That is grossly inefficient. They are buying off PARTIES.

3 - Publicly funded elections will do nothing to remove monies influence from politics. Is it the election funds that ensures these politicians become millionaires in office? Do you think that a 5 million a year job to be a 'historian' would suddenly go away?

Money is in politics because politicians can make companies billions. As long as that is a reality, those companies WILL find a way to influence the system.

A Balanced Budget Amendment would force both parties to defend their taxing and spending initiatives.

Term limits would change the behavior of politicians because they would no longer put re-election and fundraising over legislating.

Publicly funded elections would have the same effect as term limits.

Additionally, a cleaner environment might very well attract a better class of legislator.

If you're fine with the way things are, great. I'm personally not so thrilled.

.

I am not fine with how things are at all. The problem is that your solutions do not address the real problems.

I am open to a balanced budget amendment but I am not convinced that it will even remotely be followed.

Term limits would do no such thing as you claim. All it does is move the fundraising to the next guy. you don't think the current person in that seat is going to go around fundraising for the next guy? Do you see what the president does around election time? You would be crazy to think that Obama is not going to go around all over the place for the democrat nominee. Then they fundraise for the party.


And then there is publicly funded elections. I don't buy into the idea that the incumbent gets the advantage here - I used to but another poster here brought in some studies that showed that is false. My problem with the idea is that I don't believe it will remove money from the system. The basic fact of the matter is that companies stand to make billions if the right laws favoring them are passed. BILLIONS. A law against funding elections will simply chase that money elsewhere in the system - be it in promises to pay them after holding office, promises to sign contracts with family owned businesses, outright bribers or other ways of influencing the outcome. The money WILL come because there is so much to be made. You CANNOT and will NEVER fix a problem by trying to repair the symptoms. The symptom here is money influencing politics. The actual problem is that the politicians are able to make these entities money thorough favorable law and tax code rigging. The only way to get money out of politics is to remove the profitability in it.


A 'cleaner' environment is nothing but wishful thinking. What is 'cleaner' about electing new politicians? The environment will not be cleaner, just more ignorant.

 

[Derideo_Te]

I am hoping that the 114th Congress will put away the partisanship and obstruction that resulted in the prior 2 "do nothing" congresses and actually start working for We the People again.

There is a backlog of things that need to be addressed, like infrastructure, jobs, retiring Boomers, etc and they should be the priorities in my opinion. I really want to see the Republicans take the lead and govern this nation is a fiscally responsible manner while dealing with the problems that we face today. If this happens it will go towards ensuring that they can retain power in 2016 in both chambers.

Yes, that is a high bar to get over but if they start out on the right foot and do what is right for the American people as a whole it is achievable IMO.

 

[Derideo_Te]

“The Senate is likely to pass a certain amount of legislation that our President could very well veto.”

Which can be easily avoided by Congress pursuing sound, responsible governance.

the republicans are going to WANT to pass things he votes - bills that the public likes and the president cant effectively spin to his advantage. He then has to capitulate or face the political backlash. It is a fine line for the republicans to walk. They need some compromised bills and some bills that are too distasteful for the president that the people are behind.

Can you please provide some examples of "some bills that are too distasteful for the president that the people are behind"?

 

[The Rabbi]

The basic issue is not non regulation. The basic issue is too much regulation coupled with government guarantees. If some broker wants to blow up his business with derivative bets, so what? He goes bankrupt and life goes on. The problem is the gov't wants to protect people from their bad decisions. Dodd Frank enshrined too big to fail into law. It was a gross error.

If a broker blows up his business with derivative bets using investor money and the investors were not aware that derivatives were being utilized, the damage is far larger than the broker going bankrupt. The broker had breached his fiduciary duty, and the investors have been victimized. It's still happening, and it's happening within 401K's and pension plans and every other investing vehicle.

As long as the hard right continues to knee-jerk away from any and all regulation, we will continue to live on the precipice. It's just not necessary.

.

Victims that chose to invest their money in a shady broker that misused the investments. That is and should be illegal. That does not mean the government needs to step in and cover them.

This comes from the need to protect people from themselves. The idea that I can take my life savings, hand it off and then simply walk away is rather insane though seemingly very popular. We have jumped into the largest moral hazard ever conceived - the simple idea of too big to fail has infected the market and allowed them to essentially do whatever they want because there is ZERO risk.

The sad part is that the government covering that broker and his investors ensures only that the wealthy do not lose their shirts. the rest of us are hosed as real value is lost all over the place and they have no idea how to capitalize on it.

The one thing that should make this all obvious is that after to big to fail the banks got BIGGER. How did we allow that to happen?

The average American doesn't fully understand this stuff, and it's not their job to.

But politicians have all the resources they need. They know what's going on, but they choose not to act because they know where their bread is buttered.

Priorities, priorities.

.

So you want to protect people from their own stupidity and greed? I would disagree. Perhaps we should bail out victims of Nigerian prince scams.

No, I want to protect the American economy from the predictable ravages of uncontrolled risk.

And for proof, all I need to do is point at 2008.

.

Again the problem of 2008 was multifold. But the biggest issue was that the gov't guaranteed so much they were obligated to step in. Otherwise companies would go bankrupt and smarter ones would take their place. Not really a big deal and the way things worked here until 1930.

 

[Mertex]

It will be interesting.....and I can hardly wait to see if the GOP will step up to the plate or instead waste their time chasing rabbits, like they have been doing in the past.

 

[TooTall]

I hope that the senate will do the correct thing and restore the filibuster but I HIGHLY doubt they are going to. once power has been grabbed - it will be kept. They have little motivation to do so other than it is what is correct.

Is it not correct when Republicans are in the majority and correct when the Democrats are?

 

[The Rabbi]

I hope that the senate will do the correct thing and restore the filibuster but I HIGHLY doubt they are going to. once power has been grabbed - it will be kept. They have little motivation to do so other than it is what is correct.

Is it not correct when Republicans are in the majority and correct when the Democrats are?

Yeah we will effectively end up with one set of rules for Dems and one for the GOP. That's a non starter. Reid let the genie out of the bottle. Too bad.

 

[S.J.]

I hope that the senate will do the correct thing and restore the filibuster but I HIGHLY doubt they are going to. once power has been grabbed - it will be kept. They have little motivation to do so other than it is what is correct.

Is it not correct when Republicans are in the majority and correct when the Democrats are?

Suddenly they're concerned with fairness.

 

[FA_Q2]

“The Senate is likely to pass a certain amount of legislation that our President could very well veto.”

Which can be easily avoided by Congress pursuing sound, responsible governance.

the republicans are going to WANT to pass things he votes - bills that the public likes and the president cant effectively spin to his advantage. He then has to capitulate or face the political backlash. It is a fine line for the republicans to walk. They need some compromised bills and some bills that are too distasteful for the president that the people are behind.

Can you please provide some examples of "some bills that are too distasteful for the president that the people are behind"?

They have to draft them first.

There are some keys though that have wide bi-partisan support but I ma not sure the president will sign. Repealing the medical tax is one. I am not sure if Obama is on board with that to be honest but it is one that Americans are largely behind. As far as I know he will only entertain the idea if the income is replaced. In this case, the republicans can get away with not doing so politically and place the extra burden on Obama. The Keystone Pipeline is another. That enjoys rather wide support (particularly from republicans and the center) while also being rather disliked by the left.

The only way such ideas work though is if they pass them in naked bills rather than sliding them in other bills that they don't belong in or as poison pills. I don't think the public is willing to swallow that tactic for much longer.

 

[FA_Q2]

I hope that the senate will do the correct thing and restore the filibuster but I HIGHLY doubt they are going to. once power has been grabbed - it will be kept. They have little motivation to do so other than it is what is correct.

Is it not correct when Republicans are in the majority and correct when the Democrats are?

What gives you that idea?

The move against it by the democrats was far beyond despicable.

What sickens me the most is that so many Americans simply accepted the move as kosher. The same people that are going to be screaming bloody murder when the republicans use the same tactics.

 

[FA_Q2]

I hope that the senate will do the correct thing and restore the filibuster but I HIGHLY doubt they are going to. once power has been grabbed - it will be kept. They have little motivation to do so other than it is what is correct.

Is it not correct when Republicans are in the majority and correct when the Democrats are?

Yeah we will effectively end up with one set of rules for Dems and one for the GOP. That's a non starter. Reid let the genie out of the bottle. Too bad.

And that is the sad truth and why I don't think that the republicans will restore the proper order. They have little reason to do so. Reid gave them the political cover because he created the damn inroad in the first place. Now, they are able to solidify permanently the consolidation of power for the party in charge - as though it was not strong enough.

 

[blackhawk]

“The Senate is likely to pass a certain amount of legislation that our President could very well veto.”

Which can be easily avoided by Congress pursuing sound, responsible governance.

Sound responsible governance much like beauty is in the eye of the beholder. One persons sound and responsible is another ones radical extremism.

 

[Derideo_Te]

“The Senate is likely to pass a certain amount of legislation that our President could very well veto.”

Which can be easily avoided by Congress pursuing sound, responsible governance.

the republicans are going to WANT to pass things he votes - bills that the public likes and the president cant effectively spin to his advantage. He then has to capitulate or face the political backlash. It is a fine line for the republicans to walk. They need some compromised bills and some bills that are too distasteful for the president that the people are behind.

Can you please provide some examples of "some bills that are too distasteful for the president that the people are behind"?

They have to draft them first.

There are some keys though that have wide bi-partisan support but I ma not sure the president will sign. Repealing the medical tax is one. I am not sure if Obama is on board with that to be honest but it is one that Americans are largely behind. As far as I know he will only entertain the idea if the income is replaced. In this case, the republicans can get away with not doing so politically and place the extra burden on Obama. The Keystone Pipeline is another. That enjoys rather wide support (particularly from republicans and the center) while also being rather disliked by the left.

The only way such ideas work though is if they pass them in naked bills rather than sliding them in other bills that they don't belong in or as poison pills. I don't think the public is willing to swallow that tactic for much longer.

Please provide a poll proving that there is bipartisan support for "repealing the medical tax".

 

[TooTall]

“The Senate is likely to pass a certain amount of legislation that our President could very well veto.”

Which can be easily avoided by Congress pursuing sound, responsible governance.

the republicans are going to WANT to pass things he votes - bills that the public likes and the president cant effectively spin to his advantage. He then has to capitulate or face the political backlash. It is a fine line for the republicans to walk. They need some compromised bills and some bills that are too distasteful for the president that the people are behind.

Can you please provide some examples of "some bills that are too distasteful for the president that the people are behind"?

They have to draft them first.

There are some keys though that have wide bi-partisan support but I ma not sure the president will sign. Repealing the medical tax is one. I am not sure if Obama is on board with that to be honest but it is one that Americans are largely behind. As far as I know he will only entertain the idea if the income is replaced. In this case, the republicans can get away with not doing so politically and place the extra burden on Obama. The Keystone Pipeline is another. That enjoys rather wide support (particularly from republicans and the center) while also being rather disliked by the left.

The only way such ideas work though is if they pass them in naked bills rather than sliding them in other bills that they don't belong in or as poison pills. I don't think the public is willing to swallow that tactic for much longer.

Please provide a poll proving that there is bipartisan support for "repealing the medical tax".

The Democrat controlled Senate already passed a non-binding resolution to repeal the medical device tax. As long as Harry Reid was the Majority Leader, that was all we were going to get. I believe 30 Democrats in the Senate joined the Republicans in the vote. Why do you need a poll?

 

[Carib Gyal]

Old Barry was a working man
He used to load that Econoline van
A sparkle was in his eye
But his dick was in his hand

Tonight's the night. Tonight's the night.

 

[Moonglow]

“The Senate is likely to pass a certain amount of legislation that our President could very well veto.”

Which can be easily avoided by Congress pursuing sound, responsible governance.

the republicans are going to WANT to pass things he votes - bills that the public likes and the president cant effectively spin to his advantage. He then has to capitulate or face the political backlash. It is a fine line for the republicans to walk. They need some compromised bills and some bills that are too distasteful for the president that the people are behind.

Can you please provide some examples of "some bills that are too distasteful for the president that the people are behind"?

They have to draft them first.

There are some keys though that have wide bi-partisan support but I ma not sure the president will sign. Repealing the medical tax is one. I am not sure if Obama is on board with that to be honest but it is one that Americans are largely behind. As far as I know he will only entertain the idea if the income is replaced. In this case, the republicans can get away with not doing so politically and place the extra burden on Obama. The Keystone Pipeline is another. That enjoys rather wide support (particularly from republicans and the center) while also being rather disliked by the left.

The only way such ideas work though is if they pass them in naked bills rather than sliding them in other bills that they don't belong in or as poison pills. I don't think the public is willing to swallow that tactic for much longer.

Please provide a poll proving that there is bipartisan support for "repealing the medical tax".

The Democrat controlled Senate already passed a non-binding resolution to repeal the medical device tax. As long as Harry Reid was the Majority Leader, that was all we were going to get. I believe 30 Democrats in the Senate joined the Republicans in the vote. Why do you need a poll?

Govt. issued strippers...

 

[Derideo_Te]

“The Senate is likely to pass a certain amount of legislation that our President could very well veto.”

Which can be easily avoided by Congress pursuing sound, responsible governance.

the republicans are going to WANT to pass things he votes - bills that the public likes and the president cant effectively spin to his advantage. He then has to capitulate or face the political backlash. It is a fine line for the republicans to walk. They need some compromised bills and some bills that are too distasteful for the president that the people are behind.

Can you please provide some examples of "some bills that are too distasteful for the president that the people are behind"?

They have to draft them first.

There are some keys though that have wide bi-partisan support but I ma not sure the president will sign. Repealing the medical tax is one. I am not sure if Obama is on board with that to be honest but it is one that Americans are largely behind. As far as I know he will only entertain the idea if the income is replaced. In this case, the republicans can get away with not doing so politically and place the extra burden on Obama. The Keystone Pipeline is another. That enjoys rather wide support (particularly from republicans and the center) while also being rather disliked by the left.

The only way such ideas work though is if they pass them in naked bills rather than sliding them in other bills that they don't belong in or as poison pills. I don't think the public is willing to swallow that tactic for much longer.

Please provide a poll proving that there is bipartisan support for "repealing the medical tax".

The Democrat controlled Senate already passed a non-binding resolution to repeal the medical device tax. As long as Harry Reid was the Majority Leader, that was all we were going to get. I believe 30 Democrats in the Senate joined the Republicans in the vote. Why do you need a poll?

Thank you for clarifying. The medical device tax is not the same thing as the "medical tax". I don't believe that Obama will have a problem with the medical device tax being repealed as long as there is funding to replace that from some other source.

 

[Moonglow]

Congress has been sworn in and seated, and is now going on vacation...

 

[jwoodie]

I hope that the senate will do the correct thing and restore the filibuster but I HIGHLY doubt they are going to. once power has been grabbed - it will be kept. They have little motivation to do so other than it is what is correct.

You do realize that this is a Heads-I-Win, Tails-You-Lose game played by the Democrats? Why shouldn't the GOP "go nuclear" and send a bill for Obama to sign or veto every week? This would require Democrats to actually cast votes on bills instead of hoodwinking the voters.

 

[FA_Q2]

I hope that the senate will do the correct thing and restore the filibuster but I HIGHLY doubt they are going to. once power has been grabbed - it will be kept. They have little motivation to do so other than it is what is correct.

You do realize that this is a Heads-I-Win, Tails-You-Lose game played by the Democrats? Why shouldn't the GOP "go nuclear" and send a bill for Obama to sign or veto every week? This would require Democrats to actually cast votes on bills instead of hoodwinking the voters.

Because it is a pox on the legislative process by not doing so.

I doubt they are going to return the rule. I actually expect that they are going to expand the nuclear option. Only time will tell.