Jump to content
DerelictStudios Forums
Korona

Filibusters

Recommended Posts

We already do think they're a bunch of cunts, notice how rare it is that even half of the country approves of what Congress does:

080513ApprovalsGraph1_infh30oins.gif

Note that the HUGE spike comes immediately after 9/11.

 

Edit: and at the moment, only 27% of the country approves of what our Congress is doing.

Edited by dave1001

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What your seeing now is the arrogance that is displayed by majority parties. The same thing happens with Republicans just like it happens with the Democrats now. At the start of this health care debate the Democrats had their 60 super majority. So in essence, they declared the republicans irrelevant to the process, knowing that they could pass what they wanted when they wanted and how they wanted without a single member of the other party even showing up to congress.

 

What happened in the Senate was this: A senator from Massachusetts, which is practically the throne of the Democratic party, who was the brother of JFK, Ted Kennedy. He held this seat for 40+ years and was a democrat. I mean, the seat was democrat even during Reagen, so for the democrats to think it would turn republican would be impossible. However, thinking that the special election would be a cake walk for them, they still thought they would hold the 60 votes needed to declare the republicans irrelevant. But when it all came down to it, a Republican did get elected and threw a gear into the machine. In a nutshell, their arrogance came to bite them in the ass.

 

If you were to break down the bill into smaller ones it is more likely that Republicans agree with some things in the bill, combining it into one super bill that is overwhelmingly democrat proposed, ran, and finalized as a Republican you have no idea what is in it, how it's going to unfold and if you only agree with 4/10 things in the bill your one vote is going to be a one no when it could have been 4 yes and 6 no. If it was smaller they could pass the things the agree on and you would see more bipartisanship. However because Democrats thought they would have the 60 they tried to combine all their ideas and proposals into one giant bill for the sake of ease for them.

 

Also Congress is always rated low as a whole, but ask any American how their reps and senators are doing and you will get "They are great." Then ask them what their names are and you won't get an answer. lol

Edited by hawk10314

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Now hawk what happened is that the Democrats couldn't actually work together. And our elected president failed to "sack up" and actually just tell the Republicans to go fuck themselves and just pander to his party and get it passed. That's what SHOULD have happened. Hell, Bush didn't have a super majority and shit got passed like nobodies business.

 

I'm more a democrat than republican but it seems that democrats can't just work together.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe someone who approves of blocking the senate trying to take radical action could then explain this to me?:

 

9/11 = several thousand dead = national emergency/ crisis

spiralling healthcare costs & tens of millions uninsured = ????

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Maybe someone who approves of blocking the senate trying to take radical action could then explain this to me?:

 

9/11 = several thousand dead = national emergency/ crisis

spiralling healthcare costs & tens of millions uninsured = ????

 

More Americans died in 1941 through automobile accidents than in Pearl Harbor.

 

So we should have declared war on cars, not the Japs, right?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9/11 = several thousand dead whiteys thanks to brown people = national emergency/ crisis

spiralling healthcare costs & tens of millions of poor and/or brown people who don't vote uninsured = ????

 

there's also the whole bit where the insurance companies have the best lobbyists in DC, that doesn't help

Edited by Monkey

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For the sake of this argument I am perfectly willing to go with the idea that 9/11 was a crisis, the government and media response was proportionate and the threat was real - another attack could have happened again, or even one ten times worse involving anthrax or something.

 

My point is that if 9/11 was such a crisis then how is a crisis theatening several orders of magnitude more people with arguably far worse debilitating illnesses, bankruptcy or death any less a crisis. Any decent person wants a society with a functioning health system just like any decent person wants a society with security and a freedom from acts of random mass murder.

The point is that the sense of urgency just isn't there, the desire to extend coverage, bring down the cost and get healthcare to as many people as possible. I don't see how that is compatible with the Republican fillibuster threat, and yet I can't see how they can care about saving lives and not at least let the Democrats try to fix it.

 

If it's really that bad then the Democrats will get pilloried in the next election and the Republicans will get the perfect whipping horse. WTF are they afraid of? That it might work? That uncle Pfizer will pull the campaign funds? I don't get it at all. If they are right then why not give the Dems the rope to hang themselves with? Gah I'm really confused.

 

 

 

 

@ Rattus' well surely the Jap attacks have nothing to do with mandating seat belts, speed limits and banning drunk driving, other than if you care about the lives lost in the first instance than you should also care just as much about the lives lost in the second. You can recycle the same arguments for this type of law: "Oh you are meddling in how private companies make cars, what does the govt know about cars, we should let the free market work this out, people have the choice to drink or not drink before they drive, it's not our place to hold their hand and tell them what to do, the laws won't work like you think they will, the roads will be clogged with go-slow-motorists, it will be a disaster noone will want to drive any more" etc. etc.

:P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
My point is that if 9/11 was such a crisis then how is a crisis theatening several orders of magnitude more people with arguably far worse debilitating illnesses, bankruptcy or death any less a crisis. Any decent person wants a society with a functioning health system just like any decent person wants a society with security and a freedom from acts of random mass murder.

The point is that the sense of urgency just isn't there, the desire to extend coverage, bring down the cost and get healthcare to as many people as possible. I don't see how that is compatible with the Republican fillibuster threat, and yet I can't see how they can care about saving lives and not at least let the Democrats try to fix it.

 

If it's really that bad then the Democrats will get pilloried in the next election and the Republicans will get the perfect whipping horse. WTF are they afraid of? That it might work? That uncle Pfizer will pull the campaign funds? I don't get it at all. If they are right then why not give the Dems the rope to hang themselves with? Gah I'm really confused

Apathy, Support, and Opposition are all three different things. The majority of the American public just doesn't really care, but that doesn't mean they're opposed to it. The reason you're not understanding this issue is that your assumptions about the way the world works are not the same as the average American - there is no widespread belief here in a social responsibility to provide universal healthcare. You say "any decent person", but that's YOUR value judgment about what's right for the world. By our standards we do have a functioning health system - people are not being turned away from emergency rooms, there are charitable organizations helping the poor, and the insurance system works just fine if you can afford it/have an employer who provides it.

 

And if you'd like some anecdotal evidence about the system working I'll gladly provide it (had an accident this past summer, no insurance at the time, and I earn waaay less than the median income).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am all for health care reform but this isn't the way to do it. The system of government in the US isn't designed to run health care, education, energy etc, it was designed for three things. Protection of rights, i.e. national defense, diplomacy, and regulation of trade between states and between nations. That's basically it, there are too many checks and balances in place for things to run smooth, there is too much bureaucracy for things to work at all. Things are under-estimated and over budget all the time. Just look at past government programs and there is your track record. I have no problem with Health care reform, however let me just go over some classical liberalism aka conservatism in a nutshell.

 

I see a lot of talk in this topic about democracy in action, democracy this etc. The US is NOT a democracy, We are a Constitutional Republic. I have never voted on a piece of legislation in my entire life other than a few referendums at the state level. The US is 50 republican States, republican in this sense is the form of government not the party. Back in the old times when the word state was used it meant a country not a territory etc. That's exactly what the USA needs to be and it was intended to be. I have no problem with universal health care, I really don't. I just believe that this should be something taken up at the state and local level of government if it comes down to government health care or the option of government health care. Many hands make light work and the same holds true for this situation. Massachusetts, Hawaii, Oregon (I think) had either have a health care plan or had one at one time. It is just common sense to me that you have 50 states all with capabilities to more accurately cover the people in their regions. You deal with less people when it comes to change, It is easier to rally a state then an entire nation, create a plan, adjust the plan over time and remove the plan if it requires it. On a national level it's hard to get anyone to agree on anything, you basically have people in Massachusetts dictating what people in Texas should have and whats good for them and vice versa, same applies to any other state in relation to any other state. It just doesn't make sense to bloat down an already inflated government and bureaucracy with even more when they can hardly manage what they have. I think people need to start local and move to a state level at most when it comes to domestic programs like this. The federal government should provide defense, diplomacy and regulate trade among the states as stated in article 1 section 8 of the constitution. In the 10th amendment it states that anything NOT listed in this document is reserved to the states and to the people respectably. If crap hits the fan it's very hard for someone to leave a country but if your unhappy with the way things are going in your state it might be a bump in your life but its not impossible.

 

People place a huge amount of faith in the federal government, if people put half as much as their energy of imposing reform on an entire nation as they did to get to know the state they live in and how it's run and put that energy into reforms at the state level you would see a lot more progress in my opinion. Not to mention that besides a national guard a state is privileged not to have to deal with diplomacy, and foreign policy.

 

And for Brad, the reason why democrats get so fractured and unable to work when your dealing with far left policies like this is because they are not all democrats. Many are progressives which are far left and the other democrats are TRUE democrats who legislate from the center. I recommend reading a few books like American Progressivism, Liberal Fascism and the Federalist Papers James Madison and the creation of the American Republic etc. I learned tons from reading a few books than I did from any history course that I have taken. The first two go into detail of the progressive movement and their true ideology then and now. The later ones are a few of how America was intended to operate, function, and the reasoning behind multiple republics forming a large republic aka federalism etc.

 

Korona, I think doing some research on the structure of American government, how its organized, the checks and balances incorporated and most importantly WHY they were incorporated into the government would do good to put your mind at ease in understanding this stuff. For instance, if they were to re-organize the bill as a budget bill (I believe not 100% sure) all they would need is 51 votes not 60. Some things need a simple majority such as budget bills, filibusters need 3/5, veto over-rides need 2/3, amendments need 3/4.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
And if you'd like some anecdotal evidence about the system working I'll gladly provide it (had an accident this past summer, no insurance at the time, and I earn waaay less than the median income).

 

I actually would since I might be in that situation in a year or so :P Would you be able to post it publicly in this thread?

 

@ hawk -

 

The United States of America is one country and one state. Just like Germany was when it was first created. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unification_of_Germany You're essentially proposing that we should not have a unified country? (gross oversimplification of what you said, admittedly) There are plenty of things that are ran well at the individual state level in this country, and I think health care could easily be administered on a state level (heck, it pretty much already is). But you need Federal Mandates (in my opinion) to ensure it is run properly. I think the Federal Government could provide the framework, and the state governments fill it in.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, one nation but 50 states. Each with the capabilities to govern the people more accurately on a local level than at a national level. Framework opens the door to more than is needed. Once you put your foot in the door your more likely to pry yourself into where you want to go and where government wants to go is always bigger, more clumsy and less productive. I rather see the federal government be a master of a few precisely defined duties and for those duties to be carried out well rather than a jack of all trades with mediocre results. Why do you need the federal government to do all this? That's whats so unique of America, From Many One. Each state has the ability to do everything that health care proponents want. It's so much easier at a state level. Also what right do you have over the other states to dictate how they should govern their denizens.

 

I'd say my philosophy is strictly constitutionalists. A Jeffersonian would argue that 50 states would be better than one, in fact Jefferson never agreed with the constitution thinking it was TOO controlling over the states. And when we were founded we were 13 separate nations. However the Article of Confederation were too far to national anarchy, thus they just notched us over to the left ever so slightly with defined duties for the federal government to carry out. Your not going to get the whole nation to agree with a national health care plan and nor should they.

 

Think about it, what is the one thing that your going to get the vast majority of Americans agreeing on most of the time? Security, Trade and Diplomacy. Exactly what the Federal government is supposed to do. Where people disagree they tend to collect in the states that best fits their ideals. Bible belt etc. And by them governing themselves the way they see fit will be better for the nation as a whole. Once you try to cover everyone with one blanket in a one size fits all kind of way your asking for trouble.

 

Also what if it fails? What if it doesn't work what do you do. Once it is in you can't just fix it. It's just as complicated to undo as is to put in place perhaps even more. However if given to the states to provide, IF the people of the states wanted it to begin with, if it fails you simply move and it doesn't drag down and entire nation with it. The bigger you are the harder you fall the smaller it is the easier it is to pick up when it does fall.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks Hawk, viewing the Fed as an oversight body rather than a government in the local or regional sense does make more sense out of ideas like fillibustering (as in why it is allowed at all).

The issue for me then is that the government of the US, indeed the whole nature of the country has changed substantially over time. The move towards more of a "full fat" government with a broad range of responsibilities has been happening for a long time. Everything from subsidising agriculture to even classic areas like defence now acting like welfare/stimulus programmes in certain states. It seems like the genie has been out of the bottle for a long time with a constant "feature creep". I am sympathetic to the idea of local government, but right now attachment to this original mandate seems to be leaving the federal government in an unworkable fudge between the oversight role and a central government. Desiring to go back to the way things were just anti-pragmatic.

 

@ dave1001, I think your comments actually supported my assertion ;) :

It's not true that you don't want a good system of healthcare provision in your country, rather you think that the health care system atm works pretty good and that changing it to increase coverage would break it more than it would fix it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×