Government Shutdown
10-08-2013, 09:13 AM
#61
Elite Member
iTrader: (2)
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Central Florida
Posts: 2,799
Total Cats: 179
I've oft held a similar opinion of the legislative process in the US, that it is inherently hamstrung by the electoral process itself. There would be some grounds for proposing that members of both the House and the Senate be elected for a single term of a long duration (6 years? 8? 10?) and be ineligible for re-election to two consecutive terms.
I do take issue with Herr Wilder's characterization of the Republicans being the sole cause of gridlock within the congress. I would posit that this distinction is passed back and forth frequently, occurring especially often when the house and senate find themselves controlled by opposing majority parties, or when a congressional majority opposes the political affiliation of the president.
You can read the full article here: German Press Review on US Government Shutdown - SPIEGEL ONLINE
I do take issue with Herr Wilder's characterization of the Republicans being the sole cause of gridlock within the congress. I would posit that this distinction is passed back and forth frequently, occurring especially often when the house and senate find themselves controlled by opposing majority parties, or when a congressional majority opposes the political affiliation of the president.
You can read the full article here: German Press Review on US Government Shutdown - SPIEGEL ONLINE
I think the idea of a single, longer term makes sense. I also think closed primaries should be eliminated. I've mentioned before that, for all the dysfunction in California politics, I think they are on to something with their open primary and runoff system.
Currently, I think there is credence to the idea that gerrymandering and closed primaries result in more and more polarized candidates. You can't win the general election until you get through the primary and the primary tends to favor the most extreme candidate. The short election cycle means they are constantly campaigning and constantly seeking patrons to pay for advertisements for the next election.
I would venture that many of the House Republicans were elected on ideological platforms that involved "limited government" and "the USA is going bankrupt because of all the debt and deficits" and "Obamacare is the work of the devil and I will do everything I can to eliminate it." They would be rewarded in their home districts for shutting down the government and taking extreme measures.
I can think of several people on this board that either currently think or have previously thought it would be a good idea for the USA to voluntarily default or to be forced to default on Treasury securities. "Yeah, we have the money to make good but for moral reasons, we are not going to honor the promise we previously made."
To be fair, it seems like the government is preventing access to private businesses and homes that are on public land. That's a subtle but important difference.
Reply
0
0
10-08-2013, 09:34 AM
#63
Senior Member
Thread Starter
iTrader: (2)
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Beckley, WV
Posts: 851
Total Cats: 37
Like this shutdown and obamacare. They are too disconnected from the people to understand their situation. 48% of members of Congress are millionaires. They are never going to understand the poor/lower middle class just like the family of 4 living in a house with dirt floors will never understand paying $800 for a meal at a steak house.
edit: Yes I understand many are millionaires because they are smart and many are poor because they make poor decisions. We don't want people who make poor decisions in positions of power. Unfortunately, we are seeing poor decision after poor decision.
Reply
0
0
10-08-2013, 10:24 AM
#64
I'm a terrible person
iTrader: (19)
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Arizona
Posts: 7,174
Total Cats: 180
Some are also millionaires and in power because they lie/steal/cheat their way there. No surprise when they keep doing the same thing once they are in power. It's a fine line between having someone like that on our side because they are good at what they do and it works in our favor, and having someone like that on our side because they are good at what they do, and will screw us over.
Reply
0
0
10-08-2013, 10:33 AM
#65
Elite Member
iTrader: (2)
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Central Florida
Posts: 2,799
Total Cats: 179
Did you know that both the Senate and the House have passed budgets in the passed year? I didn't.
Originally Posted by Reason.com
The Senate actually passed a budget, on March 23, no less. It was for $3.7 trillion, included tax hikes, and was passed without a single Republican vote, but here you finally had the Democratic Party's values attached to concrete numbers. Two days earlier, the House had passed its own budget without a single Democratic vote, lowering taxes, cutting benefits (especially from Medicare), and costing $3.5 trillion.
Reply
0
0
10-08-2013, 11:05 AM
#68
Boost Pope
iTrader: (8)
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Chicago. (The less-murder part.)
Posts: 33,020
Total Cats: 6,588
I was, of course, speaking to Hustler here, since he is obviously a baller who uses hundred dollar bills to light the cherry-scented cigars which he purchases at the gas station.
For everyone else, it's just a basic equation: live below your means, spend less than you earn, don't waste money on frivolous crap (7-series BMWs, carbon-fiber bicycles, etc), and save as much as you can.
Politics, liquor laws, irrigation, avocado production, traffic enforcement, beer-making, electoral politics, fish tacos, road maintenance... I can conclude only that CA does everything better than everyone else.
That's kind of the tenet of what I ask in post # 37 of this thread. To wit: what rights does the Federal Government have to control access to land which it owns (or is the custodian of), and what rights of access do private individuals have to land which is not owned by them?
The former depends largely on the definition of what the government is in the first place, and the latter would require a reading of whatever contract exists granting the citizens in question the right to occupy said land (eg: a lease agreement, easement, etc.)
Reply
0
0
10-08-2013, 11:13 AM
#69
Boost Czar
iTrader: (62)
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Chantilly, VA
Posts: 79,493
Total Cats: 4,080
So yes, where's the law that says they can?
Reply
0
0
10-08-2013, 12:53 PM
#70
Elite Member
iTrader: (21)
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Rochester, NY
Posts: 6,593
Total Cats: 1,259
There is a balance to everything.
Reply
0
0
10-08-2013, 01:38 PM
#72
Boost Pope
iTrader: (8)
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Chicago. (The less-murder part.)
Posts: 33,020
Total Cats: 6,588
In land-use, trespass is generally prohibited. There are some historical oddities (eg: Common Law of Grazing) but in general, you are always prohibited from occupying land which you do not own unless specifically authorized.
Now, for land which is privately owned, the situation is very clear. If you want to live on someone else's land, then you execute a Leasehold estate granting you the right to occupy that land, and that document may contain certain prohibitions or restrictions which limit that right. For instance, it might specify that under certain conditions, you are NOT permitted to access the property. (Apartment dwellers: go read your lease- I guarantee you that such a clause is buried in there somewhere.)
The question then becomes what to do with "public" land. Clearly the right of the public to occupy public land is NOT universal. Even under normal circumstances, national parks have hours of operation, restricted areas, etc.
So, really, it all comes down to the lease document which is executed between the tenant and... whoever they executed the document with. Until we know what that piece of paper says, it's pointless to speculate or cast aspersions.
Conversely, you have people like my brother-in-law who, while not destitute and in perpetual debt, seem to spent money at a rate nearly equal to that at which they earn it, precluding the formation of any kind of savings. These people would be well advised to forego hot tub ownership.
Big difference.
Reply
0
0
10-10-2013, 04:36 PM
#78
Former Vendor
iTrader: (31)
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Sunnyvale, CA
Posts: 15,442
Total Cats: 2,099
When it comes time for the debt ceiling debate, Obama will give up something small, Boehner will caucus most of his party with the minority Democrats to pass a "clean" bill save for one small concession to make himself look good, and throw the tea party under the bus in the process.
Here we go, kids.
Reply
0
0
