surreal and more surreal

[ggwhiz]

We have 3 major parties in Canada and a couple of wannabe's that together provide our version of checks and balances.

 

If the Tea party had to set out on their own they would stand or fall (thud) on their own ideology. Granted you might need a real socialist party to overcome the kind of vote splitting that would hand the Democrats unending power but 2 Republican based parties could vote together on areas of agreement keeping the more rabid ideas at bay.

 

One thing I was taught growing up is that our most productive governments were minorities where the ruling bunch needed support from one of the other two to pass anything of substance.

 

Just musings here as I don't know enough about the US situation but from the outside looking in it doesn't appear that 2 parties in a 51 to 49% split is doing very well

[mycroft]

Please note, I'm neither American nor right-wing enough to be a Democrat, and I can't actually read the R-biased news without my head exploding, so assume there's a fair bit of known and unknown bias in the above.

I assume that you meant' "left-wing enough to be a Democrat" or, alternatively, "right-wing enough to be a Republican."

Nope, meant what I said. The fact that you can't believe that, from a Canadian replying to someone from the Netherlands, is a serious data point about how far the Republicans have pulled the Overton Window in the U.S.

 

Remember that in the U.S. there are two major parties - the Centre-Right coalition, and the Republicans.

[sfi]

I assume that you meant' "left-wing enough to be a Democrat" or, alternatively, "right-wing enough to be a Republican."

 

What he wrote sounded accurate to me. If American politics were a bird, there's no way it would be able to fly.

[FM75]

I recently saw on CNN a quote from, I believe, New Yorker, that stated that the 80 members of the House who made up the tea party minority represented 18% of the U.S. population. Seems like gerrymandering is a loaded weapon passed out to children with which to play.

80 / 435 = ?

 

 

 

[blackshoe]

Well, we in the majority certainly appreciate that you have pointed out where we have gone wrong.

No you don't. :P

[Winstonm]

80 / 435 = ?

 

No, the population of the combined districts represented by tea-party members makes up 18% of the total US population is my understanding.

[barmar]

Mike's post hits at the heart of the enigma for me - how can otherwise intelligent folks hold on so desperately to ideology that flies in the face of facts, data, evidence, and history?

Look up "cognitive dissonance". Preexisting beliefs are extremely powerful, and the mind is adept at ignoring facts that would require you to change them.

[akwoo]

I must be missing something here. Can anyone explain to me how 80 Tea party members can convince 137 out of the remaining 152 Republican members (>90%) that it is a good idea to shut down the government?

 

 

Let me give another explanation for this.

 

Basically, the Tea party members have threatened to blow up the Republican party if they don't get their way.

 

Keep in mind there are more Democrats than non-Tea-party-Republicans. The non-tea-party-Republicans have a choice. They can either go along with the government shutdown and remain what is essentially the senior partner in a coalition, getting their way on most things, or they can stop the shutdown and become the junior partner in a coalition (with the Democrats), getting their way on fewer things.

 

Of course, the shutdown is a rather big thing, and it's questionable whether having your way on many other things (or even everything else) is worth it.

 

There are some interesting similarities between the US crisis and the Belgian crisis a couple years ago. We have a significant minority of the legislature (Tea Party or NVA) whose aim is to disband or at least emasculate the federal government. It fits their goals to be completely obstructionist and oppose every piece of legislation proposed by anyone. This minority has strong support from a particular segment of the populace, so it is immune to political embarrassment or electoral defeat. In effect, everyone else has to form a supermajority to actually get anything done. Given the wide disagreements among the other parties, as well as political instincts (on all sides) from a different time that trained politicians to aim for 51% rather than 65%, everyone else is having a great deal of trouble accomplishing this agreement.

[kenberg]

I am not at all sure there is a way out of this mess. I think the fundamental problem is this: In order for there to be productive negotiations and avoidance of a defualt on our obligations, there has to be agreement that shutting down the government and defaulting on our payments would be a bad thing to do. It's not at all clear that there is such consensus.. The original Tea Party, the one in Boston some years back, was an act of rebellion against a hated government. We laugh at the modern Tea Party, we ridicule them, but they seem to be getting their way. If we like our government intact, functioning, paying its bills, I think that we need to be very very clear about this, hope that others think so as well, and hope that this is adequate to bring about results. I am pessimistic. . There really are quite a few who do not. see the effective collapse of government as a bad thing. Some, I know some, are idealists. They want a much smalller government and don't mind at all if government in its current form goes belly up. Others are much more cnical and mostly just want large profits, no regulation and of course no taxes. Or at least no taxes on them. Whatever their reasons, explaining to them that continuing on the current course is highly destructive is not an effective argument. They are fine with that.

[Trinidad]

As far as I know, there is this "wisdom" in US politics that it is a good idea to have a president from one party and a congressional majority for the other "to keep a political balance".

 

Might it be a good idea to point out now that it also leads to political stalemates, "political hostage taking" and a disfunctional government?

 

Bridge players know (or should know) that a pair will be more succesful playing one bad system than two different good systems. Wouldn't it be better to have a well functioning government that globally reflects your political ideas, even if on details their ideas may be different from yours?

 

Rik

[kenberg]

As far as I know, there is this "wisdom" in US politics that it is a good idea to have a president from one party and a congressional majority for the other "to keep a political balance".

 

Might it be a good idea to point out now that it also leads to political stalemates, "political hostage taking" and a dysfunctional government?

 

Bridge players know (or should know) that a pair will be more successful playing one bad system than two different good systems. Wouldn't it be better to have a well functioning government that globally reflects your political ideas, even if on details their ideas may be different from yours?

 

Rik

 

If I bid Precision and my partner bids SAYC it may not go so well, that's true. But I like Drury and don't care much for Bergen raises. Possibly we can come to an understanding such as 1♠-Pass-3♣ is Bergen, while Pass-Pass-1♠-Pass-3♣ is fit showing and Pass-Pass-1♠-pass-2♣ is Drury. This would assume that partner and I trust each other and see it as in our best interests to work something out.

 

As to the current political mess, I see in the morning Post that John Boehner says he won't let the country slide into default. I wish it would have been said a long time ago, but it is welcome news (to me). I don't think all Republicans are crazy, I have some conservative ideas of my own, I would like to see some serious discussion. Also in the morning Post, Krautmammer is explaining why it's all Obama's fault. If Krauthammer slips on the ice and lands on his butt, it's Obama's fault. Possibly we will be hearing more from conservatives who are more in touch with reality. Michael Gerson's column today would be an example of this.

 

http://www.washingto...b57f_story.html

 

 

The crazies have been allowed to have influence that is totally out of proportion to either thier numbers or their logic. "Do as we say or we destroy everything" is not a position, it's a tantrum.

[Winstonm]

It used to be in this country that shallow-minded extremists who held silly ideas would be shouted down, embarrassed, and driven from the public stage before their poison could do much damage other than rally other silly extremists to attend privately sponsored side shows - remember the "Clinton had x,y,z killed bunch"? Now, instead of being ridiculed, they are elected.

[Winstonm]

If I bid Precision and my partner bids SAYC it may not go so well, that's true. But I like Drury and don't care much for Bergen raises. Possibly we can come to an understanding such as 1♠-Pass-3♣ is Bergen, while Pass-Pass-1♠-Pass-3♣ is fit showing and Pass-Pass-1♠-pass-2♣ is Drury. This would assume that partner and I trust each other and see it as in our best interests to work something out.

 

As to the current political mess, I see in the morning Post that John Boehner says he won't let the country slide into default. I wish it would have been said a long time ago, but it is welcome news (to me). I don't think all Republicans are crazy, I have some conservative ideas of my own, I would like to see some serious discussion. Also in the morning Post, Krautmammer is explaining why it's all Obama's fault. If Krauthammer slips on the ice and lands on his butt, it's Obama's fault. Possibly we will be hearing more from conservatives who are more in touch with reality. Michael Gerson's column today would be an example of this.

 

http://www.washingto...b57f_story.html

 

 

The crazies have been allowed to have influence that is totally out of proportion to either thier numbers or their logic. "Do as we say or we destroy everything" is not a position, it's a tantrum.

 

Krauthammer is a leading neo-conservative who holds to a belief system that elitist should rule and those same elites lying to the public to attain their goals is both necessarry and desirable - but he forgets that the first step in being elite is being smarter than the average man-on-the-street - simply looking like a penguin and regurgitating talking points doesn't cut it now that the who-really-shilled-for-the-Iraq-War cat is out of the bag.

[billw55]

John Boehner says he won't let the country slide into default. I wish it would have been said a long time ago, but it is welcome news (to me).

I wonder what this means. Does it mean he will do the responsible thing and get the government going again? Or does it mean when the default comes, he will say democrats let it happen?

 

The crazies have been allowed to have influence that is totally out of proportion to either thier numbers or their logic. "Do as we say or we destroy everything" is not a position, it's a tantrum.

Yep.

[barmar]

I wonder what this means. Does it mean he will do the responsible thing and get the government going again? Or does it mean when the default comes, he will say democrats let it happen?

Does he have the power to accomplish the former on his own? The latter is a promise he can keep.

[PassedOut]

Does he have the power to accomplish the former on his own? The latter is a promise he can keep.

John Boehner does have the power right now to restart the government. He, the speaker, is not allowing the House to vote on a clean Continuing Resolution even though it does have enough votes to pass, counting both democrats and moderate republicans pledged to vote for it.

[mike777]

The shutdown has been a great civics lesson. It shows just how many of us in so many ways are dependent on the Federal government. The Federal government really touches our lives. As other posters have pointed out in a short few years we will view Obamacare as a huge part of our lives that we could not think of living without.

 

 

As so many posters point out a tiny minority is trying to stop this when the rest of us want more. As Winston puts it:

 

"holds to a belief system that elitist should rule and those same elites lying to the public to attain their goals is both necessarry and desirable - but he forgets that the first step in being elite is being"

[kenberg]

I have in fct been surprised by the variety of small ways tis has come up.

 

At the Y today I was chatting with a guy who has a small plane. He was supposed to file some paperwork with the FAA. The office in question was closed. I came home to work on a report for the National Science Foundation. FastLane, their website, is down. Yesterday there was an incident near the capitol requiring police. The police are working but their pay, at least for some, will not be coming for a while. These items are not exactly paralyzing the nation but it's three items in 24 hours. My understanding is that Congress is getting an earful. I recommend that they listen.

[mike777]

I have in fct been surprised by the variety of small ways tis has come up.

 

At the Y today I was chatting with a guy who has a small plane. He was supposed to file some paperwork with the FAA. The office in question was closed. I came home to work on a report for the National Science Foundation. FastLane, their website, is down. .... My understanding is that Congress is getting an earful. I recommend that they listen.

 

 

Yes, the shutdown shows just how much economic power as well as political power is being concentrated in just a few hands in DC. :(

 

This has been a good lesson on just how dependent we all are becoming on the Federal government. This may be the end of the Republican Party as many posters point out as we all want more benefits and entitlements and the budget to grow not shrink. Perhaps the largest group is single Moms. I see story after story how single moms are being hurt by the shutdown. I bet this entire voting block will go Democratic and put Republicans out of office.

[Scarabin]

As far as I know, there is this "wisdom" in US politics that it is a good idea to have a president from one party and a congressional majority for the other "to keep a political balance".

 

Might it be a good idea to point out now that it also leads to political stalemates, "political hostage taking" and a disfunctional government?

 

Bridge players know (or should know) that a pair will be more succesful playing one bad system than two different good systems. Wouldn't it be better to have a well functioning government that globally reflects your political ideas, even if on details their ideas may be different from yours?

 

Rik

To an outsider this seems to describe the position admirably. The whole situation is surreal, the participants bigoted and intransigent, and the government dysfunctional. With the Republicans fulfilling the role (of restraining the President's spending) assigned them under the constitution even though economic circumstances indicate expansionary policies are required.

 

To me it seems the system is at fault, and the government only functions when the players agree to break the rules.

 

I agree all this sounds weird - even surreal! :unsure:

[kenberg]

Having expressed deep pessimism, I now am looking at this with a bit more hope. I think the next few days offer some promise, but I also think that if we don't soon grab the opportunity it will be gone.We shall see.

[mike777]

I think the shutdown has woken many to the economic power as well as the political power of our current government.

 

At this point posters do not seem concerned but this kind of stuff will just repeat. When you keep putting more and more economic and political power in just a few hands, this stuff happens. AT times you will be happy it happens, but often you wont. At this point the voters want it.

[FM75]

No, the population of the combined districts represented by tea-party members makes up 18% of the total US population is my understanding.

Exactly! Which is just about identical to their proportion in Congress. So the "gerrymandering" reference really made no sense, since that suggests that they have been somehow given undue influence. Unless you are saying that the folks you disagree with should have been treated via gerrymandering in such a way as to under-represent them.

 

So here is the dynamic from their perspective. They were elected in areas where their views represent the majority of their electorate. They don't believe that the US Government should walk away from its obligations. But they also believe that the US government is spending too much, by taking money out of the pockets of voters AND out of the pockets of people, some yet unborn, in the future. Taxation without representation might once have been tyranny, but today it is just good politics for PROFESSIONAL politicians. Today, the best way to get elected is not to espouse the American Dream, but rather promise (pander) to the broadest electoral base, promising benefits that someone else will pay for.

 

Opium is addictive. OPM (Other People's Money) buys votes.

 

Is not raising the debt ceiling the way to go? You tell me. Sequestering failed to address the biggest underlying problem in government spending (TAXATION - they don't create money, they just take it from the public - hopefully for you OPM), which is the entitlement budget. It also has turned out not to be the horrible problem envisioned. Perhaps it is now time to dig into the major part of the US budget.

 

Beating addiction is painful. Gaining strength is painful - No Pain - No gain.

 

Somebody up-thread said "does any other government have a debt ceiling? I don't think so". Facts are probably better than opinions (thinking). Denmark has a debt ceiling. Effectively the Euro nations did as well, until the weaker ones just ignored it. They are not doing so well right now, and the populace of the countries bailing them out are not happy about it either.

 

The value of the debt ceiling is not important - except that it is written into US law. The error made - politician lawyers are neither mathematicians, nor economists, is that the debt limit should have been some fraction of a macro economic variable such as GDP. But even there, and comparing only to highly developed countries, we are in worse shape than all but Japan (20 years of gloom) and Italy.

http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2011/01/28/the-10-countries-with-the-most-debt

 

Forget the surreal label. Propose how we can become a strong nation economically, not borrowing nearly our annual production. We aren't a startup!

 

No, our debt is not like a mortgage where we borrow to make a capital purchase, and pay it back ourselves (not our heirs).

[mike777]

Exactly! Which is just about identical to their proportion in Congress. So the "gerrymandering" reference really made no sense, since that suggests that they have been somehow given undue influence. Unless you are saying that the folks you disagree with should have been treated via gerrymandering in such a way as to under-represent them.

 

So here is the dynamic from their perspective. They were elected in areas where their views represent the majority of their electorate. They don't believe that the US Government should walk away from its obligations. But they also believe that the US government is spending too much, by taking money out of the pockets of voters AND out of the pockets of people, some yet unborn, in the future. Taxation without representation might once have been tyranny, but today it is just good politics for PROFESSIONAL politicians. Today, the best way to get elected is not to espouse the American Dream, but rather promise (pander) to the broadest electoral base, promising benefits that someone else will pay for.

 

Opium is addictive. OPM (Other People's Money) buys votes.

 

Is not raising the debt ceiling the way to go? You tell me. Sequestering failed to address the biggest underlying problem in government spending (TAXATION - they don't create money, they just take it from the public - hopefully for you OPM), which is the entitlement budget. It also has turned out not to be the horrible problem envisioned. Perhaps it is now time to dig into the major part of the US budget.

 

Beating addiction is painful. Gaining strength is painful - No Pain - No gain.

 

Somebody up-thread said "does any other government have a debt ceiling? I don't think so". Facts are probably better than opinions (thinking). Denmark has a debt ceiling. Effectively the Euro nations did as well, until the weaker ones just ignored it. They are not doing so well right now, and the populace of the countries bailing them out are not happy about it either.

 

The value of the debt ceiling is not important - except that it is written into US law. The error made - politician lawyers are neither mathematicians, nor economists, is that the debt limit should have been some fraction of a macro economic variable such as GDP. But even there, and comparing only to highly developed countries, we are in worse shape than all but Japan (20 years of gloom) and Italy.

http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2011/01/28/the-10-countries-with-the-most-debt

 

Forget the surreal label. Propose how we can become a strong nation economically, not borrowing nearly our annual production. We aren't a startup!

 

No, our debt is not like a mortgage where we borrow to make a capital purchase, and pay it back ourselves (not our heirs).

 

 

sorry but I think you miss the more important point.

 

 

What is the role of government.

 

governments default all the time.

governments go away all the time.

IN the short time countries go away...

 

Let us start that the government can go bust and go away....now what?

IN the USA governments get deposed all the time...common.

\in the USA huge companies go away often...common.

---------------

 

 

 

For some reason you forget companies go bust and party in rule go bust often.

[blackshoe]

Forget the surreal label. Propose how we can become a strong nation economically, not borrowing nearly our annual production. We aren't a startup!

 

sorry but I think you miss the more important point.

 

What is the role of government.

Actually, I think you're both right. Answering Mike's question is part of answering FM's.