Current Topics
Gerrymandering | Cracking and Packing
by pondering_it_all
Yesterday at 09:49 PM
Round Table For September 2017
by Ken Condon
Yesterday at 06:15 PM
The Broken Government
by Ujest Shurly
Yesterday at 04:09 PM
Sanders Medicare Thing
by jgw
09/24/17 09:12 PM
The 10 Most Complex Sci-fi Movies of All Time
by Golem
09/24/17 07:32 PM
Martin Scorsese, Robert De Niro and Joe Pesci Reunite in Irishman Set Photos
by Golem
09/23/17 11:38 PM
The Hoarding of the American Dream
by pondering_it_all
09/23/17 03:38 AM
With Obamacare repeal less likely, opponents of expansion in the states have jus
by pondering_it_all
09/21/17 11:34 PM
Why America’s 1994 deal with North Korea failed – and what Trump canlearnfromit
by matthew
09/20/17 09:05 PM
The Passing Parade: Obituaries: 2017
by Jeffery J. Haas
09/20/17 05:24 PM
What Trump Really Eats For Dinner, According to Chef David Burke
by pdx rick
09/20/17 03:39 AM
Happy Birthday, United States Air Force
by pondering_it_all
09/18/17 10:46 PM
The Olympics Are Actually Going to Be Terrible For Los Angeles
by Jeffery J. Haas
09/18/17 06:46 PM
The Equifax Hack
by pondering_it_all
09/18/17 12:49 AM
Twin Peaks
by jgw
09/17/17 08:20 PM
Forum Stats
6247 Members
57 Forums
16047 Topics
276627 Posts

Max Online: 282 @ 05/29/08 05:08 AM
Google Adsense
Page 1 of 2 1 2 >
Topic Options
#302910 - 08/29/17 09:54 PM how many really care?
jgw Offline
member

Registered: 05/22/06
Posts: 1670
Loc: Port Angeles, WA
Its my understanding that the Freedom Caucus, in the house, is the group that seems to do all the supposed bad stuff. There are, as far as I can tell, something between 30 and 40 members that belong to the Freedom Caucus. There are 435 members of the House. This means that approximately 8% of the house is causing, in theory, all the problems. Say there is also a Democratic group that is equally divisive so, in theory, there is a maximum of 80 members (both parties) that cause all the problems in the house. This means that a maximum of 18% of the congress are able to control the remaining 82%. This, to me, doesn't make sense. So we go to the leadership. We have a 2 party system and the party that owns the majority assigns the leader of both the senate and the house. The leader, apparently, gets to tell everybody else what do do and what legislation will be examined and voted on. So, the majority party elects their 'leader' and that 'leader' gets to tell all the members of their party (and the opposition) just what they are going to be doing.

I am sure I must have missed something here because it makes no sense. First the parties themselves. Apparently the majority party elects somebody who absolutely rules what happens in the entire congressional house they are "in charge" of (we have a 2 house system. 1 is the senate and the other is the house itself - I think this is called a bi-camera system). Anyway, the first problem I have is that, apparently, a small number of a given party's membership has the ability to stop their party from doing anything. The other problem is that each party, each of which are stalwart supporters of a "democratic" system (by 'democratic' I think that means that each member has a voice) get to elect a leader who gets to call ALL the shots. So, basically, our system, (the supposed best in the world) is ruled either by crazed minorities or an elected dictator. Again, this makes no sense although I am hoping somebody will explain the fallacy of these thoughts.

Now, if I am wrong, and the majority of our elected in congress are actually adults, willing to speak and work with one another to define problems, find common ground, and fix the problem there should not, on the face of it, be a problem (based on my assumption that there are only 80 crazies in the house and, probably, say, 20 in the senate which gives the supposed adults a wide range of reasonable members willing to, again, define problems and arrive at those common grounds upon which to build legislation to fix ANY given problem.

I should add that each defined problem may have a larger or smaller common ground to work with but, in virtually all cases there should be some. This seems reasonable to me. An example might be in order. Say they are dealing with rape. Everybody agrees, on both sides that rape is a bad thing and that they want to do something about it. The devil, of course, is in the details. I would think, however, that both sides could come up with at least a couple of functional ideas both sides can agree on and so legislate.

Instead we have a different deal. It actually seeems that BOTH sides are determined to 'win'. This has nothing to do with the voters, or the state of the nation, but, rather, 'winning', ie. beating the opposition and little else. So, when our politicians win it has nothing to do with anything but politics and, certainly, nothing to do with the health of the nation. I have spoken to several of these people and asked them these same questions. I seem to always get the same answer, ie. I just do not understand. This is, basically, the reason for this one. I would really appreciate it if somebody could explain where my reasoning has gone wrong as it seems to me that our elected class are so at war with one another than they have forgotten their mission and reason for being elected in the first place.

There are several books written about bureaucracies. They all agree in a couple of things. The first is that a 'mature' bureaucracy tends to be more interested in security their jobs rather than their declared 'mission'. The second is that, over time, a mature bureaucracy will eventually, and actually, forget, exactly, what their mission actually is. The difference, I think, is in the definition of bureaucracy and elected. The first is, in theory, hired by the second. I fear I am probably wrong about this and bureaucracy is actually a group that controls how stuff gets done in whatever they work with, in this case government. BOTH are bureaucracies and our congress is, basically, just another out of control bureaucracy (which, again in theory, is also in charge of the other bureaucracy which, again in theory, has operational control of government.

Help!!!!!!!!!


Edited by jgw (08/29/17 10:00 PM)

Top
#302911 - 08/29/17 10:18 PM Re: how many really care? [Re: jgw]
Greger Offline

Pooh-Bah

Registered: 11/24/06
Posts: 13794
Loc: Florida
Interesting theory, but false. It's not just the crazies in the freedumb caucus that causes the problems, nor their supposed Democratic counterparts(would Bernie Sanders be the leader of this group?)
The biggest problem is that Republicans want to govern without any input from Democrats. If Republican leadership was willing to compromise an any way shape or form a lot more would get done, instead they try to shove through bills with the barest of a majority. Fairly easy in the House but a lot tougher in the senate.
_________________________
"Be yourself; everyone else is already taken."— Oscar Wilde

Top
#302915 - 08/30/17 07:39 PM Re: how many really care? [Re: jgw]
jgw Offline
member

Registered: 05/22/06
Posts: 1670
Loc: Port Angeles, WA
Greger -
My suspicion is that you are right. However, that being said, I keep seeing congressional members, on both sides, claiming to either currently working or planning to work with the opposition. I can also remember when the left owned congress and they treated the right the same way. Both sides, however, always blame either the leadership or the crazies for the problem. If that was true then, if you take the crazies out of the equation, they should be able to function (if the leadership would allow it).

Its all very strange to me. For instance, I have read that a new congressional member is tasked with begging for money 40 hours a week. These people are supposed to be growed up and dedicated to the nation. If this was true then my theory would work. Its not working! (I guess that was my point (never quite sure))

Given the situation in Texas there are some, now, that are pointing out that there seems to be communications across the variety of aisles which may actually continue but I doubt that too. The only amusement one can gain from that situation is the fact that Cruz & company are REALLY catching it from the northeast for how they handled their disaster and Cruz actually doubled down on their behavior so, I guess, we will see. (in time <G>)

I guess I should add that I seem no reason for anybody to compromise on anything but trying to work together which should be done. As far as defining problems and the middle ground thing is concerned I am not suggesting anybody compromise but simply find whatever ground there may be available. If there is none then both parties should announce that there is absolutely no common ground to be found - PUBLICLY! (that just might provide us all with a bit of entertainment?) One of my main complaints about gov is that neither the elected, nor gov, will actually tell us anything of any value insofar as what they, or gov, are doing. Instead we are gifted with yet more blather. I would, for instance, like to see gov take over an hour's time on the public channel to simply educate us all on what agencies do what and ask for public imput. (I know - just another exercise in wishful thinking).

Top
#302916 - 08/30/17 07:41 PM Re: how many really care? [Re: jgw]
pondering_it_all Offline
old hand

Registered: 02/27/06
Posts: 6952
Loc: North San Diego County
Yes, from Gingrich on the Republicans have treated the House as if it was a sporting event. The only thing that matters is that your team wins. It doesn't matter if a guy on the other team has a good idea. When it comes to voting, good ideas don't matter. Republicans have even sponsored bills and then voted against them because the other side thinks they are good ideas. To me, this is the ultimate betrayal of democracy.

Top
#302928 - 08/31/17 10:56 AM Re: how many really care? [Re: Greger]
NW Ponderer Offline
Moderator
Carpal Tunnel

Registered: 09/09/11
Posts: 15421
I think,jgw, that you identify both of the real problems at the beginning: a very narrow division between the parties (the freedom caucus representing a very small slice), and an aversion to working together. Part of that aversion is naked fear (the GOP being the party of fear) - of being "primaries" out of a job. Another part of that aversion, too (in my opinion) is the cultural divide within the country. It goes back to the formation of the country. The agrarian (primarily South) and urban-industrial areas have always been at odds. Initially that included slavery, but simplifying the conflict to that misses the larger point.

The problem, on the grandest scale, is worldwide. These same cultural conflicts exist everywhere - Iraq, Afghanistan, India, Israel, France, UK. There is some correlation between conservative and liberal and this divide, but it is imperfect. This divide is exacerbated by the original sin of the Constitution - the 3/5ths compromise over slavery. As a result, rural America has a disproportionate impact on policy. If political control were strictly along population lines, liberal policies would predominate (Clinton won by 3 million votes). It is the parties understanding of this reality that makes them intransigent. Republicans realize they will ultimately lose control and have abandoned any pretense of cooperation, and have instead pursued every method of staying in power. What Gerrymandering Looks Like (Or, How to Guarantee GOP Dominance in a Purple State).
_________________________
A well reasoned argument is like a diamond: impervious to corruption and crystal clear - and infinitely rarer.

Here, as elsewhere, people are outraged at what feels like a rigged game -- an economy that won't respond, a democracy that won't listen, and a financial sector that holds all the cards. - Robert Reich

Top
#302929 - 08/31/17 11:06 AM Re: how many really care? [Re: NW Ponderer]
NW Ponderer Offline
Moderator
Carpal Tunnel

Registered: 09/09/11
Posts: 15421
When you say, "I can also remember when the left owned congress and they treated the right the same way." I take exception. In my lifetime I have never seen the Democratic party behave as the Republican party has since Gingrich. There has certainly been conflict, but Democrats have never frozen out the opposition like this. Please don't assert the Republicans were frozen out on Obamacare or I'll have to dredge up the hundreds of amendments that were offered and voted on prior to passage...
_________________________
A well reasoned argument is like a diamond: impervious to corruption and crystal clear - and infinitely rarer.

Here, as elsewhere, people are outraged at what feels like a rigged game -- an economy that won't respond, a democracy that won't listen, and a financial sector that holds all the cards. - Robert Reich

Top
#302933 - 08/31/17 06:23 PM Re: how many really care? [Re: jgw]
jgw Offline
member

Registered: 05/22/06
Posts: 1670
Loc: Port Angeles, WA
First, I have always understood that our system involving the Elected class is that class would be made up of citizens serving in the interest of the nation and never considered to be a lifelong job. Now, however, its turned into a 'job' which the holder will do virtually anything to keep - not unlike other 'good' jobs. This is, I think, pertinent and yet another good reason for serious term limits. Its always amazed me that persons running under the banner of term limits often seek to remain in the 'job' (often demonstrating, at the same time, a complete lack of any integrity or honor (especially on the right)).

When the Dems wrote the ACA the republicans were locked out of the initial writing process. They were only allowed back in when it came time to start holding hearings, amendments, etc. (which allowed to write half the ACA with their 180+ amendments to the ACA). If you will remember, the right whined a lot about being "locked out". Now, however, the right, now in charge, is doing the same thing, with more vigor, by locking all legislation away from the left for the entire process, up to and including the signing. If you Google "republicans locked out of the writing of the aca" and check out "https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/07/21/us/health-care-amendments.html?mcubz=0" you can find info on this stuff.

My current hope is that those elected, on either side, will need each other to skip gov shutdown and pass legislation that is veto proof from Trump silly (just bypass Trump the Liar). My fear is that is probably yet another exercise in wishful thinking and little else.


Edited by jgw (08/31/17 06:25 PM)

Top
#302940 - 08/31/17 11:31 PM Re: how many really care? [Re: jgw]
pondering_it_all Offline
old hand

Registered: 02/27/06
Posts: 6952
Loc: North San Diego County
Quote:
pass legislation that is veto proof from Trump silly (just bypass Trump the Liar). My fear is that is probably yet another exercise in wishful thinking and little else.


I don't think it's wishful thinking. Neither side wins from a government shutdown or default. I think a debt ceiling bill WILL pass with a veto-proof majority and Trump can go pound sand with his "build the wall or veto" nonsense. Same for a budget. All but a few Republican brown-nosers have better things to do with that money now that Houston is destroyed. Just think about all those Texas Republicans in Congress: Do they want a stupid wall in the middle of the Rio Grande or do they want aid for Houston?

Another thing to think about: Irma's coming! My wife is pulling for Cat 5 at Mar-a-Lago.

Top
#302948 - 09/01/17 07:52 PM Re: how many really care? [Re: jgw]
jgw Offline
member

Registered: 05/22/06
Posts: 1670
Loc: Port Angeles, WA
pondering;
I hope you are right.
I forgot to mention the simple fact that a wall continues to be built and that was started by Obama (Trump claims it as his)
I also keep thinking that the Republicans will, eventually, have enough of Trump. Seems that will not happen - they have no integrity, no honor, are obviously dishonest, and, not unlike their leader, are, basically, self interested to the exclusion of nation.

I am with your wife on the Cat 5. Not only that but it really does seem to be headed to Florida. That thing is a category 3 right now. It will reach 5 by landfall. My wife keeps saying that Mar-a-Lago will be under water in 5 years <G>

Top
#302953 - 09/02/17 03:15 AM Re: how many really care? [Re: jgw]
pdx rick Offline
Member
Carpal Tunnel

Registered: 05/09/05
Posts: 40433
Loc: Puget Sound, WA
Originally Posted By: jgw
Its my understanding that the Freedom Caucus, in the house, is the group that seems to do all the supposed bad stuff. There are, as far as I can tell, something between 30 and 40 members that belong to the Freedom Caucus. There are 435 members of the House. This means that approximately 8% of the house is causing, in theory, all the problems.

One's man's "problems' is another man's lifeline. The Freedumb Caucus is keeping the Rethuglicons in check and nothing is getting done. Thankfully! smile

I'm not really a bi-partisan guy - because when you compromise - you don't get what you want. I'd rather have nothing than a unsatisfying mesh-mash. Hmm
_________________________
Contrarian, extraordinaire



Top
Page 1 of 2 1 2 >

Who's Online
0 registered (), 33 Guests and 2 Spiders online.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Newest Members
Nosf50, erumonej, Jensen Breck, Albertapkr, asoso
6247 Registered Users
A2