FSTDT Forums
Community => Politics and Government => Topic started by: Barbarella on August 03, 2013, 02:07:01 am
-
I've been trying to look for an answer but I can't find it.
Progressives must be doing something wrong. I don't understand. With the exception of the LGBT-rights front, we seem to be not getting any real headway against the Far-Right. We protest & vote and do everything we can but we come up short. We failed the Wisconsin recall despite having resounding support. Women are losing the right to chose. The unjust whom Karma does not favor keep winning undeserved victories. Why? We're the smarter ones, the intellectuals, the educated, the reasonable & rational. We should be able to see the Tealiban's schemes right away, but we don't. We should be able to frame every narrative, but don't. We can read & study the Far-Right's strategies & implement them for our gain, but we don't.
I just want to know, what the heck is wrong with Liberalism in this country?! Are we missing something? How can such intelligent socially-conscious & educated people fail so badly? Corporate money can only explain so much!
I want to see victories! BIG VICTORIES! I want to see Liberalism/Progressivism take the US by storm! I want to see Progressives thwart all of the Regressive's schemes! I want to see Progressive corporations raise money & put the Far-Right down like a rabid dog. I want the Occupy Protests to accomplish something! I want Democrats with spines! I want True Liberals to run for Democratic office!
I don't understand it. The Right-Wingers always have a way to undermine Progress. From the social movements of the 60's to the ERA to Occupy to the Wisconsin Recall.
Progressives need to regroup & really examine themselves. We have the tools & ideas but we have a hard time implementing them.
Does anyone have any theories? Am I missing something?
-
It's not what progressive people are doing wrong so much as it is what the people who oppose them are doing right.
Unsurprisingly those with wealth and power want to keep it-and they'll be just as conniving and cunning at holding that wealth and power as they were obtaining it in the first place!
-
Two problems, one substantive, one propaganda.
Since the 1980s liberals in the Anglo world have been less effective at propaganda. This is partly because media reportage reflects media interests, which are usually conservative. This manifests both in news pages- choice of issues to cover, slant, sources, recurring tropes and so on. Also, I think, American liberals seem to be just ineffective at selling their ideas, while American conservatives are extremely effective. Compare Barack Obama to Ronald Reagan: imagine if Reagan had assassinated an Osama bin Laden metaphor. That would be how we would remember his presidency. With Obama, we remember bullshit like an attack on an embassy. George Bush managed to stifle all debate for over a year; no Democrat could ever achieve that, regardless of circumstances. I'm not sure why this is, but it is a severe problem and it must be addressed. People are more likely to believe lies out of a Republican's mouth than the truth from a Democrat. Fix.
Problem two: the US system is actually written in a way that tends to prevent progressive change. This is partly because the Republicans have effective party loyalty, but the Democrats do not. While that is true, Liberals can't really win. When Republicans initiate some unbelievably radical change- so, the invasion of Iraq- all Republicans vote aye, not enough Democrats vote nay and the filibuster is never considered. How many major, controversial laws were passed by the Bush administration- and that's one of the most incompetent governments in a generation? A dozen? Two? The filibuster is not a weapon against regressive change. But think of the effect against Obama. Even extremely uncontroversial policy everyone agrees with- say, Obamacare- takes months or years to pass, chewing up all other time. The result? Obama has one major legislative reform, has not rolled back any of Bush's crap, and faces the repeal of that single reform if the party loses.
Now how is the system written wrong?
-
It's not what progressive people are doing wrong so much as it is what the people who oppose them are doing right.
Unsurprisingly those with wealth and power want to keep it-and they'll be just as conniving and cunning at holding that wealth and power as they were obtaining it in the first place!
This is pretty much why I've become a cynic.
No, seriously, I live with dogs in a trash bin and everything.
-
The unjust whom Karma does not favor keep winning undeserved victories. Why? We're the smarter ones, the intellectuals, the educated, the reasonable & rational.
The former sentence rather heavily contradicts the latter, funnily enough.
That said, if you feel so strongly about this, actually try getting involved in politics. Do something yourself rather than demanding everyone else do it for you. Even just writing angry letters to anyone in even a rather middling position of power. Hell, anything would be more productive than repeating the same preachy nonsense over and over again on some tiny internet forum that all of maybe 30-40 people have even heard of, much less care about.
-
Two problems, one substantive, one propaganda.
Since the 1980s liberals in the Anglo world have been less effective at propaganda. This is partly because media reportage reflects media interests, which are usually conservative. This manifests both in news pages- choice of issues to cover, slant, sources, recurring tropes and so on. Also, I think, American liberals seem to be just ineffective at selling their ideas, while American conservatives are extremely effective. Compare Barack Obama to Ronald Reagan: imagine if Reagan had assassinated an Osama bin Laden metaphor. That would be how we would remember his presidency. With Obama, we remember bullshit like an attack on an embassy. George Bush managed to stifle all debate for over a year; no Democrat could ever achieve that, regardless of circumstances. I'm not sure why this is, but it is a severe problem and it must be addressed. People are more likely to believe lies out of a Republican's mouth than the truth from a Democrat. Fix.
Problem two: the US system is actually written in a way that tends to prevent progressive change. This is partly because the Republicans have effective party loyalty, but the Democrats do not. While that is true, Liberals can't really win. When Republicans initiate some unbelievably radical change- so, the invasion of Iraq- all Republicans vote aye, not enough Democrats vote nay and the filibuster is never considered. How many major, controversial laws were passed by the Bush administration- and that's one of the most incompetent governments in a generation? A dozen? Two? The filibuster is not a weapon against regressive change. But think of the effect against Obama. Even extremely uncontroversial policy everyone agrees with- say, Obamacare- takes months or years to pass, chewing up all other time. The result? Obama has one major legislative reform, has not rolled back any of Bush's crap, and faces the repeal of that single reform if the party loses.
Now how is the system written wrong?
So are you saying we should say "nay" more & use more filibusters? That we're wishy washy wimps?
And how do you suppose we change all this.
Sometimes I do wonder if a lot of Democrats are just fakers who talk Progressiveness but do the opposite. Perhaps that explains the spinelessness.
There's got to be an answer to this. We need a strategy. We need to be as shrewd & devious as they are (within ethical reason).
Every problem has an answer. We can solve this. We can win the war. Perhaps we are winning. Perhaps 2014 will be the turning point. The Far-Right is pretty much shooting themselves in the foot everyday. Also, it took a long time for the Tealiban to take control so it should take time to take them down. The present Progressive Movement is just starting.
I just have to relax & be patient. Heck, the Kochs are geezers. They'll soon croak & leave a power-vacuum. There may be infighting. Same goes for Ailes, Murdoch, etc. Heck, I posted a topic called "There's Hope For The USA" or something like that.
The future is with the young people, the vast majority whom are disgusted with these Far-Right freaks!
-
Two problems, one substantive, one propaganda.
Since the 1980s liberals in the Anglo world have been less effective at propaganda. This is partly because media reportage reflects media interests, which are usually conservative. This manifests both in news pages- choice of issues to cover, slant, sources, recurring tropes and so on. Also, I think, American liberals seem to be just ineffective at selling their ideas, while American conservatives are extremely effective. Compare Barack Obama to Ronald Reagan: imagine if Reagan had assassinated an Osama bin Laden metaphor. That would be how we would remember his presidency. With Obama, we remember bullshit like an attack on an embassy. George Bush managed to stifle all debate for over a year; no Democrat could ever achieve that, regardless of circumstances. I'm not sure why this is, but it is a severe problem and it must be addressed. People are more likely to believe lies out of a Republican's mouth than the truth from a Democrat. Fix.
Problem two: the US system is actually written in a way that tends to prevent progressive change. This is partly because the Republicans have effective party loyalty, but the Democrats do not. While that is true, Liberals can't really win. When Republicans initiate some unbelievably radical change- so, the invasion of Iraq- all Republicans vote aye, not enough Democrats vote nay and the filibuster is never considered. How many major, controversial laws were passed by the Bush administration- and that's one of the most incompetent governments in a generation? A dozen? Two? The filibuster is not a weapon against regressive change. But think of the effect against Obama. Even extremely uncontroversial policy everyone agrees with- say, Obamacare- takes months or years to pass, chewing up all other time. The result? Obama has one major legislative reform, has not rolled back any of Bush's crap, and faces the repeal of that single reform if the party loses.
Now how is the system written wrong?
So are you saying we should say "nay" more & use more filibusters? That we're wishy washy wimps?
It's not so much that Democrats are wimps, though I agree that's a problem. Clearly, Americans hate moderates. If you look like the most reasonable guy in the room, you're not respected for it, you're despised. And rightly so. Democrats should stand up for what they believe in, and if they don't believe it, why are they in the party? Set out a clear, consistent party platform- a list of promises- and then stick to it. And defend it. That's what Republicans do with their hoseshit, and people respect them for it.
No, what I meant what that there's no strong party loyalty. If you fuck the party, there are no consequences. Historically that's the way things go, but that's no longer how the Republicans work. So they consistently kick Democrats' arses when they should barely exist.
-
Two problems, one substantive, one propaganda.
Since the 1980s liberals in the Anglo world have been less effective at propaganda. This is partly because media reportage reflects media interests, which are usually conservative. This manifests both in news pages- choice of issues to cover, slant, sources, recurring tropes and so on.
The irony is the keep blasting the 'liberal media.'
-
Two problems, one substantive, one propaganda.
Since the 1980s liberals in the Anglo world have been less effective at propaganda. This is partly because media reportage reflects media interests, which are usually conservative. This manifests both in news pages- choice of issues to cover, slant, sources, recurring tropes and so on.
The irony is the keep blasting the 'liberal media.'
Blasting at phantoms is a well heeled conservative strategy that works! Be it the "war on drugs", the nonexistent link between gay marriage and pederasty or Obama's birth certificate it doesn't matter how illusory the bogeyman is-if you can scare the squares with it they'll vote for you.
Just look at my country, in Australia we are staring down the barrel of the end of the mining boom and the inevitability of the same recession that has hit hard everywhere else and all both parties are talking about on the eve of this election is getting tougher on the poor bastards who risk their lives getting on leaky boats trying to escape shitholes in Afghanistan, Sri Lanka and Burma.
Because getting tough on pathetic or nonexistent bogeymen is easier than actually solving problems!
-
Two problems, one substantive, one propaganda.
Since the 1980s liberals in the Anglo world have been less effective at propaganda. This is partly because media reportage reflects media interests, which are usually conservative. This manifests both in news pages- choice of issues to cover, slant, sources, recurring tropes and so on.
The irony is the keep blasting the 'liberal media.'
Absolutely nobody does this more than that very media.
-
One other especially insidious thing- take a look at a lot of conservative turds given a liberal-ish sugar-coat in mass media.
Anyone trying to point out the horrible underlying message in movies or shows people watch every day gets eye-rolls, even if they are professionals and not the Tumblr-SJWs.
It's to the point where films that I personally have heard described as 'liberal garbage': 300, Knocked Up, Juno, Twilight (not even kidding...), and Red Dawn (HOW??)
... despite none of these films doing anything to advance or portray liberal ideals, aside from Knocked Up being okay with marijuana and positively portraying an enviable maternity leave (by US standards) for the female protagonist.
-
At some stage liberal just means bad.
-
Who says progressives are losing? The only people who say that are the same die hard conservatives who deny climate change in the same hysterical tones that betray their own deep rooted fear of defeat. I assume you are under 30? As a middle aged man I can tell you WE ARE WINNING THE CULTURE WAR!!! Progress is slow and the bigots and morons drag their heels at every opportunity but we are slowly defeating them from within. We are educating their children.... bwhah hah hah hah.
I am British, not American, but I remember the 70s/80s when the world was very different - and back then we thought we lived in a glorious liberal age. I remember the days when EVERYTHING closed on a sunday, when racism, sexism and homophobia were completely acceptable and NO ONE took issue with it. When I was a child the Black and White Minstrel Show was still on tv ( don't ask ). Prayer at school was 'optional' but you had to request to leave the room and were made to stand outside in the corridor silently.
There are lot of shocking things that happen in the world but these days we are aware of it. In the Good Ol' Days a lot of stuff was just swept under the carpet.
Teenage pregnancy - pack the girl off to another town for while and give the kid up secretly
Drugs - didn't happen honest
Gays - not in our town
Rape - only bad girls go out alone
etc...
As shocking as it sounds - the world is getting better. If we can just get round to fixing climate change and overpopulation before we destroy ourselves then the human race might stand a chance.
-
Who says progressives are losing? The only people who say that are the same die hard conservatives who deny climate change in the same hysterical tones that betray their own deep rooted fear of defeat. I assume you are under 30? As a middle aged man I can tell you WE ARE WINNING THE CULTURE WAR!!! Progress is slow and the bigots and morons drag their heels at every opportunity but we are slowly defeating them from within. We are educating their children.... bwhah hah hah hah.
I am British, not American, but I remember the 70s/80s when the world was very different - and back then we thought we lived in a glorious liberal age. I remember the days when EVERYTHING closed on a sunday, when racism, sexism and homophobia were completely acceptable and NO ONE took issue with it. When I was a child the Black and White Minstrel Show was still on tv ( don't ask ). Prayer at school was 'optional' but you had to request to leave the room and were made to stand outside in the corridor silently.
There are lot of shocking things that happen in the world but these days we are aware of it. In the Good Ol' Days a lot of stuff was just swept under the carpet.
Teenage pregnancy - pack the girl off to another town for while and give the kid up secretly
Drugs - didn't happen honest
Gays - not in our town
Rape - only bad girls go out alone
etc...
As shocking as it sounds - the world is getting better. If we can just get round to fixing climate change and overpopulation before we destroy ourselves then the human race might stand a chance.
I agree with you 100%! I started this thread when I was in a bit of a funk. You'll notice on this page, I kinda admitted as such. No doubt we are winning the culture war! I just have to be patient. Change the culture first and then the political scene will follow. That recall jazz in Wisconsin is old news, anyway. People are still valiantly fighting. Besides, I've said many times that the big bigot/fundie/right-wing backlashes all over the Earth are a sign we're winning because they are zits getting medicated (which get worse at first) and we are the zit cream. We're bringing the jerks out in the open.
Since each generation is more progressive than the next, the Walkers, Scotts, Kochs, Arpaios, Ailes, Murdochs, Alitos, Thomases, etc. will all meet the Maker and decent "new blood" will take over.
I also feel that much of the Democrat's job performance is dependent upon pressure from constituents. We must hold their feet to the fire & tell them to grow some iron gonads! Bug them enough out of spinelessness & they'll fight! Also, quit voting for Blue Dogs! Those guys are moles! GOP in Democratic clothing!
-
Progressives are winning, for the most part. It is just that things are going slow right now. Part of that is because the baby boomer generation is having its last gasps of power. We already see that a good number of GOP members have accepted things like gay marriage and immigration reform.
The area's where progressives are losing are in the abortion debate and when it comes to unions. Abortions, well no one is a fan of abortions. So the women's right argument can be a tough one when the potential life of child is on the line. Unions, well unions have made some mistakes and even some progressives see that they have harmed some of the industries they are in. I'm not saying unions are bad, but they can make bad decisions.
-
Progressives are winning, for the most part. It is just that things are going slow right now. Part of that is because the baby boomer generation is having its last gasps of power. We already see that a good number of GOP members have accepted things like gay marriage and immigration reform.
The area's where progressives are losing are in the abortion debate and when it comes to unions. Abortions, well no one is a fan of abortions. So the women's right argument can be a tough one when the potential life of child is on the line. Unions, well unions have made some mistakes and even some progressives see that they have harmed some of the industries they are in. I'm not saying unions are bad, but they can make bad decisions.
True. In those cases, I think we need to find a way to educate the public. We can tell folks that over 90% percent of abortions are very early in the First Trimester....and show photos of a typical abortion (a petri dish full of specks of meaningless stuff). If schools refuse to teach sex-ed & safer sex practices then independent groups should (for the time being, until we can get the schools to wise up).
We need to admit that much of the Tealiban "plays dumb". They're not as stupid or crazy as they seem. It's a strategy of theirs. They want us to laugh at & dismiss them as a threat.
Finally, many of the common folk of the "Red State" variety are well-meaning, average Janes & Joes who are simply dupes. Perhaps if we reached out to them as friends, fellow citizens & whatnot, many may slowly become open to the truth. Part of why they don't listen to us is that they see us a snotballs who look down on them & compare them to the hillbillies in Deliverance. Sure, there's a number that will never change & a few that are macho deranged types but most are regular people like us.
-
The problem is there is no liberal party in the US. Both dominant parties are bought and paid for, and they're not about to upset the people who bribe them to maintain the status quo. The closest we've got is the Greens, and, like the other 3rd parties, have so little support that they're a joke. The few democrats with backbones since I've started paying attention (Anthony Wiener, Alan Grayson, Elizabeth Warren) have either ruined their careers through pointless scandal, or had to make their case alone, without the support of their colleagues or the "liberal" media.
Yes, liberals win on social issues. And we always will, because we're more willing to accept change and differences between people and lifestyles. That has nothing to do with people in power redefining marriage as a legal contract, or who has a full vote, or who can use the drinking fountain. It has everything to do with us wanting to move forward as a people, instead of holding on to the "good ol' days" because change is scary.
-
I've joked before, the world would be a better place if the death panels were real. The thing is, Democrats do their damndest to be nice, despite that killing them. Bipartisanship can go get fucked by Godzilla. More importantly, though, liberals are individualistic. You ask ten liberals their opinion on something and you'll get eleven opinions. You ask ten conservatives, you'll get the same answer every time. The truth of the matter is, liberals suck at dogma. We are awful at unity, and while there is good from that (creativity, for one), it means we suck at politics. Additionally, intelligence makes that even harder. Idiots can be unified via fear. The intelligent will see right through it.
However, there's hope. This is the death throes of a dying generation, and one I won't mourn. The sixties wounded Conservatism, the 70s and 80s healed it, and the 90s emptied a tommy gun into it. The 1990s was the last time blaming music, video games, film or television was an extremely mainstream thing. That may seem minor, but it's a giant step forward in the culture war. They've failed to convince people that our culture is evil and causes death. They failed to win. In the 1970s, bands like Kiss and musicians like Alice Cooper were seen as horrible by the right wing, and protested violently. In the 1980s, it was bands like Twisted Sister, and Dee Snider actually went and testified to Congress (and mocked Al Gore's wife to his face) in one of the best speeches given to them, and he was in the same clothing that he wore at a concert the night before. In the 1990s, well, Mortal Kombat, Doom and Marilyn Manson (although, protesters have been showing up to his shows again lately). If you told the protesters in the 1970s that Alice Cooper and Kiss would be mainstream, they'd call bullshit. If you told them in the 1980s that Twisted Sister would be mainstream and norma, they'd call bullshit. If you told them in the 1990s that Mortal Kombat and Doom would be outdated and silly, and Marilyn Manson is (intentionally, without changing himself) mainstream, they'd flip out. The fact of the matter is, that which is shocking is mainstream a decade later (and may be mocking the mainstream, like when America's Next Top Model was allowed to use "The Beautiful People" because he knew they obviously didn't know it was insulting them).
The most evil thing Osama ever did was 9/11, not just for the death, but for the fact it delayed America's societal advancement for so long. Had it not been for him, we'd be so much further ahead. Bush would have been the first four year president since Bush. 9/11 wasn't an inside job, but it was the most lucky Bush ever was. Or, really, Dick Cheney. Dicky was running the show, and he set that up himself. Dick Cheney was in charge of selecting Bush's VP, after all. Osama was the hiccough that fucked shit up. We're slowly getting back on track, and advancing as usual. We're a society you can't even shock, at this point. Shock's deader than dead. All you can be is confusing. That's the biggest sign of open-mindedness. Entertainment Tonight did a story a few years back (I swear, it was accidental that I even saw this) where they were talking about the FCC. They proceeded to swear like normal people during it, and during the credits, the hosts went something along the lines of "So, do you think they believe it was real?" with the (obviously bleeped) reply being "They'll never fucking know". It wasn't a scandal or controversy. Imagine them doing that in the 1990s.
As the elderly die, and the oldest generation is Generation X, we'll see the world change. Remember, Generation X is what gave us the 1990s. They gave us Doom, Mortal Kombat, classic MTV, Industrial Metal, South Park and more. Stewart and Colbert are X. Obama is X. So, imagine how things will be when they're the ruling class, with them being the tenured ancient ones in Congress and the Senate, and the majority of voters are X, Y and Z?
-
I've joked before, the world would be a better place if the death panels were real. The thing is, Democrats do their damndest to be nice, despite that killing them. Bipartisanship can go get fucked by Godzilla. More importantly, though, liberals are individualistic. You ask ten liberals their opinion on something and you'll get eleven opinions. You ask ten conservatives, you'll get the same answer every time. The truth of the matter is, liberals suck at dogma. We are awful at unity, and while there is good from that (creativity, for one), it means we suck at politics. Additionally, intelligence makes that even harder. Idiots can be unified via fear. The intelligent will see right through it.
However, there's hope. This is the death throes of a dying generation, and one I won't mourn. The sixties wounded Conservatism, the 70s and 80s healed it, and the 90s emptied a tommy gun into it. The 1990s was the last time blaming music, video games, film or television was an extremely mainstream thing. That may seem minor, but it's a giant step forward in the culture war. They've failed to convince people that our culture is evil and causes death. They failed to win. In the 1970s, bands like Kiss and musicians like Alice Cooper were seen as horrible by the right wing, and protested violently. In the 1980s, it was bands like Twisted Sister, and Dee Snider actually went and testified to Congress (and mocked Al Gore's wife to his face) in one of the best speeches given to them, and he was in the same clothing that he wore at a concert the night before. In the 1990s, well, Mortal Kombat, Doom and Marilyn Manson (although, protesters have been showing up to his shows again lately). If you told the protesters in the 1970s that Alice Cooper and Kiss would be mainstream, they'd call bullshit. If you told them in the 1980s that Twisted Sister would be mainstream and norma, they'd call bullshit. If you told them in the 1990s that Mortal Kombat and Doom would be outdated and silly, and Marilyn Manson is (intentionally, without changing himself) mainstream, they'd flip out. The fact of the matter is, that which is shocking is mainstream a decade later (and may be mocking the mainstream, like when America's Next Top Model was allowed to use "The Beautiful People" because he knew they obviously didn't know it was insulting them).
The most evil thing Osama ever did was 9/11, not just for the death, but for the fact it delayed America's societal advancement for so long. Had it not been for him, we'd be so much further ahead. Bush would have been the first four year president since Bush. 9/11 wasn't an inside job, but it was the most lucky Bush ever was. Or, really, Dick Cheney. Dicky was running the show, and he set that up himself. Dick Cheney was in charge of selecting Bush's VP, after all. Osama was the hiccough that fucked shit up. We're slowly getting back on track, and advancing as usual. We're a society you can't even shock, at this point. Shock's deader than dead. All you can be is confusing. That's the biggest sign of open-mindedness. Entertainment Tonight did a story a few years back (I swear, it was accidental that I even saw this) where they were talking about the FCC. They proceeded to swear like normal people during it, and during the credits, the hosts went something along the lines of "So, do you think they believe it was real?" with the (obviously bleeped) reply being "They'll never fucking know". It wasn't a scandal or controversy. Imagine them doing that in the 1990s.
As the elderly die, and the oldest generation is Generation X, we'll see the world change. Remember, Generation X is what gave us the 1990s. They gave us Doom, Mortal Kombat, classic MTV, Industrial Metal, South Park and more. Stewart and Colbert are X. Obama is X. So, imagine how things will be when they're the ruling class, with them being the tenured ancient ones in Congress and the Senate, and the majority of voters are X, Y and Z?
And I'm more than happy to be part of that Generation. To share the same Generation as Stewart, Colbert & the President Of The United States, himself is an honor. And the younger generations are even more forward.
It started with a few Boomers but truly began to grow with the Busters (Baby Busters - Gen X) but it's the Buster's younger siblings & children who will bring it to fruition.
As for the Dems, I agree they can be corporate-owned, too. However, most usually are better folks than the GOP & I think the most spineless, ineffective ones are the Blue Dogs, that is, the GOP-lite Pseudo-Democrats (Democratic in name but GOP in practice). I think it's the Blue Dogs we should blame & make sure not to elect more in the future.
What we need are Green Dogs! Greens in Democratic clothing! No one will vote in a Green but they will vote a Democrat. Heck, if the Republican Party can go Far-Right crazy until they're no loner Republican then I can't see why the Greens can't just all become Democrats & Liberalize the Dems.
I think someone should create a bright, colorful, to-the-point, short-attention-span-friendly guide to candidates, their stats, their positions, their history, etc. so folks will be able to tell who they are REALLY voting for (thus preventing Blue Dogs & Tealibans from gaining office). Perhaps I can create something. Everyone's like "Why don't you do something" and I should do something.
-
Agreed. Actually, to make the Greens point simpler: STOP WITH THE THIRD PARTY SHIT! You idiots that make new parties and the people even more foolish to actually vote for them, stop it. Instead, swarm into the party you like more.
-
Agreed. Actually, to make the Greens point simpler: STOP WITH THE THIRD PARTY SHIT! You idiots that make new parties and the people even more foolish to actually vote for them, stop it. Instead, swarm into the party you like more.
I think we should petition the Green Party headquarters & tell them that. Join the Dems & make the Dems Green! The Greens have the right ideas but they're so non-mainstream that voting for them would be a proxy vote for the Tealiban.
-
Unions, well unions have made some mistakes and even some progressives see that they have harmed some of the industries they are in. I'm not saying unions are bad, but they can make bad decisions.
And so can every other human institution.
In my profession we need someone to have our back and it sure as shit is isn't management!
-
On the subject of generational differences, I feel I should point out that people tend to get more conservative as they age. The baby boomer generation, those supposedly evil arch-conservatives who're the last obstacle between us and a youth-led progressive golden age? They're the Woodstock generation. They're the people who were hippies back in the 60's, fucking anything with a pulse, smoking whatever'll burn, not showering and singing about peace and love. They're the people behind the anti-Vietnam war movement for god's sake.
If any of you think the same thing that happened to every other generation won't happen to ours, once we get a bit older and wealthier, well, then you're incredibly naive to say the least.
-
. More importantly, though, liberals are individualistic. You ask ten liberals their opinion on something and you'll get eleven opinions.
The joke goes: What do four left-wing activists do inside an elevator? Start four political parties. No, it's not a very good joke. However, it gets across the idea of how the left wing works here (I understand the US is different, but the basic notion remains).
Some of it is a memetic problem. Corporatism, 'the party, right or wrong', etc. tend to be right-wing ideals, which have their own failings (namely, they silence constructive criticism). The left, observing this in the right, set themselves apart by encouraging individualism, which is great until you're dissenting for the sake of it and can't properly organise worth crap.
It's great to say " I won't stand with group X, because they are getting A, B and C wrong", until you realise that you have six different groups that are 95% identical on their general beliefs fighting among themselves, while the group they disagree with on most things is winning the presidential elections. At some point, you have to tolerate some principled disagreements for the sake of effectiveness.
I try to quote Less Wrong as little as possible, but this is worth a read: Why Our Kind Can't Cooperate. (http://lesswrong.com/lw/3h/why_our_kind_cant_cooperate/)
-
Agreed. Actually, to make the Greens point simpler: STOP WITH THE THIRD PARTY SHIT! You idiots that make new parties and the people even more foolish to actually vote for them, stop it. Instead, swarm into the party you like more.
I think we should petition the Green Party headquarters & tell them that. Join the Dems & make the Dems Green! The Greens have the right ideas but they're so non-mainstream that voting for them would be a proxy vote for the Tealiban.
And here we go with voting 3rd-party is a sin stuff again. The Democrats hate the progressives within their own party and marginalize them as much as they can. If there is going to be any change, one needs to get money out of politics, and to fix the electoral system.
Also a big problem is that we a lot of people live in a fairytale land that "the American Dream" is real. It's not, and never has been. Not to mention they believe this "Rugged Individual" bs, and think they can make it on their own, forgetting that everyone are interconneted to each other.
-
Starting new parties would not be such a bad idea in a different country but the US system is built on stopping any new parties from gaining power. In Finland getting 10% of the votes would get you seats in the parliament and even if they end up in the opposition they would still be able to vote on the parliament and affect things. In USA 10% of votes gets you nothing at all.
-
On the subject of generational differences, I feel I should point out that people tend to get more conservative as they age. The baby boomer generation, those supposedly evil arch-conservatives who're the last obstacle between us and a youth-led progressive golden age? They're the Woodstock generation. They're the people who were hippies back in the 60's, fucking anything with a pulse, smoking whatever'll burn, not showering and singing about peace and love. They're the people behind the anti-Vietnam war movement for god's sake.
If any of you think the same thing that happened to every other generation won't happen to ours, once we get a bit older and wealthier, well, then you're incredibly naive to say the least.
First off, not all Baby Boomers were hippies, most were average schmoes who were either moderate, apolitical or conservative. Also, many of the ex-hippie sellouts probably just saw the hippie thing as a matter of rebellion rather than something meaningful or deeper.
Do people tend to get more straight-laced as they get older, sure but keep in mind that many ultra-Liberals of the Sixties are actually fairly open-minded elders of today who look upon their past wilder Flowerkid days with wistful fondness.
Sure, a minority may make a 180 but nonetheless, each generation AS A WHOLE...IN GENERAL...tends to be more Progressive than the next.
-
Starting new parties would not be such a bad idea in a different country but the US system is built on stopping any new parties from gaining power. In Finland getting 10% of the votes would get you seats in the parliament and even if they end up in the opposition they would still be able to vote on the parliament and affect things. In USA 10% of votes gets you nothing at all.
In Canada we have the same screwed-up electoral system as the US (though we don't gerrymander ridings), but we have more than two reasonably competitive parties, since the smaller ones worked to build up a regional power base.
-
First off, not all Baby Boomers were hippies, most were average schmoes who were either moderate, apolitical or conservative. Also, many of the ex-hippie sellouts probably just saw the hippie thing as a matter of rebellion rather than something meaningful or deeper.
Do people tend to get more straight-laced as they get older, sure but keep in mind that many ultra-Liberals of the Sixties are actually fairly open-minded elders of today who look upon their past wilder Flowerkid days with wistful fondness.
Sure, a minority may make a 180 but nonetheless, each generation AS A WHOLE...IN GENERAL...tends to be more Progressive than the next.
My point is the most conservative generation by far today were in fact overwhelmingly liberal in their youth. Of course they all weren't, it's just silly to say an entire generation has the same political beliefs, but, much like the 20-30 year olds of today, the majority of them were quite liberal and indeed they were far more liberal than any of the older generations of the time. As I said, these are the people that fought tooth and nail to end the Vietnam war, yet provided the majority of political support for Afghanistan and Iraq.
True, each generation is overall a touch less conservative than the last, however that does not mean that there will be some sort of progressive revolution as soon as the old folks retire. Rather, things will continue as normal, progress will occur at a slow and steady pace, some but not all of it being offset by conservative actions and by the time the current crop of young-in's are the old and rich politicians and businessmen of the future, they'll be fighting just as hard for corporate interests over things like consumer rights and the environment and maintaining the general status quo in their favour like every other generation before them. Then when they retire, the cycle will begin afresh.
So yeah, you probably shouldn't expect any "BIG VICTORIES" as you put it anytime soon. You'll only end up disappointed.
-
I don't know. Things seem different. The Internet is changing things, and it's never going to be the same.
-
On the subject of generational differences, I feel I should point out that people tend to get more conservative as they age. The baby boomer generation, those supposedly evil arch-conservatives who're the last obstacle between us and a youth-led progressive golden age? They're the Woodstock generation. They're the people who were hippies back in the 60's, fucking anything with a pulse, smoking whatever'll burn, not showering and singing about peace and love. They're the people behind the anti-Vietnam war movement for god's sake.
If any of you think the same thing that happened to every other generation won't happen to ours, once we get a bit older and wealthier, well, then you're incredibly naive to say the least.
Wealthier? You seriously think our generation is ever going to be wealthier, as hellbent as the upper class is on devouring everything lately?
-
On the subject of generational differences, I feel I should point out that people tend to get more conservative as they age. The baby boomer generation, those supposedly evil arch-conservatives who're the last obstacle between us and a youth-led progressive golden age? They're the Woodstock generation. They're the people who were hippies back in the 60's, fucking anything with a pulse, smoking whatever'll burn, not showering and singing about peace and love. They're the people behind the anti-Vietnam war movement for god's sake.
If any of you think the same thing that happened to every other generation won't happen to ours, once we get a bit older and wealthier, well, then you're incredibly naive to say the least.
Wealthier? You seriously think our generation is ever going to be wealthier, as hellbent as the upper class is on devouring everything lately?
Yeah, generally that's what happens. People advance in their careers as they get experience, get to know the right people and jobs open up in higher positions due to older folks retiring, not to mention the simple act of saving over the course of a lifetime really adds up. Rather cute though that you think the rich were any less ruthless and money-hungry in the past than they are now.
That reminds me, when my father was younger, apparently people thought that his generation would never be able to afford to buy property, at least not in Sydney. Funny how that turned out.
-
On the subject of generational differences, I feel I should point out that people tend to get more conservative as they age. The baby boomer generation, those supposedly evil arch-conservatives who're the last obstacle between us and a youth-led progressive golden age? They're the Woodstock generation. They're the people who were hippies back in the 60's, fucking anything with a pulse, smoking whatever'll burn, not showering and singing about peace and love. They're the people behind the anti-Vietnam war movement for god's sake.
If any of you think the same thing that happened to every other generation won't happen to ours, once we get a bit older and wealthier, well, then you're incredibly naive to say the least.
Wealthier? You seriously think our generation is ever going to be wealthier, as hellbent as the upper class is on devouring everything lately?
Yeah, generally that's what happens. People advance in their careers as they get experience, get to know the right people and jobs open up in higher positions due to older folks retiring, not to mention the simple act of saving over the course of a lifetime really adds up. Rather cute though that you think the rich were any less ruthless and money-hungry in the past than they are now.
That reminds me, when my father was younger, apparently people thought that his generation would never be able to afford to buy property, at least not in Sydney. Funny how that turned out.
Yeah.... I don't know many people in my generation who are making rent and student loan payments, or not on food stamps, never mind a savings account. And now, thanks to Obamacare's business mandate, nobody hiring part time jobs (which my generation should still be using for the most part) won't put anyone to work for enough hours to qualify for said benefits. These same places tend to want open availability, which makes juggling two of them incredibly difficult, assuming you can land a 2nd job. I'd love to believe the whole "it gets better" line, but at this point, after 2yrs of un- or under-employment, with the only jobs I've got being because my parents know people, I'm not inclined to believe it. The fact that I appear to be one of the lucky ones somewhat terrifies me.
-
Yeah.... I don't know many people in my generation who are making rent and student loan payments, or not on food stamps, never mind a savings account. And now, thanks to Obamacare's business mandate, nobody hiring part time jobs (which my generation should still be using for the most part) won't put anyone to work for enough hours to qualify for said benefits. These same places tend to want open availability, which makes juggling two of them incredibly difficult, assuming you can land a 2nd job. I'd love to believe the whole "it gets better" line, but at this point, after 2yrs of un- or under-employment, with the only jobs I've got being because my parents know people, I'm not inclined to believe it. The fact that I appear to be one of the lucky ones somewhat terrifies me.
America is kind of only just beginning to recover from a rather nasty recession right now, so in the mean time things are difficult. That will change, though, just give it maybe five more years at the very most and things will be booming once again (no doubt with the Republicans back in power and taking all the credit for the business cycle simply running its course, but I digress).
If you really think things will never improve, just look at the 30's and 40's. Great Depression followed by the rise of fascism and WWII, then followed by probably the biggest and longest economic boom that America has ever seen.
-
Yeah.... I don't know many people in my generation who are making rent and student loan payments, or not on food stamps, never mind a savings account. And now, thanks to Obamacare's business mandate, nobody hiring part time jobs (which my generation should still be using for the most part) won't put anyone to work for enough hours to qualify for said benefits. These same places tend to want open availability, which makes juggling two of them incredibly difficult, assuming you can land a 2nd job. I'd love to believe the whole "it gets better" line, but at this point, after 2yrs of un- or under-employment, with the only jobs I've got being because my parents know people, I'm not inclined to believe it. The fact that I appear to be one of the lucky ones somewhat terrifies me.
America is kind of only just beginning to recover from a rather nasty recession right now, so in the mean time things are difficult. That will change, though, just give it maybe five more years at the very most and things will be booming once again (no doubt with the Republicans back in power and taking all the credit for the business cycle simply running its course, but I digress).
If you really think things will never improve, just look at the 30's and 40's. Great Depression followed by the rise of fascism and WWII, then followed by probably the biggest and longest economic boom that America has ever seen.
That was the spoils of a wartime economy and Europe being ravaged, so there wasn't really competition until they rebuilt and Asia modernized. Not quite the route I want to follow to recovery.
-
That was the spoils of a wartime economy and Europe being ravaged, so there wasn't really competition until they rebuilt and Asia modernized. Not quite the route I want to follow to recovery.
Bad example, I suppose. Still, the depression itself and the brief upturn before the war (which no doubt would've continued had war not broken out) still stands. Or I suppose you could look at pretty much any other recession in history. Granted, there's not many as severe as this one, but regardless of size, they never last more than maybe 6-7 years at the very most before things pick up again.
-
That was the spoils of a wartime economy and Europe being ravaged, so there wasn't really competition until they rebuilt and Asia modernized. Not quite the route I want to follow to recovery.
Bad example, I suppose. Still, the depression itself and the brief upturn before the war (which no doubt would've continued had war not broken out) still stands. Or I suppose you could look at pretty much any other recession in history. Granted, there's not many as severe as this one, but regardless of size, they never last more than maybe 6-7 years at the very most before things pick up again.
I'm afraid I'm too much of a cynic to agree, though I'd love survivalists like my mother to be proven completely wrong. I just don't see it happening with other world events being taken into account.
-
That was the spoils of a wartime economy and Europe being ravaged, so there wasn't really competition until they rebuilt and Asia modernized. Not quite the route I want to follow to recovery.
Bad example, I suppose. Still, the depression itself and the brief upturn before the war (which no doubt would've continued had war not broken out) still stands. Or I suppose you could look at pretty much any other recession in history. Granted, there's not many as severe as this one, but regardless of size, they never last more than maybe 6-7 years at the very most before things pick up again.
I'm afraid I'm too much of a cynic to agree, though I'd love survivalists like my mother to be proven completely wrong. I just don't see it happening with other world events being taken into account.
Just have a read of this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Business_cycle) Wikipedia article. Recessions, even large ones like now, are simply temporary and a normal part of the economy.
-
Yeah.... I don't know many people in my generation who are making rent and student loan payments, or not on food stamps, never mind a savings account. And now, thanks to Obamacare's business mandate, nobody hiring part time jobs (which my generation should still be using for the most part) won't put anyone to work for enough hours to qualify for said benefits. These same places tend to want open availability, which makes juggling two of them incredibly difficult, assuming you can land a 2nd job. I'd love to believe the whole "it gets better" line, but at this point, after 2yrs of un- or under-employment, with the only jobs I've got being because my parents know people, I'm not inclined to believe it. The fact that I appear to be one of the lucky ones somewhat terrifies me.
America is kind of only just beginning to recover from a rather nasty recession right now, so in the mean time things are difficult. That will change, though, just give it maybe five more years at the very most and things will be booming once again (no doubt with the Republicans back in power and taking all the credit for the business cycle simply running its course, but I digress).
If you really think things will never improve, just look at the 30's and 40's. Great Depression followed by the rise of fascism and WWII, then followed by probably the biggest and longest economic boom that America has ever seen.
That was the spoils of a wartime economy and Europe being ravaged, so there wasn't really competition until they rebuilt and Asia modernized. Not quite the route I want to follow to recovery.
Trade is not zero-sum. The US recovered from the Great Depression because FDR chose for it to recover. Obama has chosen not.
-
Trade is not zero-sum. The US recovered from the Great Depression because FDR chose for it to recover. Obama has chosen not.
Mind elaborating there, bucko?
-
Trade is not zero-sum. The US recovered from the Great Depression because FDR chose for it to recover. Obama has chosen not.
Mind elaborating there, bucko?
Trade is (usually) good for everyone in the short run, both the buyer and the seller. It'd wrong to assume that the collapse of America's massive export market in Germany, France and Asia was of benefit to the US economy. Probably there were both positive and negative effects, with the negative strongly outweighing positive. Demand = government spending + private spending + balance of trade, so a reduction in exports would have worsened the recession.
Well, why did the US recover? Massive government stimulus. Trillions of dollars of it.
-
Trade is not zero-sum. The US recovered from the Great Depression because FDR chose for it to recover. Obama has chosen not.
For all his work FDR did not get the US out of the depression. He was still trying to balance the budget even during the new deal. It was the war, spending and results that finally ended the depression.
Second, the President does need congress to act if he wants spending bills passed.
-
Trade is not zero-sum. The US recovered from the Great Depression because FDR chose for it to recover. Obama has chosen not.
For all his work FDR did not get the US out of the depression. He was still trying to balance the budget even during the new deal. It was the war, spending and results that finally ended the depression.
Second, the President does need congress to act if he wants spending bills passed.
That is precisely the problem. I think the President is TRYING to fix the economy, but since that would be a success for him, congress has decided to prevent that from happening. In other words, it's the age old republican rallying cry "Fuck the Poor!"
-
Trade is not zero-sum. The US recovered from the Great Depression because FDR chose for it to recover. Obama has chosen not.
For all his work FDR did not get the US out of the depression. He was still trying to balance the budget even during the new deal.
Hence the 1936 recession. FDR's decision to throw caution to the wind and spend up big in 1939/40 ended the depression.
Second, the President does need congress to act if he wants spending bills passed.
Obviously. However, he can veto spending cuts. Had Obama done so (and provided aid to the States so they didn't need to lay off teachers and so on) the unemployment rate would be around 5%.
-
How do you.....
Ironbite-oh god please just stop.
-
Make an argument, agree with me, or shut up. Three options. "That's so duuuuuumb!" is logically fallacious.
-
The president can veto a bill, and his veto can get vetoed by a popular enough vote.
-
Hence the 1936 recession. FDR's decision to throw caution to the wind and spend up big in 1939/40 ended the depression.
Yup, he finally got it. Part of that was also buildup in anticipation for the war.
Obviously. However, he can veto spending cuts. Had Obama done so (and provided aid to the States so they didn't need to lay off teachers and so on) the unemployment rate would be around 5%.
Or it could be much worse as the GOP could have hardened their position and we could have had one of more government shut downs. Even without that there was no way Obama was going to get any new spending had he vetoed every cut.
-
It's not what progressive people are doing wrong so much as it is what the people who oppose them are doing right.
Unsurprisingly those with wealth and power want to keep it-and they'll be just as conniving and cunning at holding that wealth and power as they were obtaining it in the first place!
This is pretty much why I've become a cynic.
No, seriously, I live with dogs in a trash bin and everything.
Boom, going all Diogenes on everyone. Although I thought it was a barrel.
-
The president can veto a bill, and his veto can get vetoed by a popular enough vote.
Sure. Demand that your party not overturn your veto (since you have the Senate).
Obviously. However, he can veto spending cuts. Had Obama done so (and provided aid to the States so they didn't need to lay off teachers and so on) the unemployment rate would be around 5%.
Or it could be much worse as the GOP could have hardened their position and we could have had one of more government shut downs. Even without that there was no way Obama was going to get any new spending had he vetoed every cut.
There isn't really any need for new spending at this point. As Obama has himself been misquoted pointing out, the private sector is basically recovered. The only jobs missing from the economy are state jobs, largely state school teachers*, but also all those guys laid off through the various sequester too-bad-too-happen catastrophes that have been inflicted on you guys over the last couple of years.
Obviously this shit is mostly the Republicans' fault, no question. The outrageous irresponsibility of threatening anarchy unless you get your way is difficult to deal with. But, I'm sure, Obama probably could have stopped this if he'd kept his head: look what the Republicans are doing! This is totally irresponsible! Now he's getting blamed for it.
* This is also Obama's fault since when these cuts took place he had both House and unfillibusterable Senate. 500 billion or a trillion in aid to states and this wouldn't have happened.
-
You have to remember that it is not as simple as new spending bills. Current spending has to be renewed, and the debt ceiling has to be raised. As much as we like to think that Obama is in a position in which a government shutdown would make the GOP blink first that remains unclear.
As it is right now there is a group of Republicans that are very much interested in shutting down the government. Even at the cost to their party. They believe it will gain them support in their home districts. To avoid this Obama has to give a bit to the rest of the GOP.
-
You have to remember that it is not as simple as new spending bills. Current spending has to be renewed, and the debt ceiling has to be raised.
[/quote]
And the deal should have been "you raise the debt ceiling or you don't raise the debt ceiling. Upon your head be it."
-
And the deal should have been "you raise the debt ceiling or you don't raise the debt ceiling. Upon your head be it."
Sounds good until a shutdown and no government spending sends the economy back into a recession.
-
And the deal should have been "you raise the debt ceiling or you don't raise the debt ceiling. Upon your head be it."
Sounds good until a shutdown and no government spending sends the economy back into a recession.
I strongly doubt they'd actually do it.
-
And the deal should have been "you raise the debt ceiling or you don't raise the debt ceiling. Upon your head be it."
Sounds good until a shutdown and no government spending sends the economy back into a recession.
I strongly doubt they'd actually do it.
You have a lot of faith in politicians, ya know that?
-
And the deal should have been "you raise the debt ceiling or you don't raise the debt ceiling. Upon your head be it."
Sounds good until a shutdown and no government spending sends the economy back into a recession.
I strongly doubt they'd actually do it.
You have a lot of faith in politicians, ya know that?
To ruin the credit-rating of the US government would also ruin all their donors, not to mention themselves. They'd also be lucky ever to win an election again.
-
Once again your ignorance of the American Political Spectrum is showing.
-
Three options: make an argument, agree with me, the fuck shut up. Take one.
-
I did make an argument. You're the outsider looking in.
Ironbite-can't help it if you have no fucking clue how our political system works.
-
I did make an argument. You're the outsider looking in.
Ironbite-can't help it if you have no fucking clue how our political system works.
Three options: make an argument, agree with me, the fuck shut up. Take one.
-
To ruin the credit-rating of the US government would also ruin all their donors, not to mention themselves. They'd also be lucky ever to win an election again.
I seem to remember the GOP come back after losing ground in the last government shut down. That is if the voters blamed the shutdown on the GOP. That is never a guarantee, more so when many people in the US were worried about government spending. The Tea Party was not a joke, as much as we like to think it was.
Three options: make an argument, agree with me, the fuck shut up. Take one.
Seems like he summed up your problem pretty well.
-
To ruin the credit-rating of the US government would also ruin all their donors, not to mention themselves. They'd also be lucky ever to win an election again.
I seem to remember the GOP come back after losing ground in the last government shut down.
Was that about a debt ceiling or was that just a budget? I thought it was a budget issue.
-
It was more of a bad campaigns being run by several Democrats that allowed the shut down of the Government to be totally forgotten.
Ironbite-then 9/11 happened and we all know what happened after that.
-
It was more of a bad campaigns being run by several Democrats that allowed the shut down of the Government to be totally forgotten.
Ironbite-then 9/11 happened and we all know what happened after that.
Yeah, I think that's probably true, too.
My argument was going to be that a budgetry stand-off didn't do as much damage as a loan default would.
-
My argument was going to be that a budgetry stand-off didn't do as much damage as a loan default would.
Which would be true. Think is that certain members of the GOP are fucking crazy. They will use the debt ceiling no matter the cost.
Never call a person's bluff if that person thinks they are right with god.
-
My argument was going to be that a budgetry stand-off didn't do as much damage as a loan default would.
Which would be true. Think is that certain members of the GOP are fucking crazy. They will use the debt ceiling no matter the cost.
Never call a person's bluff if that person thinks they are right with god.
Well, we'll probably never know. I personally think the business-oriented Republican leadership would have been able to rally enough support that default would have been averted. The other option was to take the nuclear option and declare the debt ceiling unconstitutional. But Obama didn't try that, so here we are. Republicans know that Obama will fold whenever they make a debt ceiling threat, so the economy remains in the gutter.
-
Repeating yourself does not make an argument stronger or more factual, Fred.
-
Repeating yourself does not make an argument stronger or more factual, Fred.
Make an argument, agree with me, or shut up.
-
Well, we'll probably never know. I personally think the business-oriented Republican leadership would have been able to rally enough support that default would have been averted. The other option was to take the nuclear option and declare the debt ceiling unconstitutional. But Obama didn't try that, so here we are. Republicans know that Obama will fold whenever they make a debt ceiling threat, so the economy remains in the gutter.
John Boehner and rest of the GOP leadership has tried to wrangle the Tea Party republicans. They failed. Boehner damn near got voted of of his speakership. I think he survived by a whole 12 votes.
As far as having the debt ceiling declared unconstitutional that was more than likely a bluff. Right now the US Supreme Court has 5 pretty conservative justices and the constitution is pretty clear that the congress has the power of the purse.
Right now the economy in the gutter is better than the economy getting toe tagged.
-
Well, we'll probably never know. I personally think the business-oriented Republican leadership would have been able to rally enough support that default would have been averted. The other option was to take the nuclear option and declare the debt ceiling unconstitutional. But Obama didn't try that, so here we are. Republicans know that Obama will fold whenever they make a debt ceiling threat, so the economy remains in the gutter.
John Boehner and rest of the GOP leadership has tried to wrangle the Tea Party republicans. They failed. Boehner damn near got voted of of his speakership. I think he survived by a whole 12 votes.
As far as having the debt ceiling declared unconstitutional that was more than likely a bluff. Right now the US Supreme Court has 5 pretty conservative justices and the constitution is pretty clear that the congress has the power of the purse.
But congress has already decided how it will use its power of the purse, through the budgetary process. It cannot now tell the president not to do what he is required by law to do, that would be unconstitutional. Or so the argument goes.
-
Repeating yourself does not make an argument stronger or more factual, Fred.
Make an argument, agree with me, or shut up.
Congrats...you just told a mod to shut up.
-
[But congress has already decided how it will use its power of the purse, through the budgetary process. It cannot now tell the president not to do what he is required by law to do, that would be unconstitutional. Or so the argument goes.
What the President is required to do by law?
-
[But congress has already decided how it will use its power of the purse, through the budgetary process. It cannot now tell the president not to do what he is required by law to do, that would be unconstitutional. Or so the argument goes.
What the President is required to do by law?
Firstly, I'd like to point out that I don't necessarily agree. I think it's both a pretty legal argument and politically convenient, so I quite like it. But nobody knows if it's actually true, because obviously, the Supreme Court.
Imagine a budget that said "borrow one hundred dollars and spend it on X". Okay, president is going to go ahead and do that. Then congress says "don't borrow any money". What? That contradicts itself. That's what the debt ceiling does, according to this argument.
-
Firstly, I'd like to point out that I don't necessarily agree. I think it's both a pretty legal argument and politically convenient, so I quite like it. But nobody knows if it's actually true, because obviously, the Supreme Court.
Imagine a budget that said "borrow one hundred dollars and spend it on X". Okay, president is going to go ahead and do that. Then congress says "don't borrow any money". What? That contradicts itself. That's what the debt ceiling does, according to this argument.
The problem with your argument is that the President has nothing to do with spending the money other than to sign the spending legislation. The argument hinged on section 4 of the 14 amendment which reads in part;
"The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned."
The problem is the next section of the amendment reads, "The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article."
I don't think the Supreme Court rules in the President's favor and gives him the power to override congress and raise the debt ceiling. However you cut it that would give the President to the power to spend money congress did not approve. If congress contradicts itself it is up to congress to sort it out.
-
Repeating yourself does not make an argument stronger or more factual, Fred.
Make an argument, agree with me, or shut up.
Stop being a fucking child.
-
Firstly, I'd like to point out that I don't necessarily agree. I think it's both a pretty legal argument and politically convenient, so I quite like it. But nobody knows if it's actually true, because obviously, the Supreme Court.
Imagine a budget that said "borrow one hundred dollars and spend it on X". Okay, president is going to go ahead and do that. Then congress says "don't borrow any money". What? That contradicts itself. That's what the debt ceiling does, according to this argument.
The problem with your argument is that the President has nothing to do with spending the money other than to sign the spending legislation. The argument hinged on section 4 of the 14 amendment which reads in part;
"The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned."
The problem is the next section of the amendment reads, "The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article."
I don't think the Supreme Court rules in the President's favor and gives him the power to override congress and raise the debt ceiling. However you cut it that would give the President to the power to spend money congress did not approve. If congress contradicts itself it is up to congress to sort it out.
But Congress has already approved the spending! In fact, they've made it mandatory! Now they say don't spend that money, without repealing that earlier law. The law contradicts itself.
-
But Congress has already approved the spending! In fact, they've made it mandatory! Now they say don't spend that money, without repealing that earlier law. The law contradicts itself.
Okay, that does not mean the President has the power to undo this contradiction. Congress still has to sort it out. Sort of like you have to figure it out if you write a bad check.