Jump to content

US Government Shut Down - new elections for senate and house of rep.?


Recommended Posts

This is not just moving the goalpost, that is flying out to India, have craftsman hand-carve a new goalpost, continue travel to Japan to have it painted and then to Russia to have it fired into the stratosphere.

This type of argument would make a silly biscuit proud. Well done!

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 329
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Just thinking out loud here.....   If people like soldiers and policeman can be legally charged with 'Dereliction Of Duty' for not performing the required responsibilities of their job then why can'

Wish you guys would quit playing the game. Bush only had a surplus because Clinton stripped Social Security while he was in office. Man you ideologues are atrocious. I am glad I am not part of this ci

I never suggesed you were evil. I simply pointed out that as a matter of recent and easily remembered historical fact you and your fellow registered Republicans bear full and undiluted responsibility

This is not just moving the goalpost, that is flying out to India, have craftsman hand-carve a new goalpost, continue travel to Japan to have it painted and then to Russia to have it fired into the stratosphere.

This type of argument would make a silly biscuit proud. Well done!

If it were well done Charon the silly liberals here would not be trying to neg rep me(I am Independent). Besides the truth be told, I care for my community. This shutdown is horrible. Need a bi-partisan comittee that represents both sides on this. With Mr. Obama agreeing to go with what they decide.

 

Nothing worse than elitists thinking they know whats better than anyone else!

Edited by jduff
Link to post
Share on other sites

This is not just moving the goalpost, that is flying out to India, have craftsman hand-carve a new goalpost, continue travel to Japan to have it painted and then to Russia to have it fired into the stratosphere.

This type of argument would make a silly biscuit proud. Well done!

This is the same way I see the wingnuts arguing on TV. Just keep moving around and raising voices and being as hypocritical as possible. And they know they have an audience that will believe them.

 

I think there is a strong correlation between opinion that democrats are at fault or share the blame and ignorance/delusion. I'm pretty sure the anti-science crowd and those that still think Obama is a kenyan muslim are positive that this is all his fault. Its hate, pure and simple. Not saying that is the majority of those opposing the AHA, but its the majority of those that wanted the shutdown. They want to make the black man dance, give him a hard time. Well he has money and is not up for election assholes.

Nothing worse than elitists thinking they know whats better than anyone else!

You don't like liberals? Why don't you go cry to waitforufo, he feels your pain.

Link to post
Share on other sites

This is the same way I see the wingnuts arguing on TV. Just keep moving around and raising voices and being as hypocritical as possible. And they know they have an audience that will believe them.

 

I think there is a strong correlation between opinion that democrats are at fault or share the blame and ignorance/delusion. I'm pretty sure the anti-science crowd and those that still think Obama is a kenyan muslim are positive that this is all his fault. Its hate, pure and simple. Not saying that is the majority of those opposing the AHA, but its the majority of those that wanted the shutdown. They want to make the black man dance, give him a hard time. Well he has money and is not up for election assholes.

 

Considering Mr.Obama wants the shutdown as well. I do not see how its relevant. Both sides are doing it. Not just one. Democrats and Obama blame the Republicans. Republicans blame Democrats and Obama. Media is a one sided affair. More like CNN, MSNBC, NBC, ABC are just projecting the democrat agenda. Fox of course doing the GOP's bidding. I think both sides of government are horrible!

 

Also Black men are usually very good dancers!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Considering Mr.Obama wants the shutdown as well. I do not see how its relevant. Both sides are doing it. Not just one. Democrats and Obama blame the Republicans. Republicans blame Democrats and Obama. Media is a one sided affair. More like CNN, MSNBC, NBC, ABC are just projecting the democrat agenda. Fox of course doing the GOP's bidding. I think both sides of government are horrible!

 

Also Black men are usually very good dancers!

Tide goes in, Tide goes out. I just don't know. How can we know anything. Let's all pray. Yeehaw.

 

Also, Tea Party congressmen are usually cowardly, racist aholes, who probably can't dance.

Edited by john5746
Link to post
Share on other sites

Also, Tea Party congressmen are usually cowardly, racist aholes, who probably can't dance.

To a tea party supporter I would imagine what you said are perks. Pray we dont end up with a TP president next eleectionwink.png

Link to post
Share on other sites

There is a certain amount of stuff that goes on in politics that one just has to bear.

 

I often have said, that if it wasn't for money and politics, things would get along pretty well.

 

Unfortuneatly its a joke, and the reality is, that everybody's concerns and arguments are valid. There has to be money and politics, and winners and losers. We are constantly in a state where we have the best compromise between all the varied forces and directions. Everyone is concerned about slipping down, one slippery slope or another.

 

Point here, is that the government should not be shut down, this game, that we are engaged in, can not be called, on account of rain.

 

First we should pass the CR. Then continue the arguments.

 

The government IS too big. We are TOO dependent on it, for it to shut down and default on the responsibilities we have already given it. It is our government.

 

I think its true that many racists in this country would like to see the black man, squirm and fail.

 

I don't exactly know how to properly unwind such hatred. The power structures in this country, and in the world, are already set, by everyone's past and present agreements. Wars have already been fought to settle some of these issues.

 

Yet Detroit still went bankrupt. And the ghetto is still here, and the "Man", is still around to "get over on".

 

I see in the elitist, in power, and the elitist out of power, the same fears and hatreds that I see coming from the KKK, or the tea party. We are having the same "problem" with the poor, huddled masses, that we have always had. We know what is best for them, and will dole it out to them...if they behave, and are not too uppity.

 

Class warfare is not over. Despite our attempts to establish the rules and structures that would encourage a strong and independent middle class. Recently the rich have gotten far richer, and the middle class has gotten poorer.

 

We, the most of us, still report to a boss. And I have, myself, felt constantly disenfrancised at my place of work, and continually a little less "in control" of things, as I used to feel. Somebody else, is making the decisions, and it used to be "us".

 

Maybe its the "best practices" and computerized decision making processes in charge now. I don't know. Perhaps its the people that write the code, that are the new elite, the new holders of power. The quarterback on the football team used to be in charge. Now its some nerd in the back room. And things are out of "our" control.

 

Which slippery slope would you like to avoid sliding down? The loss of personal power, the loss of the value of human judgment, is the slope I would like to avoid. The indepedence and strength of each of us, in turn, creates a strong and independant nation. It makes us all "elite".

 

I don't know the answer. But I think I know the question.

Link to post
Share on other sites
There has to be money and politics, and winners and losers.

 

 

There really doesn't. Society could be divided into liberal and conservative, pro- and anti- welfare state, respectively - on the terms outlined in my previous post. Let the working and lower middle classes (and those of higher social class who consent to the welfare state) get on with living independently of the upper middle classes and the super-rich. Let the upper middle classes and the super rich get on with living unburdened by the needs of the lower social classes. Everybody would be happy this way - this is, after all, what each social group is asking for! Working class people, those dependent on benefits for their survival, and the lower middle classes would no longer feel ashamed of their societal position; they could be proud sponsors of the welfare state, helping others and being helped in their turn. No more feeling patronised or feeling the condescension of the upper classes. The upper classes would no longer need to put up with the demands of the working classes. The two groups could co-exist and would have an absolute financial separation; this could be achieved and maintained peacefully and by democratic process. Let's see who is actually generating profit and whose social system is correct. smile.png Are you with me?

Link to post
Share on other sites

In tales of yore the barons, counts, and dukes lived lives of luxury by owning title, land and serfs who labored long and miserably.

 

In U.S. past the country gents and bells lived lives of luxury with possessions of land and slaves who labored long and miserably.

 

Now we have modern aristocracy living lives of luxury from portfolios that own the efforts of minimum wage employees who labor long and miserably.

 

The more things change the more they stay the same.

Link to post
Share on other sites

They blame president Obama and his administration. He is the commander and chief.

Of course those in the military blame the commander in chief. All he has to do is call Harry Reid, hold a press conference, and this would all be over. In fact he could do this simply for the military and for civilian contractors working with the military. Republicans would be happy to fund this part of the government. The commander and chief has responsibilities to the military and to the protection of the country. Responsibilities he is ignoring.

 

 

You don't like liberals? Why don't you go cry to waitforufo, he feels your pain.

jduff, I feel your pain. Excellent input. Keep it coming.

 

 

Day 5 shutdown report: Still feeling no pain. Still don't know anyone feeling pain.

 

I'll keep you posted.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Tridimity,

 

But such division would only point out the fault in both camps. And none of us is purely conservative, or purely liberal.

It is the fringes, the ultra left, and the ultra right, that do not understand the value and reality of the other position.

 

You have probably read Animal Farm. You are probably aware that communes were tried extensively in the States, following the late sixties...and for the most part, did not work out.

 

You are probably aware that social states in Europe have drawn outsiders in, to suckle on the communal cow, and it has caused some problems. More problems than the additional potential "hands" solve.

 

The problem lies more, in my estimation, in the defining of "we" and "them". I liked my company more, when my leadership, and the decision makers were on my side, when together we made a good product, and took personal responsibilty for it. All of us.

There was not worker and management. We were all on the same side. Just had different jobs to do, different roles, but there was intrinsic value and ownership of the product and process, that was held by each. No one had to told what we were trying to do. We already knew, and together met the challenges. We were given tools and resources to do the job, and we got it done.

 

My company now is contolled by sales people, and sigma six, best practices, outsourcers of process. Everybody is "told" what to do, and jumps, "because a VP wants it done"...I tend still to do the right thing, and "get the job done", but it is sometimes now done "in spite" of the barriers laid down by the process, not because of them.

 

Still, back to Animal Farm, you need the means of production. You need the capital formation, the owners. And you need the talent and leadership of intelligent thoughtful "doers" and organizers, project leaders and team leaders. You need people in charge and people following their lead. Intellegence and education and talent, still define a difference between one "worker" and another. And you can not manufacture a pecking order any more real and workable than the ones that already develop and are evident and workable in the real world.

 

Could you be president of the U.S.? Takes a lot of talent, a lot of heart, and a lot of work to get to such a role. And if you had anything close to what it would take, you would be at least a Senator, or a Governor, or a Mayor, or the head of your local school board, or be running a firm or organisation of some size.

 

And conservative values, and liberal values do not include or exclude a person from a working society. It would be silly to imagine that anything could work, without them both. Without the individual, the whole thing falls abuptly. Without the leader, the sheep wander aimlessly. Without the sheep, there is no wool.

 

It is my contention that we already have done a good job in America in establishing the rule of law, that honors the individual, and protects us each against abuses of power, that the other might engage in. The president can't just have his way. He has to find the course that we all want to follow.

 

The owners, and the slaves are us. And we together owe a lot of money. A lot more money than we together have.

We have to spend, as a federal government, less. But we have to stay open.

 

Regards, TAR2

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Liberals just can't buy the idea that government promotes dependency.
Liberals invented that idea. Ideas, in general, are liberal phenomena.

 

 

 

So for that vast majority the government shutdown is just a meaningless distraction from things that actually interest them.
The question then becomes how much damage we are willing to do to the country to avoid disturbing the apathy of the ignorant, imcompetent, adn uncaring.

 

Of course msot people don't know what the effects of this or that legislative event will be. That's why we have elected representatives, whose duty and presumably interest is to provide themselves with a clue. When these representatives start running the country based on what is apparent without effort to the most ignorant and least attentive of the citizenry, things fall apart.

 

Because government by people who don't recognize reality in anything that doesn't affect them personally within 48 hours would be very bad government indeed - right?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Overtone,

 

Perhaps liberals are more intelligent and have more ideas than conservatives.

 

But all liberals are not trustworthy pillars of society, and all conservatives are not drunken bigots.

 

If Obama won as a liberal, with lets say 60 percent of the vote and all the people in the country in the top 5 percent on the IQ scale, voted for him, that would mean that at least the 55 percent are NOT in the top 5 percent in intelligence, and would have to have voted for him regardless of their relative stupidity. Those people could have been fooled or hoodwinked or could just be going along, to pretend they are associated with the liberal ideas that only the smartest are actually capable of actually having.

 

And then there is the other 40 percent, which might, in actuality include one or two individuals that have a lot of brain power. Perhaps amongst the leaders of business, or the Elk lodge, there is someone who you would deam capable of having ideas.

 

Just as reminder, a vote for Obama was a vote for change. It was never defined exactly what we were changing from, and what we were changing to.

 

The word change, or the word liberal, means nothing, in an of itself. Anti-estabablishment, might mean something, up until the point where you ARE the establishment, and then what?

 

At least conservative values put some value on what good people have already struggled and died for to establish for the rest of us.

 

Again, who is the we and who is the they, in this discussion. If the 5 percent don't already control the place, by virtue of their superior ability and trustworthyness, then I would be surprised.

 

Regards, TAR2

And an interesting note, in terms of Gerrymandering sectioning off suburban and rural areas that often vote republican. These areas often include professionals and managers and people of high education and intelligence. Some of the "richest" areas of New Jersey in terms of these people of higher capability, than the average city dweller, moved out of the cities, into the suburbs and countryside in the 60s and 70s and 80s in a migration known at the time, as "white flight". Leaving once highly valued real estate, as in East Orange, to a population that tended toward crime and drugs and government dependence. I lived there myself and witnessed the decline. My first home with my wife was a house we rented from my former college, which was a fine school, called Upsala College, that drew its students from middle and upper class areas of NJ and Connecticut. A lot of vulnerable young girls, whose parents increasing declined to send to an area where rape and robbery and drugs, were on the rise. My school opened a small satelite campus in the countryside, but eventually went bust, and closed. My pregnant wife and I had taken our baby and fled ourselves a few years prior, after being broken into twice, living two feet away from a drug addict mom, who kept her bedroom door locked whether she was in it or not, so her children would not steal her drugs (she could not reprimand or control her children, because they would call Dyfus or some such entity, on her), and several other encounters, that led us to believe we were not in the town where we wanted to raise our children.

 

But the point, is that IF there is a five percent that is best suited to run the place, they are not going to be able to, if they can not win an election. And since the majority is not amoung the top 5 or 10 percent, the top 5 or 10 percent have to Gerrymander the place, to set it up, so they have more political say, than their numbers would permit.

 

Regards, TAR2

to each according to their need

from each according to their ability?

 

Maybe something a little like that. But I don't want to go all the way there, and I certainly don't want to be TOLD to go there.

Edited by tar
Link to post
Share on other sites

Liberals invented that idea. Ideas, in general, are liberal phenomena.

 

 

 

The question then becomes how much damage we are willing to do to the country to avoid disturbing the apathy of the ignorant, imcompetent, adn uncaring.

 

 

Considering the only people hurting once again will be the low information citizen. Definitely not the government. A update:http://washingtonexaminer.com/wheres-sense-of-crisis-in-a-17-percent-government-shutdown/article/2536862

 

Only the people who are using government assistance seems to be affected. WIC, Foodstamps, Mortage services ect. Only state services are running . So the little guy(poor, single mothers, low income families) gets screwed and take the brunt of the shutdown! Just wonderful!

Edited by jduff
Link to post
Share on other sites

Tridimity,

 

But such division would only point out the fault in both camps. And none of us is purely conservative, or purely liberal.

It is the fringes, the ultra left, and the ultra right, that do not understand the value and reality of the other position.

 

You have probably read Animal Farm. You are probably aware that communes were tried extensively in the States, following the late sixties...and for the most part, did not work out.

 

You are probably aware that social states in Europe have drawn outsiders in, to suckle on the communal cow, and it has caused some problems. More problems than the additional potential "hands" solve.

 

The problem lies more, in my estimation, in the defining of "we" and "them". I liked my company more, when my leadership, and the decision makers were on my side, when together we made a good product, and took personal responsibilty for it. All of us.

There was not worker and management. We were all on the same side. Just had different jobs to do, different roles, but there was intrinsic value and ownership of the product and process, that was held by each. No one had to told what we were trying to do. We already knew, and together met the challenges. We were given tools and resources to do the job, and we got it done.

 

My company now is contolled by sales people, and sigma six, best practices, outsourcers of process. Everybody is "told" what to do, and jumps, "because a VP wants it done"...I tend still to do the right thing, and "get the job done", but it is sometimes now done "in spite" of the barriers laid down by the process, not because of them.

 

Still, back to Animal Farm, you need the means of production. You need the capital formation, the owners. And you need the talent and leadership of intelligent thoughtful "doers" and organizers, project leaders and team leaders. You need people in charge and people following their lead. Intellegence and education and talent, still define a difference between one "worker" and another. And you can not manufacture a pecking order any more real and workable than the ones that already develop and are evident and workable in the real world.

 

Could you be president of the U.S.? Takes a lot of talent, a lot of heart, and a lot of work to get to such a role. And if you had anything close to what it would take, you would be at least a Senator, or a Governor, or a Mayor, or the head of your local school board, or be running a firm or organisation of some size.

 

And conservative values, and liberal values do not include or exclude a person from a working society. It would be silly to imagine that anything could work, without them both. Without the individual, the whole thing falls abuptly. Without the leader, the sheep wander aimlessly. Without the sheep, there is no wool.

 

It is my contention that we already have done a good job in America in establishing the rule of law, that honors the individual, and protects us each against abuses of power, that the other might engage in. The president can't just have his way. He has to find the course that we all want to follow.

 

The owners, and the slaves are us. And we together owe a lot of money. A lot more money than we together have.

We have to spend, as a federal government, less. But we have to stay open.

 

Regards, TAR2

 

Yes, I am well aware that there is not currently a strict dichotomy in US or UK society between conservatives and liberals, except at the extremes of the political spectra. Most individuals within both camps agree that some form of welfare state is desirable - the negotiations focus on the extent of taxation and financial aid. I can't help feeling though that, in all of this, the working and lower middle classes are not getting anywhere near a fair deal. At least here in the UK, the main left wing party Labour have sold out on their Union roots in favour of a style of New Labour 'kind capitalism' (actually not that kind) that is virtually indistinguishable from the ethos of mainstream Tories. It remains to be seen whether the change of leadership to the leftist Ed Miliband will mean a change of substance or merely a change of style for Labour. As for the third main political party here, the Liberal Democrats, they have basically proven to be a lame duck while in coalition government with the Conservatives, essentially compromising away all of their pre-election promises, most notably their promise to abolish University tuition fees - instead trebling tuition fees. Due to our first-past-the-post electoral system in the UK, it is difficult for non-mainstream parties to establish power. So, you see, our workers do not have many options come election time. It has all turned into one conglomeration of, at best, political centrism.

 

What I am suggesting is the creation of a new political party with a fighting chance of being elected - even under FPTP constrictions - to serve the interests of both ordinary workers and the very wealthy. To be named something like, the Moderation Party or the Proportionate Party. In the public sector, job creation, wage levels and all other policies including healthcare would be directly tallied with Treasury finances. There would still be a hierarchy of sorts, in the sense that certain jobs (those that have required more education, investment and hard work) would be better paid than others (for example, entry level jobs). However, wages would be controlled within a given range of the mean income, but including a wide enough range that enterprise and industriousness are incentivised, such that wages follow a normal distribution and the kind of gross discrepancies in wealth and reward for work that we are currently observing in UK and US society (CEOs with million-pound bonuses while clerks are earning in the region of £15,000 per year) are prevented. Tax rate would be high and flat. Monitoring of population dynamics and public finances would allow for anticipation of future requirements and would help to prevent any repeat of the dire situation recently encountered, in which the taxpayer pays the price of private sector high risk investments. Unlike previous attempts to establish socialism, there would be no coercive pressure; no authoritarianism. Instead, citizens would actively and democratically opt in to the new system at election time, and then opt to be either a public or private citizen. So as not to stifle creativity and entrepreneurship, any public citizen wishing to initiate a business could seek financial help from the government for start-up funds, with risk/benefit analysis performed on an individual objective and independent basis, the government would then effectively own the business and the individual could employ public sector citizens. The individual would then have the choice at the next election to either remain in the public sector and have certain constraints on their income, in the form of tax and wage control, or could take the entirety of their personal wealth to the private sector where they would be able to live tax-free.

 

^^The more I think about this the more I realise it is a stupid artificial dichotomy of tax rates. The public sector would have very high administration costs, would have a hard time anticipating future demand and would lack the flexibility of free market, unless some kind of market socialism was implemented. unsure.png sad.png I guess I just want a fairer deal for ordinary workers, not just monetary but in terms of personal respect, in terms of acknowledgement that in any institution the ordinary workers represent most of the capacity for profit generation. Could probably be achieved in a mixed economy *shrugs reluctantly*

Edited by Tridimity
Link to post
Share on other sites

Tridimity,

 

Inequities are indeed disturbing, but realistic workable avenues to address them, have been attempted in both our societies, to some large degree of success, but also with some unintended consequences.

 

Its important to remember, or to factor in, game theory. All players are always looking for their own best move, and it is therefore better to play the game and set the rules in such a way that personal victories are consistent with societal victories. It is probably not possible to set the rules in such a manner as that the outcome is predetermined. It is probably not desirable to set the rules in such a manner as that the outcome is predetermined, as that then the system itself would be tyranical and oppressive in nature.

 

I am afraid we are left with an imperfect situation, where human judgement must be relied on to both set the rules, and live by the rules. Altruism and human concern are requirements for the thing to work out, but those things are already built into human judgement, and cannot be legislated, or enforced. The system itself cannot excercise human judgment, it can only reflect it.

 

And any one of us can tell pretty quickly when someone else is using bad judgment and is acting contrary to the spirit of the law. As in the current shutdown, where your will and my will, reflected in our trust in and backing of the current set of laws by which we operate, is being blatently disregarded. We might like to see things go more to the left or more to the right, or toward this horizon or that, but there is no one sensible, using good human judgement, that is in favor of the boat sinking. Or perhaps a better analogy, you can't shut off the engines of the plane, because you don't like the current flight plan. That is treason.

 

Regards, TAR2

But perhaps its also wrong for the pilot to take the plane where the passengers refuse to go. And diving into the sea, on principle, seems to me a bad choice for the pilot to be making, as well.

 

There was a moment in history, where taking the plane down to its fiery demise in a PA field, was heroic.

 

This moment is not such a situation. Right or left, we need to keep flying. Or we dismiss the human judgement and efforts that we have all been making to get us airborne in the first place.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Its not me holding the stance Phi. Bad comparison by the way. Comparing a government which has no profitability to a corporation that is profitable. You are correct sanity is definitely needed. Almost as bad as Obama comparing (Obama Care)AHCA to Apple. Apple is profitable, Apple does not force its product on you. Apple will cut a program that is not working.

 

OK, I get it. So let's use the military as the analogy, since the dreaded Obama-monster is C-in-C and it removes the profit angle. Command structure and procedure are very well spelled out, yet the C-in-C has a group of rogue captains who violate procedure by going around the regulations and try to fulfill their mission parameters in violation of protocols, causing their mission to fail catastrophically. Why do you blame the CIC when the captains violated command? Shouldn't it be safe for the CIC to assume subordinates will act according to their oaths?

 

The C-in-C took oaths from those captains that they would uphold their duty in the tradition and manner directed by the service. If they took it upon themselves to act in violation of their mission parameters, how could any general be held accountable for those men? Please don't keep repeating that Obama is ultimately responsible since he's in charge. As has already been pointed out, we have checks and balances and compartmentalization at these levels to protect us from having to assign blame irrationally.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Military is a poor analogy. A CO is responsible for those under him/her. It doesn't matter if the CO is asleep and some poor ensign runs the ship aground. The CO bears responsibility for it. Both careers are affected.

 

The house and the senate act independently of the president, and (for the most part) each other. The president can't force the speaker to do anything. The speaker doesn't work for the president. Just like the constitution explains.

———

 

In regard to the issue of "compromise":

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/05/us/politics/boehner-urges-gop-unity-in-epic-battle.html

Democrats say they simply cannot trust the speaker to deliver. Mr. Reid said in an interview in his office on Friday that Mr. Boehner came to him at the end of July with a proposition: If Senate Democratic leaders could accept a stopgap spending measure in the fall at levels that reflected across-the-board spending cuts, the speaker would refrain from adding extraneous measures that could precipitate a clash.

Mr. Reid was leery, since that level — $988 billion in discretionary spending for the 2014 fiscal year — would be $70 billion less than the Senate-passed budget. “I didn’t like it. I’ve got a couple of tough women to deal with,” he said, referring to Senators Patty Murray of Washington, the chairwoman of the Budget Committee, and Barbara A. Mikulski of Maryland, chairwoman of the Appropriations Committee.

 

 

 

IOW, the senate proposal was already a compromise. And Boehner has reneged on that.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The house and the senate act independently of the president, and (for the most part) each other. The president can't force the speaker to do anything. The speaker doesn't work for the president. Just like the constitution explains.

 

To add to this. It is the job of congressmen to represent their constituents, regardless of what the President wants or the leader of either house. We do not know what individual legislators are hearing from their constituents but if any are being prodded one way or another it is their place to represent what their constituents want regardless of how the rest of us feel about this. If that results in a stalemate then it is because that is how our system works.

 

There is another point I think worthy of acknowledgement. Two election cycles ago a democrat majority passed law they felt their constituents wanted so it is understandable that they steadfastly hold their ground in support of that legislation. At the same time that majority has been replaced with republicans over the last two election cycles where the constituents were unhappy with the actions of their democrat allied representatives that wrote and passed that legislation. It is thus understandable that those republicans represent the very constituents that voted them in to replace the democrats they were unhappy with. This again is how our system works, when your government doesn't make the constituents happy they get voted out. This said I cannot blame either side for any particular wrongdoing at this time.

 

I will add that I do not think it is ethically or professionally the time to fight this battle at budget time. In my opinion a congress that gambles with the nations credit in this way is derelict of duty and should be held legally accountable. It would not bother me in the least to see Boehner and Reid spending their off time in jail until a budget is passed.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.