Congress has lost its mind...

[TheMercenary]

Haaaaa..... join the club asshole.

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

[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]

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?

[piercehawkeye45]

Extremely bad. It will just be a partisan bloodbath that doesn't accomplish anything and will make the election process unbearable to anyone in the middle. I honestly think it would be best to make so the next debt ceiling vote has to happen about three months into the presidential term.

[BigV]

I agree, extremely bad. I think those in favor of such a plan, namely Boehner and his group, are maneuvering strictly for political advantage. "The crisis atmosphere *he* created will be avoided." "The truth is, the President wants a blank check today." Are you kidding.

Please, stop being so shallow.

[Spexxvet]

Originally Posted by BigV

"The crisis atmosphere *he* created will be avoided." "The truth is, the President wants a blank check today." Are you kidding.

Please, stop being so shallow.

I liked "He wouldn't take yes for an answer"

[infinite monkey]

I just wrote to my congressman. One Honorable John Boehner.

It'll be hard to read it with all the posturing he's doing.

Here you go:

https://writerep.house.gov/writerep/welcome.shtml

[glatt]

writing is great and all, but they don't really spend much time reading those things. To really make them pay attention, a phone call is much more effective, because the staff will have to spend actual time on the phone call. They can't just quickly skim it and do the automated computerized response.

[infinite monkey]

I don't do telephones.

Perhaps even better I show up on his doorstep?

Not heard of one person here who's actually bothered with anything but whining here...but I'll keep in mind how ineffective my effort is, next time.

Thanks.

[DanaC]

Originally Posted by infinite monkey

I don't do telephones.

Perhaps even better I show up on his doorstep?

Not heard of one person here who's actually bothered with anything but whining here...but I'll keep in mind how ineffective my effort is, next time.

Thanks.

That's an impressively wide and sweeping insult to all concerned.

[infinite monkey]

Just returning the favor.

Same old...

[piercehawkeye45]

One thing I don't understand (well I do understand if I am going to be cynical...) about Republicans logic on tax increases is that spending cuts are going to hurt the economy as well. If significant spending cuts are going to be made, that means there will be people that will need to survive on less money than they had before and there will be more people competing for jobs. This will ultimately mean that people will spend less, which, at least from what I understand, is extremely bad for the economy in a recession. Sure if we lower taxes we can increases investment but if no one will buy anything it really doesn't do anything....

The biggest difference I see from tax increases and spending cuts is who will hurt the most. In general, tax increases will hurt wealthier Americans, whatever wealthier Americans mean, and generally, spending cuts will hurt poorer Americans. So it doesn't take much thinking to realize that either Republicans are completely disillusion or they are willing to hurt the economy, but as long as it is on their terms.


Also, just to throw this out there. Taxes =/= Incomes Taxes. The bottom 50% do pay taxes.