Congress has lost its mind...

[infinite monkey]

Since I'm not in either category, I like that cartoon!

[Griff]

Didn't someone just get done debunking the existence of the first group? I seem to fit in the 0% who carries their fair share of taxes as well.

[BigV]

I just heard Boehner say that he has the same responsibilites as the president.

heh.

this after weeks and weeks of begging the president to do Boehner's job for him, to present a package that can pass the congress. I actually feel bad for Boehner, I don't think he's in a position that is survivable. I think he's been boxed into a corner by the walls of reality--that the debt ceiling must be raised--pressed into this corner by the mindless mob with pitchforks and torches demanding changes, big changes, and right now, to the whole structure of the business dealings of the country.

Sadly, these are two different problems. Both important, but one is VASTLY more acute than the other. The debt ceiling must be raised. The alarm over the budget deficit has already been raised and I have no doubt that there will be plenty of sausage made on that score.

But, people, let's put the fuse out on this powder keg **FIRST**, ok?

[TheMercenary]

We are heading for the shitter and both side will have to take a big bite of that sandwich at the next election.

[classicman]

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

both side will have to take a big bite of that SHIT sandwich at the next election.

ftfy

[BigV]

Originally Posted by Griff

This is always fun to say but not true at all. The Democrats are bending on budget cuts as Republicans are bending on tax increases. Your people, the Tea Partiers are the ones forcing brinkmanship games. You are getting what you are demanding and bitching about it.

I will concede that the absolute modifier "only" makes this statement untrue. Clearly those elected officials who are in a position to make substantive decisions care about many things, including, and perhaps even near the top of the list, what is good for the country. Also very high on the list is an ACUTE awareness that every word and action coming from them (and doubtless many that don't come from them) will be used in the next election. Not just the next election but in all the daily power plays that make up the lively social economy in our federal government. Not only will their words and actions be fodder for hostile opponents, but so will their silences and inactions. Many will justify their choices with the maxim "you cannot govern unless you have been elected".

They all are considering this, that they cannot do anything for the good of the country unless they're in office. First things first.

I agree with you Griff, that Boehner's caucus is being destructively and disingenuously uncooperative. I think most of them have deceived themselves that they're standing on principle and that their position is supported by facts. This is my understanding of how they're able to justify their actions. I think their principle is uselessly oversimple and their facts are pretty much made of hot air. Neither their claims to be supported by the republican voters nor their math about what's to be spent and how.

In the meantime, I think the whole nauseating theater is causing actual harm--a further erosion of the public's faith in our government. We elected them to lead, to act and GODDAMMIT to cooperate. Right now, I see little of any of that, and the Rs are in the lead, but it's not a one horse race.

[gvidas]

I don't think we ever elect people to cooperate. We elect people to "go to Washington and get the job done." To fight for our ideas over those of others. Mostly, we send people off to the District and hope (assume?) that they will cooperate once they arrive.

It's difficult in times like these, full of hardship and change, to watch politics with the right sized grain of salt -- not so cynical that you don't vote or participate (because then they won; and, besides, this is our country, not theirs -- it's theirs only in so far as they're one of us), but not so invested that you go up and down with the emotional rollercoaster (because then you just die early of stress, and your life is defined by someone else's bullshit.)

I think a lot of this has to do with the fundamental disconnect between politics and governance. As above, they care more about power and their position than we like to think: sometimes, like with the debt ceiling brinksmanship, you get to see it:

The mistake is that people tend to assume their politicians operate on the same axis of progress that they care about. But it's almost universally not true, though there is some (indirect) overlap. President Obama is not working on his constituents' axis of progress, he's working on his own. And he's not combatting Republicans on their constituents' axis of progress either, but against that of the narrow number Republicans he's actually in the negotiation room with.

And that, really, is the grain of salt that I'm coming to prefer: They all lie; they're all corrupt; it's only about power and money; good things get done for everyone else only as a means to more money and power; but vote anyway.

So this has been a good lesson to us all. This should not be understood as a "turning point" where President Obama revealed himself as a master Nth dimensional chess player thinking 20 steps ahead. This was a 1 dimensional chess game, and the mistake people have been making is they were assuming that his axis of progress was policy goals, when really it is influence and election goals. Just like the Republicans. This doesn't mean he's "with you" or "against you." It just means that you, as an observer who follows politics, should put politicians and their goals in the proper context in order to understand or predict their decisions. You can want one thing, but just recognize that even the politician who is the most in your corner is just trying to balance distinguishing his/her brand and getting re-elected. That's not a good or bad thing, that's just the outcome of our system of Democratic representation.

quotes from here: http://www.gnomanomics.com/2011/07/u...are-two.html):

[TheMercenary]

Haaaaa..... join the club asshole.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0711/59706.html

[TheMercenary]

gvidas, I agree with much of your statements, but if their politics had little to no effect on my life I would agree whole heartedly, but nice post anyway....

Government is too big, too bloated, and an inefficient user of my tax dollars.

[gvidas]

I agree, it is big, bloated, and inefficient. But probably the govt waste that bothers me is different from what bothers you. Massive government spending in the past has done amazing things: the interstate system is kind of mind blowing. NASA was cool. I want a new electric grid and nationwide high-speed rail, but that's never going to happen as a private venture.

I like the summary of the US as "an insurance company with an army": http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezr...insurance.html




But the root of that distribution isn't, to my eyes, the people we elect. It's the fact that we have given corporations an insane amount of power. There are countless instances of relatively reasonable people, when in a group, doing horrible things. A layer of abstraction between them and the results; shared responsibility; and it trickles down to "just following orders." I think corporations quickly get there. They tend to be evil simply because they lack basic moral sensibility.

So, yes, reign in the government; cut spending; get out of our homes and our personal lives. But the solution there is to stop pharmaceutical companies from defining how we view health, healing, and medicine; and to stop the defense industry from defining how we view the world.

I'm not saying that to suggest any grand conspiracy. To my eyes it's a natural product of a free market: there's no incentive to make healthcare efficient and affordable. There's no incentive to hold a reasoned view of the actual military threats that exist in the world, or how to fight them.

People with money will use that money to get more money. Pharm and defense are two massive industries, and it only makes sense that they will do what they can to continue to grow.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by gvidas

But the root of that distribution isn't, to my eyes, the people we elect. It's the fact that we have given corporations an insane amount of power.

But it is. Because those we have elected are tied directly to the power of the corporations. Certainly you can see that. It is about power on behalf of the individual politico, including Obama, and power on behalf of the corps or unions or special interest groups. No party is immune. I would say 80% are whores of special interest groups. 10% on either side are in it for real change for the better of the nation of the whole. The problem is that those 20% will never make the changes needed.

We are Fucked.

[BigV]

Quick question friends--

do you think whatever deal is made about the debt ceiling/deficit reduction... do you think it is a good thing or a bad thing to make one that is so short that we'll need to do this process again before the 2012 elections?

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by BigV

Quick question friends--

do you think whatever deal is made about the debt ceiling/deficit reduction... do you think it is a good thing or a bad thing to make one that is so short that we'll need to do this process again before the 2012 elections?

Obama's goal to make it go to 2013 at least is political posturing completely on his part. I would like to see a plan that goes out 10 or 20 years and ties it to a balanced budget amendment and a total revamping of the tax code, much like the gang of 6 designed.

[glatt]

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

...and ties it to a balanced budget amendment ...

Politicians who throw around the idea of constitutional amendments lose major points in my book. It's virtually impossible to amend the Constitution. It's not just an act of congress signed into law by the president, it requires 2/3s majority in BOTH houses and then goes to the individual states and must clear through 3/4s of them. That's 38 states that each have to approve the proposed amendment. It isn't easy. The equal rights amendment never made it through. Anything that is remotely political isn't going to make it. For example, think of the political climate in Arizona and the political climate in Massachusetts. There aren't too many issues that both states are going to get behind. That's the divide you have to bridge.

Politicians who talk about Constitutional amendments are just full of shit.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by glatt

Politicians who throw around the idea of constitutional amendments lose major points in my book. It's virtually impossible to amend the Constitution. It's not just an act of congress signed into law by the president, it requires 2/3s majority in BOTH houses and then goes to the individual states and must clear through 3/4s of them. That's 38 states that each have to approve the proposed amendment. It isn't easy. The equal rights amendment never made it through. Anything that is remotely political isn't going to make it. For example, think of the political climate in Arizona and the political climate in Massachusetts. There aren't too many issues that both states are going to get behind. That's the divide you have to bridge.

Politicians who talk about Constitutional amendments are just full of shit.

I wouldn't go so far as to say that they are "full of shit", well at least no more than the rest of them and Obama, now if you said they were all pretty much "full of shit", I would agree with you completely. The idea that we can't figure out a way to mandate a balanced budget through some process or the other does not mean that we can't explore ideas to address, this is just another idea in my book. But if this thing fails I predict Obama and a host of other politicans, both R's and D's, are going to go down in flames come 2012, as they should.