ForumGarden

How dare the Republican Party hold the American public hostage over their agenda? They are using the debt ceiling as a carrot to get their way. Social Security checks may not get mailed out after August 01 if they don't come to their senses. I say we start shooting the oldest of the bunch until they no longer have a majority vote. This one sided block voting has got to stop.

No, no, Start with the young. The older ones are more adaptable

These are not aliens of whom you write, Bob, they are Americans. And if you think you've got it bad from them as a citizen you should try being a foreigner for a while.

What's shameful is that just because they - and I include Democrats in with the Republicans - just because they shout loudest, you (collectively, not personally) vote for them instead of for respectable responsible ethical representation.

You (collectively, not personally) have taken representative democracy and turned it into two-party government by your acquiescence to bigness and to loudness and above all to patriotic "duty". You (collectively, not personally) have failed to prevent the same political dogma (Capitalism) from being an absolute qualification for membership of either of these two noise-empowered parties and now you're puzzled that political change is so hard to encompass?

Wish I could argue with that.

The only thing that puzzles, though, is how do the apparent few who grasp the concept, get the thing back on track after a couple of decades of abuse.

Couple? Back during Truman's presidency congress was known as the millionaires club.

I don't care if the guy is rch, but I care if he does a good job while he is there.

Frankly, I like guys who are already rich in Congress, because then they aren't as likely to see it as a place to GET rich.

It's part of a cunning plot, if all the unproductive pensioners starve to death think what it will save in the medicare costs otherwise spent keeping them alive keeping them alive.

posted by spot

These are not aliens of whom you write, Bob, they are Americans. And if you think you've got it bad from them as a citizen you should try being a foreigner for a while.

What's shameful is that just because they - and I include Democrats in with the Republicans - just because they shout loudest, you (collectively, not personally) vote for them instead of for respectable responsible ethical representation.

You (collectively, not personally) have taken representative democracy and turned it into two-party government by your acquiescence to bigness and to loudness and above all to patriotic "duty". You (collectively, not personally) have failed to prevent the same political dogma (Capitalism) from being an absolute qualification for membership of either of these two noise-empowered parties and now you're puzzled that political change is so hard to encompass?


While I might see where you are coming from I would say, maggie Thatcher, tony Bliar, Gordon Brown and now the condem coalition. We should hang our heads in shame. We have bought in to the same insane version of capitalism. Ironic cos we gave it life but what they call capitalism now is not that at all it's simply untrammelled greed. A real capiltaist economy is one where there are controls in place to curb the greed and power of the wealthy and what we would now recognise as socialism has it's place. About time we lurched back to the left, maybe in the states they will as it dawns on them what has been allowed to happen.

I still keep hearing that we have the best system of government in the United States. I'm 62 and remember times where politicians compromised on everything. Once elected, Americans backed the government in power instead of scheming how to stop every single they do to make things better. Block voting to stop progress in not healthy for our nation.

bobmielke;1362640 wrote: I still keep hearing that we have the best system of government in the United States. I'm 62 and remember times where politicians compromised on everything. Once elected, Americans backed the government in power instead of scheming how to stop every single they do to make things better. Block voting to stop progress in not healthy for our nation.


You're a democracy, eventually the voters will realise thay are the ones in charge and start kicking the politicians. Most countries - well in the western world anyway, swing between left and right. When the right(ruling classes if you prefer) don't give way you get revolution. With a democratic form of government the process tends to be less bloody. It's the same in europe people are beginning to get really pissed off with the ruling establishment and don't see why they should face cut backs while those that caused it get away with it. Once the american electorate get annoyed enough things will change for the better. Well that's IMO anyway.

LarsMac;1362637 wrote: I don't care if the guy is rch, but I care if he does a good job while he is there.

Frankly, I like guys who are already rich in Congress, because then they aren't as likely to see it as a place to GET rich.I wasn't talking about the money, I was pointing out that it's been a mess for a long time and mostly only represents the interests of the few (which then are meant to trickle down to the rest). The fact is though that if hoarders become elected to office, the ensuing legislation will represent behaviors that favor hoarding.

And a history of hoarding is at the heart of our national economic problems today. It's "Wild In The Streets" but it's Wall Street where the wilding has been happening.

bobmielke;1362626 wrote: How dare the Republican Party hold the American public hostage over their agenda? They are using the debt ceiling as a carrot to get their way.


Last Sunday on This Week:

GEORGE WILL: Before we have a moratorium I hope on the can metaphor, let’s look at who’s been kicking the can down the road. Democrats started kicking the can down the road when they stopped writing budgets. The President kicked the can down the road by appointing a deficit commission. Then he kicked it again down the road by ignoring the deficit commission. Then he submitted a budget in February that no one on either side of the House would support that promised to increase the deficit. That’s a lot of kicking. That’s can abuse.

There's not a hair's breadth difference between the Repubs and the Dems. They are twin faces of The Party.

Accountable;1362651 wrote:



There's not a hair's breadth difference between the Repubs and the Dems. They are twin faces of The Party.


Indeed.

Accountable;1362651 wrote: Last Sunday on This Week:

GEORGE WILL: Before we have a moratorium I hope on the can metaphor, let’s look at who’s been kicking the can down the road. Democrats started kicking the can down the road when they stopped writing budgets. The President kicked the can down the road by appointing a deficit commission. Then he kicked it again down the road by ignoring the deficit commission. Then he submitted a budget in February that no one on either side of the House would support that promised to increase the deficit. That’s a lot of kicking. That’s can abuse.

There's not a hair's breadth difference between the Repubs and the Dems. They are twin faces of The Party.I don't understand why anyone would expect much of a difference (with a rare exception here and there throughout American history). All members of our political system trust the market (only difference there is the pace), they were all educated and informed by the same school system and raised in the same culture. Would someone explain how you'd get much in the way differences from that scenario?

I guess what people are saying when they complain about this system is they don't like the product (people) our country produces. If that's true, work to change the education system, which needs tearing down and rebuilding from scratch. If we're not willing to do that we should cease complaining.

For the record, George Will is as partisan as it gets.

You're a democracy, eventually the voters will realise thay are the ones in charge and start kicking the politicians.


Umm, yeah right. I won't be holding my breath on that one. If your average American sheep ever realized what was going on and disobeyed the shepard we all know what would happen.

They'd get sent to Gitmo?

Ahso!;1362660 wrote: For the record, George Will is as partisan as it gets.
Yup he is.

Ahso!;1362660 wrote: I guess what people are saying when they complain about this system is they don't like the product (people) our country produces. If that's true, work to change the education system, which needs tearing down and rebuilding from scratch. If we're not willing to do that we should cease complaining.


http://www.forumgarden.com/forums/gener ... ost1362699

They'd get sent to Gitmo?


Any movement by people that would bring about the change needed would need a leader and followers. I do believe it would take a revolution to change this country and any leaders coming forth would not be in the public eye for long.

Our politicians stopped serving the country and its people long ago. They now serve their own interests.

Scrat;1362711 wrote: Any movement by people that would bring about the change needed would need a leader and followers. I do believe it would take a revolution to change this country and any leaders coming forth would not be in the public eye for long.

Our politicians stopped serving the country and its people long ago. They now serve their own interestsThat's just not accurate, our politicians are behaving exactly as society taught them to as they came up.

A competitive mindset is one which is informed by the idea that if you take care of yourself everyone else will do the same and what one does will payoff for the rest. It's a bit of a skewed Darwinian philosophy from a society which works overtime simultaneously denying it.

They're confused!

Scrat;1362711 wrote: Any movement by people that would bring about the change needed would need a leader and followers. I do believe it would take a revolution to change this country and any leaders coming forth would not be in the public eye for long.

Our politicians stopped serving the country and its people long ago. They now serve their own interests.


Ahso!;1362712 wrote: That's just not accurate, our politicians are behaving exactly as society taught them to as they came up.

A competitive mindset is one which is informed by the idea that if you take care of yourself everyone else will do the same and what one does will payoff for the rest. It's a bit of a skewed Darwinian philosophy from a society which works overtime simultaneously denying it.

They're confused!


Politicians are a particular breed of human. They are by nature duplicitous, self-serving, and power hungry.

They have been around for at least the last several thousand years.

Scrat;1362711 wrote: Any movement by people that would bring about the change needed would need a leader and followers. I do believe it would take a revolution to change this country and any leaders coming forth would not be in the public eye for long.

Our politicians stopped serving the country and its people long ago. They now serve their own interests.
I think you're probably right ... on all counts.

LarsMac;1362718 wrote: Politicians are a particular breed of human. They are by nature duplicitous, self-serving, and power hungry.

They have been around for at least the last several thousand years.That, of course, implies a conspiracy. Since only members of the breed you mention make it to the top of the political system, the system itself must be structured in such a way as to allow only said breed to advance through it?

Ahso!;1362734 wrote: That, of course, implies a conspiracy. Since only members of the breed you mention make it to the top of the political system, the system itself must be structured in such a way as to allow only said breed to advance through it?


Many a fiction writer has played with that concept. However, I think it is probably more evolutionary that conspiratorial.

It's all evolutionary. Any member of any species are incapable of behaving any other way, in my view.

I'd assumed people do whatever they do because they believe it's beneficial to them and their concept of survival.

So where else can we find certain breeds congregating? Will we find the same breed in the business community hierarchy as occupies the political system? What breed do you believe to be running the religions?

We can go on all day about our politicians but it will fix nothing. They are what they are and that will never change. I think that ACs notions about the constitution are on the right track, we should go back to many aspects but we need to do one thing above all.

Get the money out of politics.

Chinese representative government manages things differently. They execute the occasional politician if his fingers get sticky or he causes unlawful deaths. They take long-term perspectives on the national investment, something Western representative government is notoriously incapable of beyond their anticipated personal end of term. Those who drew up the US Constitution deliberately avoided the recognised perils of democracy but built in the unrecognized partisan unstatesmanlike short-termism that started the thread.

Executions of certain individuals I think is not a bad thing. I don't like the idea of it but when things like this (the state of the country) happen something has to change. Our form of government is as poorly run as the Soviet Unions was in many ways and it's starting to show. We can't make decisions when they need to be made.

Scrat;1362799 wrote: Executions of certain individuals I think is not a bad thing. I don't like the idea of it but when things like this (the state of the country) happen something has to change. Our form of government is as poorly run as the Soviet Unions was in many ways and it's starting to show. We can't make decisions when they need to be made.That's due to the fact that our government is now run by corporate lawyers and business people. Somehow, the majority of us have been convinced that these are the most qualified to care for public interest when it's blatantly true that their goal is always to maximize profits. The two don't mesh well. Unfortunately, neither does a representative form of government and a free market system. One must suffer and as we are plainly witnessing, public representation looses that fight.

As for decisions being made? They're made all the time, just not in favor of the average person.

It just occurred to me that the purpose of a lawyer has always been to assist a client in finding the best, shortest, and/or most expedient route through whatever legal maze is laid before them. This is much the same as the purpose of a taxi driver or chauffeur. Nobody claims that the very best person to make decisions about our streets, bridges, and highways are taxi drivers, even though their input would undoubtedly be helpful. So why should we believe that lawyers are the best people to make decisions about government services and limitations on personal liberty?

Accountable;1362802 wrote: It just occurred to me that the purpose of a lawyer has always been to assist a client in finding the best, shortest, and/or most expedient route through whatever legal maze is laid before them. This is much the same as the purpose of a taxi driver or chauffeur. Nobody claims that the very best person to make decisions about our streets, bridges, and highways are taxi drivers, even though their input would undoubtedly be helpful. So why should we believe that lawyers are the best people to make decisions about government services and limitations on personal liberty?


I would disagree with you there. the purpose of the law and it's advocates has always been to defend the weak from abuse by the more powerful. The fact that those more powerful have the means to change and manage access the law to suit their own ends doesn't chanage the basic principle. Ther has always been a pushing and pulling between - Well being european I would say between left and right perhaps ruling elite and ordinary people makes more sense to an american. The legal system works well enough and is strong enough that they have to work within the system rather than just ride roughshod over everybody. Your polirticuians have removed all the chacks and balances that were there to curb the power of bg corporations and convinced everybody it was the best way to go. The real power is actually with ordinary people they just need to sort out what they want to do and elect the rigt politicians to do it. Personally I think they will eventually. Maybe not raising te debt ceiling is what it will take to drive home what a bubnch of selfseeking hypocritical bastards politicians are and get annoyed enough to do something.

What happened to Obama? he had a mandate for change and just seems to have ground to a halt.

gmc;1362836 wrote: What happened to Obama? he had a mandate for change and just seems to have ground to a halt.I'm guessing that organizing communities, finding ways around legal obstacles, and pushing legislators from behind to get things done is too different from leading an organization, negotiating with legislators, and leading in order to create change.

Two completely different skill sets. Push & complain vs Lead and inspire.

spot;1362788 wrote: Chinese representative government manages things differently. They execute the occasional politician if his fingers get sticky or he causes unlawful deaths. They take long-term perspectives on the national investment, something Western representative government is notoriously incapable of beyond their anticipated personal end of term. Those who drew up the US Constitution deliberately avoided the recognised perils of democracy but built in the unrecognized partisan unstatesmanlike short-termism that started the thread.That's quite a compliment, to think the authors of the U.S. Constitution were that smart.

Day-By-Day, remember that?

Accountable;1362802 wrote: It just occurred to me that the purpose of a lawyer has always been to assist a client in finding the best, shortest, and/or most expedient route through whatever legal maze is laid before them. This is much the same as the purpose of a taxi driver or chauffeur. Nobody claims that the very best person to make decisions about our streets, bridges, and highways are taxi drivers, even though their input would undoubtedly be helpful. So why should we believe that lawyers are the best people to make decisions about government services and limitations on personal liberty?Maybe, just maybe, these lawyers have been communicating with taxi drivers.

Don't know if you have seen any of the Select Committee stuff going on over here, but if you have, you'd see why there is a need for at least some lawyerish skills amongst our elected representatives. The questioning of the Murdochs (and the police to some extent at least) was mostly pretty pathetic. Not because they weren't trying to, but because they simply didn't know how. A half decent barrister would have had them wriggling, imo. (I am very, very biased, btw:))

Clodhopper;1362869 wrote: Don't know if you have seen any of the Select Committee stuff going on over here, but if you have, you'd see why there is a need for at least some lawyerish skills amongst our elected representatives. The questioning of the Murdochs (and the police to some extent at least) was mostly pretty pathetic. Not because they weren't trying to, but because they simply didn't know how. A half decent barrister would have had them wriggling, imo. (I am very, very biased, btw:))It's a show, and that's all it is. The Murdochss and their "former" employees are so well schooled, it's ridicules. They knew this was coming for a very long time, and have been on it rehearsing and being schooled by the best. Its a joke, unfortunately.

Clodhopper;1362869 wrote: Don't know if you have seen any of the Select Committee stuff going on over here, but if you have, you'd see why there is a need for at least some lawyerish skills amongst our elected representatives. The questioning of the Murdochs (and the police to some extent at least) was mostly pretty pathetic. Not because they weren't trying to, but because they simply didn't know how. A half decent barrister would have had them wriggling, imo. (I am very, very biased, btw:))


As well as having the ability you must have the will to get to the truth.

How much of their ineptitude was down to the one and how much to the other I would leave as an exercise for the students to complete out of class

It's a show, and that's all it is. The Murdochss and their "former" employees are so well schooled, it's ridicules. They knew this was coming for a very long time, and have been on it rehearsing and being schooled by the best. Its a joke, unfortunately.


As well as having the ability you must have the will to get to the truth.



How much of their ineptitude was down to the one and how much to the other I would leave as an exercise for the students to complete out of class


Tom Watson had them in some touble, and perhaps Louise Mensch a bit. No-one else.

I am concerned by the nobbling of the Labour replacement and the incredible mildness of the Tory Chair. There's probably no conspiracy, but it looks dreadful. I don't know to what extent issues sub judice affectd the questions. But I felt the Murdoch defence that they were the ignorant and innocent victims of unidentifiable traitors was simply unbelievable. My hope is this isn't over yet and at least we have some definite statements about who knew what when, that might be proven to be lies.

(sorry bob. Will stop hijacking now )

What's Day-By-Day, that I should remember it?

It was a reference to American short term thinking. Day-by-Day was a popular christian pop song from Godspell in the 70's. ‪GODSPELL - DAY BY DAY‬‏ - YouTube

It isn't unusual over here to hear someone respond with "just taking it day by day" when asked how things are going.

Between the eurozone crisis and the NOTW scandal this isn't getting much coverage over here at all despite it's seriousness. In all the discussions about reducing debt and making cutbacks how come nobody seems to suggest cutting the military spending and not going to war unless you really really have to?

gmc;1362945 wrote: Between the eurozone crisis and the NOTW scandal this isn't getting much coverage over here at all despite it's seriousness. In all the discussions about reducing debt and making cutbacks how come nobody seems to suggest cutting the military spending and not going to war unless you really really have to?


Don't be silly, the "Defence" industry would never agree to that!

gmc;1362945 wrote: Between the eurozone crisis and the NOTW scandal this isn't getting much coverage over here at all despite it's seriousness. In all the discussions about reducing debt and making cutbacks how come nobody seems to suggest cutting the military spending and not going to war unless you really really have to?
It's a question I've raised in other forums. Nobody seems to be willing to go there. I think we could cut by 50% or more and still be in the top 2 or 3 in defense spending. One of the best defense strategies is to stop pissing people off.

Accountable;1362952 wrote: It's a question I've raised in other forums. Nobody seems to be willing to go there. I think we could cut by 50% or more and still be in the top 2 or 3 in defense spending. One of the best defense strategies is to stop pissing people off.


Seconded

Saw a bit of Obama's speech on bloomberg looks like the US is gong to default on it's debts. Could it break the republican party? Pissing of 70 milion voters seems a bad tactic.

Events in oslo rather push it to the background on the mainstream news channels.

gmc;1362955 wrote: Saw a bit of Obama's speech on bloomberg looks like the US is gong to default on it's debts. Could it break the republican party? Pissing of 70 milion voters seems a bad tactic.

Events in oslo rather push it to the background on the mainstream news channels.
Smoke & mirrors. Political song & dance. Everybody's positioning themselves to look strong to their respective bases while casting the "other side" as the bad guys, all the while knowing that at the end of the day they'll raise the debt limit and continue to find new and innovative ways to burn through Japan's and China's money.

Obama is likely pushing the Repubs into a position where they will either have to back down or go over the edge. Whereupon he will invoke a new interpretation of the 14th Amendment and unilaterally raise the debt ceiling anyway, claiming the Repubs left him no choice. Just my opinion.

Either way the debt ceiling is going up ... and up ... and up.

Accountable;1362967 wrote: Smoke & mirrors. Political song & dance. Everybody's positioning themselves to look strong to their respective bases while casting the "other side" as the bad guys, all the while knowing that at the end of the day they'll raise the debt limit and continue to find new and innovative ways to burn through Japan's and China's money.

Obama is likely pushing the Repubs into a position where they will either have to back down or go over the edge. Whereupon he will invoke a new interpretation of the 14th Amendment and unilaterally raise the debt ceiling anyway, claiming the Repubs left him no choice. Just my opinion.

Either way the debt ceiling is going up ... and up ... and up.


Your right wing seems to be in a league of their own, what I have difficulty is why anyone would support a party that calls for cutting back on social programmes and lower taxes for the rich.

gmc;1362979 wrote: Your right wing seems to be in a league of their own, what I have difficulty is why anyone would support a party that calls for cutting back on social programmes and lower taxes for the rich.
Different culture, different governments. Our state-level governments are responsible for domestic issues such as social programs. Federal level is for interstate and international. The problem comes when people think that government is government is government. They look at European national governments and think that since most governments are like that then ours is supposed to do that, too. Responsibility (thus political power) was purposely divided - damn-near minced - so as not to concentrate too much of it in any one office. Washington has been trying to circumvent that system while giving lip service to the original purpose ever since.

eta: As for the tax comment, be careful you're not parroting American lib talking points instead of the truth.

Accountable;1363003 wrote: Different culture, different governments. Our state-level governments are responsible for domestic issues such as social programs. Federal level is for interstate and international. The problem comes when people think that government is government is government. They look at European national governments and think that since most governments are like that then ours is supposed to do that, too. Responsibility (thus political power) was purposely divided - damn-near minced - so as not to concentrate too much of it in any one office. Washington has been trying to circumvent that system while giving lip service to the original purpose ever since.

eta: As for the tax comment, be careful you're not parroting American lib talking points instead of the truth.






OK I'll concede you tube videos may give a somewhat distorted picture but are the tea party calling for higher taxes for wealthy individuals and companies rather than cut back on things like social security? In Greece, spain portugal the populace are almost baying for blood over the financial mess.

This one's funnier

‪TAX DAY TEA PARTY 2010‬‏ - YouTube

What's happening now? On the face of it it seems the republicans are just being absolutely bloody minded no matter what the consequences are. GW Bush cut taxes and increased spending surely the obvious answer is to increase taxes to at least the level they were and cut military spending. Why still have bases in europe for instance?