General Political Thread

[uncool2pillow]

Please read this, get outraged, and take action.  Goddamn do we need transparency and a true free market in healthcare.  The author was on the Daily Show and Charlie Rose this week.  

 

 

http://healthland.time.com/2013/02/20/bitter-pill-why-medical-bills-are-killing-us/

[Tweedling]

Who proposed the "sequestration"?

[KevinG]

Who proposed the "sequestration"?

 

I am not sure if you are honestly asking or being a smart ass and doing what Boehner and countless members of the Right Wing Media are doing and saying this is Obama's sequester.  But that is disingenuous and wrong.  Obama did propose it, that is true.  He proposed it because he couldn't get the GOP to agree on a deal on the debt ceiling.  Which was used as a bargaining chip (IMHO was a horrible thing to do).  So he indeed used it to kick the can down the road, and in hopes to make the budget cuts so egregious that a deal had to be made.  Also if you know anything about how a bill becomes a law it has to be passed by the house, senate, and signed by the president.  So the GOP lead house passed the law as proposed by the president.  If they didn't like it or didn't agree with it they should not have passed it.  

 

Don't get me wrong Obama is not blameless in this thing but to do what the GOP majority is doing (see #Obamaquester) is simply trying to skirt the issue and not taking ownership of the mess they help create is really sad.   

 

Also here is a pretty good article on from the Atlantic Wire (yes left leaning, I know)

 

http://www.theatlanticwire.com/politics/2013/02/who-owns-sequester/62283/

[KevinG]

So if the deadline passes and the cuts to defense and entitlements go into effect what are your predictions? 

 

Here is what effect the sequester will have on your state (scroll down to the links for each state).

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/24/sequester-states_n_2755181.html

[ih8music]

So national politics has been reduced to a game of chicken. How awesome.

[rareair]

i do not even have a sense of the potential compromises only that the effects of sequestration would be devastating and that it is the other party's fault.

[LouieB]

So national politics has been reduced to a game of chicken. How awesome.

Yea, time to let them close the motherfucker down and let it all get sorted out in the realm of public opinion.  As soon as people stop getting checks, have problems in the airports, have less teachers, etc, this thing will finally sort itself out.

 

LouieB

[KevinG]

Yea, time to let them close the motherfucker down and let it all get sorted out in the realm of public opinion.  As soon as people stop getting checks, have problems in the airports, have less teachers, etc, this thing will finally sort itself out.

 

LouieB

 

I am sure those people who will be furloughed and lose take home pay don't share the same thoughts as you. 

[Tweedling]

Definitely the other party.

[LouieB]

I am sure those people who will be furloughed and lose take home pay don't share the same thoughts as you. 

You are right.  I don't wish that on anyone, ever.  But clearly the politicians who are involved in this don't give a rats ass about any of those people and that is the sad part.We argue about stuff here, ,such as gun control where people's lives are affected every day (Is it Slate that is keeping track of how many gun deaths there are since Newtown??) as do are government funded jobs and programs.  But still we hear that government is too involved in people's lives and spends too  much money and we should let the private sector do everything.  So let's have the government do less for a bit and see what happens. It is a sick experiment I am sure those on the right will enjoy. 

 

LouieB

[Hixter]

(Is it Slate that is keeping track of how many gun deaths there are since Newtown??) 

Now go to Slate's site and look at how disproportionately large the numbers are in places like Chicago which have strict gun control laws, "assault" rifle bans and magazine capacity limits already in place.

 

But still we hear that government is too involved in people's lives and spends too  much money

Yes, obviously yes.

 

[Jcamp]

Yea, time to let them close the motherfucker down and let it all get sorted out in the realm of public opinion.  As soon as people stop getting checks, have problems in the airports, have less teachers, etc, this thing will finally sort itself out.

 

LouieB

Well said, LouieB....

 

Every yardbird in Virginia deserves  better. et. al

[Magnetized]

Well, it looks like a sure thing. We're gonna find out what sequester really means. Here in Norfolk, VA, with the military and ship repair businesses so prevalent, it should be REAL interesting.

 

I wonder what day-to-day impact those of us who don't think we'll be affected will actually feel.

[lost highway]

There is yet another procrastination in that the sequestration doesn't actually take effect immediately.  They can wave this date (tomorrow) over our heads, but then let it pass and they still have a couple weeks to fix it before furloughs etc. actually take place.

 

Don't get me wrong, the engineering of the whole situation is bullshit.  A huge miscalculation by our commander in chief, and an even more contemptible failure of congress to be a functional entity.  Nonetheless the dooms day scenario is neither immediate, nor final.  They can and must fix this at anytime, even if it passes.

[Mr. Heartbreak]

Yep, it's government by brinksmanship. Both sides are at fault here, though, being a Dem, I blame the Republicans more. Naturally, they blame the Dems more. Hope they can quit this BS, but it seems like a toxic sort of game that will keep going on and on...

[KevinG]

Yep, it's government by brinksmanship. Both sides are at fault here, though, being a Dem, I blame the Republicans more. Naturally, they blame the Dems more. Hope they can quit this BS, but it seems like a toxic sort of game that will keep going on and on...

 

The only thing we can do as Citizens at this point is vote the bastards out of office in 2014.  And I by bastards I mean all 435 members of the House and the 36 senators that are up for re-election.  We need to replace them with common sense leaders, not these partisan hacks.  

 

Of course with our current election laws that will never happen.  So the cycle of toxicity will continue.  

[bleedorange]

Explain to me again why term limits is a bad thing?

[Mr. Heartbreak]

I think term limits would be a great thing. Eight years on the long side, four years on the short. I'm thinking six would be a good max for Congress.

[KevinG]

Explain to me again why term limits is a bad thing?

 

This may be slightly contrary to what I stated before, but I am not a fan of term limits.  This is why, term limits take the power of choice from the electorate.  If a state/district has a representative that they really like and is doing good things by those people, why should that person be forced out when the people still want them there?  

 

With that being said, the current state of our election laws it is extremely difficult to unseat an incumbent politician (more so a politician that has been there for several terms).  And often times a politician is continually re-elected through the money and political machine they have built up.

 

Instead of term limits what I would like to see is a change to the election laws to make running for office easier and the removal of all outside money, public financing for campaigns, dollar limits on spending, dollar limits on political giving, no issue ads, etc.  This way more qualified candidates would be able to run and those representatives that are not doing the work of the people would be voted out.  And those politicians who are doing good will stay.  This will no longer hold politicians to the will of special interest groups but to the voters.  You would see a change in politics for sure.  Of course this is a pipe dream, and will never happen.  

[LouieB]

I am also not a fan of term limits. It sounds good in theory, but if a district has a good congressperson, why not let the voters keep them for as long as they want.

 

LouieB

[bleedorange]

I'm thinking 2 terms for the Senate and 6 for the House.  12 total years in one house of Congress is plenty.  If a particular Rep or Senator is that popular, a hand-picked successor should sate the voters' desire to keep the status quo.

 

I guess term limits make too much sense to garner any real traction.  It eliminates career politicians by incentivizing them to focus on accomplishing something rather than looking for the best way to entrench themselves.  It would also lessen the impact of special interests by having large turnover in committees.  It has the potential to engage the voters more by preventing them from just voting for the name they know.  The real reason people always vote for incumbents.  Not because of any sense that they are doing a good job.  Everybody hates Congress, but everyone loves their own Senators and Representatives.

[Sweet Papa Crimbo]

I'm thinking 2 terms for the Senate and 6 for the House.  12 total years in one house of Congress is plenty.  If a particular Rep or Senator is that popular, a hand-picked successor should sate the voters' desire to keep the status quo.

 

I guess term limits make too much sense to garner any real traction.  It eliminates career politicians by incentivizing them to focus on accomplishing something rather than looking for the best way to entrench themselves.  It would also lessen the impact of special interests by having large turnover in committees.  It has the potential to engage the voters more by preventing them from just voting for the name they know.  The real reason people always vote for incumbents.  Not because of any sense that they are doing a good job.  Everybody hates Congress, but everyone loves their own Senators and Representatives.

 

We don't need term limits. They are inherently anti-democratic and lead to the rule by the aparatchik...rule by the professional staffs.

We don't need term limits...we need a better educated electorate.

[KevinG]

We don't need term limits. They are inherently anti-democratic and lead to the rule by the aparatchik...rule by the professional staffs.

We don't need term limits...we need a better educated electorate.

 

Completely agree, but with the caveat as stated before the election funding laws and process needs to change.  The best and the brightest should be representing us in the Congress not the richest.  

[bleedorange]

There's nothing undemocratic about term limits.  In fact, I think it better preserves a democracy from the rule of the few or the elite.  You only need to look at the quotes and writings from Jefferson, Adams, Franklin, et al., to see how important some founders found term limits to be.

[KevinG]

There's nothing undemocratic about term limits.  In fact, I think it better preserves a democracy from the rule of the few or the elite.  You only need to look at the quotes and writings from Jefferson, Adams, Franklin, et al., to see how important some founders found term limits to be.

 

Term limits were so important to them that they decided not to mention them in the Constitution or Bill of Rights.  

 

Also term limits are the very definition of undemocratic.  You are taking the choice from the electorate to who they want to represent them, because of a mandated limit.  You are essentially saying the choice they want is invalid, for no other reason then they served x number of terms.  

 

Term limits are a solution to a problem of our governmental leaders not beholden to the people that elected them.  The problem is not because our representatives are in there too long it is the money that is needed to be elected.  Change the campaign finance laws (and do so radically), you will have better representation.