Obama blames Founding Fathers

[Jack V Savage]

No. But we are talking about abuse of power that can result due to lack of constraint. And Bush implemented some dangerous policies which prove what can happen with a lack of real constraint.

The problem is injudicious constraints. Many Republican legislators don't oppose legislation because they think it's bad now; they oppose it because they think that it's good and thus will result in political victory for the majority party. That's a new situation with dire consequences (that have already come before us--note that while the U.S. has outperformed most of the developed world because of superior fiscal policy from the time that the GOP didn't have the numbers to obstruct as effectively, unemployment is still substantially higher than it would be if not for subsequent Republican obstructionism).

A government shouldn't be constrained by gentlemenly agreements as it only takes a few non gentlemen, such as FDR, to fundamentally change the way the country operates.

So you agree that there are some fundamental flaws with Congress?

 

[second sight]

96 Percent Of Americans Are Wrong About Congress


For over 20 years, a NBC/WSJ poll has been measuring how voters feel about Congress. And

 

[Cold Front]

Jack Savage is just a hyper-partisan. There's nothing new about what's going on. Partisanship has always been a factor in legislation.

There is one new thing, however about the present political circumstances that is different from, say, when Reagan or LBJ was in office. Both parties are now more ideologically homogenous than they were previously. Conservative democrats and liberal Republicans were once pretty numerous. Not anymore.

 

[second sight]

it's called checks and balances

 

[InternetHero]

Of course not. Unfortunately the GOP is unable to even begin to reach across the aisle for fear of not being re-elected.

The Tea Party gets an "F" grade for reaching a cross the aisle other than to decry non-purists in their frenzied right wing zeal, as well, the Obama Administration would have to get a "D" grade for its bizarre form of disengaged hyper partisanship.

Maybe a moderate Hillary Clinton or a Marco Rubio can bridge the divide between the frothing at the mouth Tea Party radicals and the dishonest, faithless Obama residuals.

 

[InternetHero]

it's called checks and balances

Psssh, a lot of the War Room prefers "I am in charge, get out!"

Putin authoritarian worshipers, Libertarian absolutists, and "Sure wish Obama had the powers of China" soft police state huggers.

 

[The Creeses**]

No. But we are talking about abuse of power that can result due to lack of constraint. And Bush implemented some dangerous policies which prove what can happen with a lack of real constraint.

Dammit OG, I agree with you. Maybe it's the booze...........

 

[Jack V Savage]

Psssh, a lot of the War Room prefers "I am in charge, get out!"

Putin authoritarian worshipers, Libertarian absolutists, and "Sure wish Obama had the powers of China" soft police state huggers.

Of course, it's ridiculous to equate "Congress should compromise to deal with crises the way they have in the past" with "sure wish Obama had the powers of China." That kind of vapid, dishonest propaganda is a big part of what has been dragging down the level of discourse here.

 

[The Creeses**]

The Tea Party gets an "F" grade for reaching a cross the aisle other than to decry non-purists in their frenzied right wing zeal, as well, the Obama Administration would have to get a "D" grade for its bizarre form of disengaged hyper partisanship.

Maybe a moderate Hillary Clinton or a Marco Rubio can bridge the divide between the frothing at the mouth Tea Party radicals and the dishonest, faithless Obama residuals.

Rubio moderate? My god...........And if you think the GOP can deal with Hillary, you are sadly mistaken. They will use the "woman" card very sneakily and well. I can't wait til the "women are to emotional" to govern. Like violent crime isn't "emotional". Look at the sex that commits most of those crimes.

 

[Jack V Savage]

Rubio moderate? My god...........And if you think the GOP can deal with Hillary, you are sadly mistaken. They will use the "woman" card very sneakily and well. I can't wait til the "women are to emotional" to govern. Like violent crime isn't "emotional". Look at the sex that commits most of those crimes.

That was funny. He wanted to name a prominent Republican as an example of a moderate, but that's a blank category. And of course being honest about that fact makes one a partisan so we have to cover it up.

 

[InternetHero]

Of course, it's ridiculous to equate "Congress should compromise to deal with crises the way they have in the past" with "sure wish Obama had the powers of China." That kind of vapid, dishonest propaganda is a big part of what has been dragging down the level of discourse here.

lol @ "propaganda" IE hearing what you do not like to hear.

Also... Thomas... L.... Friedman.

Rubio moderate? My god...........And if you think the GOP can deal with Hillary, you are sadly mistaken. They will use the "woman" card very sneakily and well. I can't wait til the "women are to emotional" to govern. Like violent crime isn't "emotional". Look at the sex that commits most of those crimes.

I was trying to pick someone besides Jeb, as Bush V. Clinton part 3 is depressing. As well, Hillary has already been "dealt with" twice - by her own party and back in 94, she is not a force of political nature.

Rubio is pretty moderate for a guy who both the far right and the centrist right could support, and I don't think Rand could win a general election.

 

[InternetHero]

That was funny. He wanted to name a prominent Republican as an example of a moderate, but that's a blank category. And of course being honest about that fact makes one a partisan so we have to cover it up.

This post is both inaccurate and a complete non sequitur between "picked this candidate" and "therefore is what I Jack V. Savage hate."

Well done Jack, well done.

 

[Stringer Bell]

He's right, but nothing should change.

Basing voting power based on population is just as ridiculous as basing it on natural resources, which the lesser populated states could argue makes them just as valuable.

Please kill this pure democracy crap. The only reason we are a united 50 states is because everyone agreed to a republic.

What would Obama have done if he was a founding father?

 

[Jack V Savage]

lol @ "propaganda" IE hearing what you do not like to hear.

Also... Thomas... L.... Friedman.

No, the two statements are fundamentally different and conflating them is rank propaganda.

And what about Friedman?

Rubio is pretty moderate for a guy who both the far right and the centrist right could support, and I don't think Rand could win a general election.

So putting aside your spinning, I think it's kind of an interesting question what a moderate Republican would even support.

I'd say he wouldn't be a climate science denier (but he'd prefer cap and trade to carbon taxes or regs as a solution), he'd support broad-based tax cuts as stimulus rather than spending programs (and he'd support longer-term deficit reduction to counteract higher short-term deficits), he wouldn't block the debt ceiling increase, he'd leave the thorny culture wars issues (abortion, marriage equality, marijuana, etc.) to the states, he'd support revenue-neutral cuts to corporate taxes, he'd support holding the line on the defense budget but non-interventionist foreign policy, I dunno. Hard to even imagine today. Rubio, of course, supports a balanced budget *amendment*, is a climate science denier, an elimination of capital gains, dividend and estate taxes, and won't even admit believing in evolution.

A moderate Democrat would pretty much be Obama. Can't even think of where he'd differ from a hypothetical one.

This post is both inaccurate and a complete non sequitur between "picked this candidate" and "therefore is what I Jack V. Savage hate."

Well done Jack, well done.

So you don't know what non sequitur means, and you don't really have any coherent point here. Just more fanatical hate. Cool.

 

[OldGoat]

The problem is injudicious constraints. Many Republican legislators don't oppose legislation because they think it's bad now; they oppose it because they think that it's good and thus will result in political victory for the majority party. That's a new situation with dire consequences (that have already come before us--note that while the U.S. has outperformed most of the developed world because of superior fiscal policy from the time that the GOP didn't have the numbers to obstruct as effectively, unemployment is still substantially higher than it would be if not for subsequent Republican obstructionism).



So you agree that there are some fundamental flaws with Congress?

Of course there are flaws with our government system. Yet, it's better than any alternative that could realistically be implemented. I think that inefficiency in government that is by design is much better hedge against tyranny than a super efficient government. I think the bigger flaw is the two party system that is very stable in our current form of voting. I'd like to see a different method of voting where you rank candidates 1-x and add up the pts to determine a winner.

 

[Jack V Savage]

Of course there are flaws with our government system. Yet, it's better than any alternative that could realistically be implemented. I think that inefficiency in government that is by design is much better hedge against tyranny than a super efficient government.

So we live in the best of all possible worlds? I think that a parliamentary system is better, actually. That can't "realistically be implemented" any time soon in America, but it is the rule in developed nations, and I could see it becoming more realistic if the GOP continues to be run by ungentlemanly morons.

 

[InternetHero]

No, the two statements are fundamentally different and conflating them is rank propaganda.

And what about Friedman?



So putting aside your spinning, I think it's kind of an interesting question what a moderate Republican would even support.

I'd say he wouldn't be a climate science denier (but he'd prefer cap and trade to carbon taxes or regs as a solution), he'd support broad-based tax cuts as stimulus rather than spending programs (and he'd support longer-term deficit reduction to counteract higher short-term deficits), he wouldn't block the debt ceiling increase, he'd leave the thorny culture wars issues (abortion, marriage equality, marijuana, etc.) to the states, he'd support revenue-neutral cuts to corporate taxes, he'd support holding the line on the defense budget but non-interventionist foreign policy, I dunno. Hard to even imagine today. Rubio, of course, supports a balanced budget *amendment*, is a climate science denier, an elimination of capital gains, dividend and estate taxes, and won't even admit believing in evolution.

A moderate Democrat would pretty much be Obama. Can't even think of where he'd differ from a hypothetical one.



So you don't know what non sequitur means, and you don't really have any coherent point here. Just more fanatical hate. Cool.

LOLOL @ fanatical hate! Am I a Hitler, Jack V. Savage?

Yes, I do know what it means and the logic of your argument does not follow in any way from picking a guy you think is a far out radical to somehow making me a radical.

Thanks for giving me credit though on the "What Repub could appease the Tea Party" point, by accident though it may be.

As well, Friedman has been known to laud over Chinese central planning a bit too much... as have a few other Liberal columnists, but luckily Friedman has no idea what he is talking about in this case.

 

[second sight]

That was funny. He wanted to name a prominent Republican as an example of a moderate, but that's a blank category. And of course being honest about that fact makes one a partisan so we have to cover it up.

I'm sure you'd gladly pick a rino for him like the ones that given their way would have already passed amnesty, a carbon tax bill, unlimited spending bills

 

[ben236]

I'd say he wouldn't be a climate science denier (but he'd prefer cap and trade to carbon taxes or regs as a solution), he'd support broad-based tax cuts as stimulus rather than spending programs (and he'd support longer-term deficit reduction to counteract higher short-term deficits), he wouldn't block the debt ceiling increase, he'd leave the thorny culture wars issues (abortion, marriage equality, marijuana, etc.) to the states, he'd support revenue-neutral cuts to corporate taxes, he'd support holding the line on the defense budget but non-interventionist foreign policy, I dunno. Hard to even imagine today. Rubio, of course, supports a balanced budget *amendment*, is a climate science denier, an elimination of capital gains, dividend and estate taxes, and won't even admit believing in evolution.

Stopped reading at where you talked about a moderate republican supporting cap and trade.

 

[OldGoat]

So we live in the best of all possible worlds? I think that a parliamentary system is better, actually. That can't "realistically be implemented" any time soon in America, but it is the rule in developed nations, and I could see it becoming more realistic if the GOP continues to be run by ungentlemanly morons.

No, we don't live in the best of all possible worlds. Far from it. But remember your history. The country had to make many compromises in order to actually form a government. And truthfully, it's been long lasting and relatively stable for the majority of it's history. I would have liked to see the founding without slavery and with women's suffrage, but hey society wasn't ready for that.

And parliamentary system is fine and dandy for a country that wasn't founded from a group of independent states. You think France or Germany would go for a strictly parliamentary system in an United States of Europe? How would the small states of Europe like to be completely dominated by the French and Germans in a strictly parliamentary system? It won't work, just like the small population states in the US would EVER agree to give up their disproportionate, based on population, representation in the senate. It will not happen. I see a partition or secession more likely than changing the senate.

So with historical baggage that cannot be shed, realistically, I don't see it happening. I actually like the constraints, the inefficiency, and the disproportionate representation. We aren't just one blob of a country. We have real state governments and each state is different.