|
On September 18 2012 07:46 screamingpalm wrote:Show nested quote +On September 18 2012 07:42 CajunMan wrote:On September 18 2012 07:36 screamingpalm wrote:On September 18 2012 07:25 Praetorial wrote:On September 18 2012 07:23 screamingpalm wrote:On September 18 2012 07:17 Praetorial wrote:
I'm in MA, so we have Brown vs. Warren coming up.
Personally, I favor Brown since he's been an exemplary representative and shown himself to be a committed partisan. I regard myself as a Democrat, but there's a point where we don't need more partisans in Congress.
I absolutely LOVE Elizabeth Warren! I wish we had that kind of excitement in elections over here lol. I wouldn't think twice about supporting her, she is one of the few out there standing up for consumers. I know, I have nothing against her, but honestly Congress needs more centrists, and that ideal is more important, in my opinion, then my personal views. MORE centrists?! I will definately have to agree to disagree there. :D From the left's POV... the Democratic party has been taken over by centrists. The choice for us is whether to try to take the party back or sever from it completely. Also, in American politics, centrist is pretty much right of center compared to the rest of the world. Centrist politics is a big part of what brought us to the current mess we have (Clintonites etc). Elizabeth Warren is one of the few politicians that actually champions consumers and the working class, and not just with rhetoric. I wish I was in a state that had such a meaningful choice. Actually the Democrat party was almost all centralist for a long time and slowly shifted left in this day Jimmy Carter would probably be a Republican. Must be perception, as I would disagree with that- I feel they have shifted right compared with JFK, LBJ, FDR, etc. Hell, Teddy Roosevelt, Nixon, and Eisenhower are probably to the left of modern day Dems. :D
I agree it kind is where you are looking at it from I believe back then they pro were much smaller government (in comparison to current Dems) and much more fiscally conservative. But agree to disagee not what this thread is about lol. <3
|
On September 18 2012 07:58 forgottendreams wrote:Show nested quote +On September 18 2012 07:46 screamingpalm wrote:On September 18 2012 07:42 CajunMan wrote:On September 18 2012 07:36 screamingpalm wrote:On September 18 2012 07:25 Praetorial wrote:On September 18 2012 07:23 screamingpalm wrote:On September 18 2012 07:17 Praetorial wrote:
I'm in MA, so we have Brown vs. Warren coming up.
Personally, I favor Brown since he's been an exemplary representative and shown himself to be a committed partisan. I regard myself as a Democrat, but there's a point where we don't need more partisans in Congress.
I absolutely LOVE Elizabeth Warren! I wish we had that kind of excitement in elections over here lol. I wouldn't think twice about supporting her, she is one of the few out there standing up for consumers. I know, I have nothing against her, but honestly Congress needs more centrists, and that ideal is more important, in my opinion, then my personal views. MORE centrists?! I will definately have to agree to disagree there. :D From the left's POV... the Democratic party has been taken over by centrists. The choice for us is whether to try to take the party back or sever from it completely. Also, in American politics, centrist is pretty much right of center compared to the rest of the world. Centrist politics is a big part of what brought us to the current mess we have (Clintonites etc). Elizabeth Warren is one of the few politicians that actually champions consumers and the working class, and not just with rhetoric. I wish I was in a state that had such a meaningful choice. Actually the Democrat party was almost all centralist for a long time and slowly shifted left in this day Jimmy Carter would probably be a Republican. Must be perception, as I would disagree with that- I feel they have shifted right compared with JFK, LBJ, FDR, etc. Hell, Teddy Roosevelt, Nixon, and Eisenhower are probably to the left of modern day Dems. :D Instead of wandering around in vague perceptions and personal opinions you could always shed some actual light to the process? http://voteview.com/blog/?p=494We need more centrists, polarization and extreme politics is the hipster thing to do these days.
I was a hipster before hipsters were cool!
No, we need change- not more of the same. If you "moderates" want to paint Nader as a loon, for example, then call me bat-shit crazy.
|
We need more centrists because America is centrist.
Let's take abortion as an example. Republicans in Congress are almost completely pro-life, and Democrats in Congress are almost completely pro-choice. But most Americans fall somewhere in between (i.e. no abortion except for cases of rape, divorce, etc.) Without centrists in Congress, it'll just be a boat with two rowers who are pulling in opposite directions without a sense of unity.
|
On September 18 2012 08:05 [UoN]Sentinel wrote:
We need more centrists because America is centrist.
Let's take abortion as an example. Republicans in Congress are almost completely pro-life, and Democrats in Congress are almost completely pro-choice. But most Americans fall somewhere in between (i.e. no abortion except for cases of rape, divorce, etc.) Without centrists in Congress, it'll just be a boat with two rowers who are pulling in opposite directions without a sense of unity.
No abortion is not a centrist position. Most of the western world allows abortions in early to mid-stages of pregnancy.
|
On September 18 2012 08:03 screamingpalm wrote:Show nested quote +On September 18 2012 07:58 forgottendreams wrote:On September 18 2012 07:46 screamingpalm wrote:On September 18 2012 07:42 CajunMan wrote:On September 18 2012 07:36 screamingpalm wrote:On September 18 2012 07:25 Praetorial wrote:On September 18 2012 07:23 screamingpalm wrote:On September 18 2012 07:17 Praetorial wrote:
I'm in MA, so we have Brown vs. Warren coming up.
Personally, I favor Brown since he's been an exemplary representative and shown himself to be a committed partisan. I regard myself as a Democrat, but there's a point where we don't need more partisans in Congress.
I absolutely LOVE Elizabeth Warren! I wish we had that kind of excitement in elections over here lol. I wouldn't think twice about supporting her, she is one of the few out there standing up for consumers. I know, I have nothing against her, but honestly Congress needs more centrists, and that ideal is more important, in my opinion, then my personal views. MORE centrists?! I will definately have to agree to disagree there. :D From the left's POV... the Democratic party has been taken over by centrists. The choice for us is whether to try to take the party back or sever from it completely. Also, in American politics, centrist is pretty much right of center compared to the rest of the world. Centrist politics is a big part of what brought us to the current mess we have (Clintonites etc). Elizabeth Warren is one of the few politicians that actually champions consumers and the working class, and not just with rhetoric. I wish I was in a state that had such a meaningful choice. Actually the Democrat party was almost all centralist for a long time and slowly shifted left in this day Jimmy Carter would probably be a Republican. Must be perception, as I would disagree with that- I feel they have shifted right compared with JFK, LBJ, FDR, etc. Hell, Teddy Roosevelt, Nixon, and Eisenhower are probably to the left of modern day Dems. :D Instead of wandering around in vague perceptions and personal opinions you could always shed some actual light to the process? http://voteview.com/blog/?p=494We need more centrists, polarization and extreme politics is the hipster thing to do these days. I was a hipster before hipsters were cool! No, we need change- not more of the same. If you "moderates" want to paint Nader as a loon, for example, then call me bat-shit crazy.
Well for one Nadar isn't a loon, neither is Gary Johnson, Barr, or Paul and Stein. They're just idealisitic, unrealistic and irrelevant is all.
I agree polarization isn't done yet, but the trend is already slowly dying as we speak. When you can't even get a House to do it's basic job of passing a budget, it might be time to reevaluate polarized politics.
|
On September 18 2012 08:12 BlackPanther wrote:Show nested quote +On September 18 2012 08:05 [UoN]Sentinel wrote:
We need more centrists because America is centrist.
Let's take abortion as an example. Republicans in Congress are almost completely pro-life, and Democrats in Congress are almost completely pro-choice. But most Americans fall somewhere in between (i.e. no abortion except for cases of rape, divorce, etc.) Without centrists in Congress, it'll just be a boat with two rowers who are pulling in opposite directions without a sense of unity. No abortion is not a centrist position. Most of the western world allows abortions in early to mid-stages of pregnancy.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/128036/new-normal-abortion-americans-pro-life.aspx
Looks about 50-50 to me.
|
On September 18 2012 08:05 [UoN]Sentinel wrote:
We need more centrists because America is centrist.
Let's take abortion as an example. Republicans in Congress are almost completely pro-life, and Democrats in Congress are almost completely pro-choice. But most Americans fall somewhere in between (i.e. no abortion except for cases of rape, divorce, etc.) Without centrists in Congress, it'll just be a boat with two rowers who are pulling in opposite directions without a sense of unity.
Most people want single payer healthcare, common sense regulations and ethics reforms, campaign finance reform, and many other progressive policies. Somehow they are painted as "extremist" and irrational by pragmatic centrists. We are told that it is sane and rational to continue with these unsustainable policies of unfettered capitalism. Now THAT is crazy.
|
On September 18 2012 07:56 cLAN.Anax wrote:Show nested quote +On September 18 2012 07:39 Praetorial wrote:
...he's not going to succeed in his bid since McGaskill can capitalize on that with advertising.
Yap. I'm afraid this is true. He'll win the honest ones, but he'll lose everyone else because politically he's a step below McCaskill. Reminds me of Talent.... ;_;
Come on, "He'll win the honest ones" is just a flame fanning statement. Like saying "Mitt Romney stands for the good guys", etc.
|
Absolutely excellent write up Sentinel! I've always said that who we send to Congress actually matters more than the president, but people just enjoy the sort of "personality contest" that is presidential politics, it's simpler to grasp than Congressional politics. Obama didn't single handedly pass Obamacare, it took the approval of Congress first!
Anyway, I think this can be an interesting discussion, though I doubt it will get even a tenth of the posts as the presidential thread. I live in California, which has been a Democrat stronghold for a long time... Barbara Boxer, Nancy Pelosi, Maxine Waters, etc. Ugh, I can't stand most of them, but I don't bother to vote because I don't expect it to make any difference in this state.
|
On September 18 2012 08:14 screamingpalm wrote:Show nested quote +On September 18 2012 08:05 [UoN]Sentinel wrote:
We need more centrists because America is centrist.
Let's take abortion as an example. Republicans in Congress are almost completely pro-life, and Democrats in Congress are almost completely pro-choice. But most Americans fall somewhere in between (i.e. no abortion except for cases of rape, divorce, etc.) Without centrists in Congress, it'll just be a boat with two rowers who are pulling in opposite directions without a sense of unity. Most people want single payer healthcare, common sense regulations and ethics reforms, campaign finance reform, and many other progressive policies. Somehow they are painted as "extremist" and irrational by pragmatic centrists. We are told that it is sane and rational to continue with these unsustainable policies of unfettered capitalism. Now THAT is crazy.
Well not exactly. If everyone in the Congress swallowed their pride and made some logical compromises, we'd already have reform. We can have single-payer health care that is partially run by government and partially run by private enterprise. Such a system would also be centrist because it's a compromise between the two plans of the Democrats and the Republicans.
On September 18 2012 08:20 jdseemoreglass wrote:
Absolutely excellent write up Sentinel! I've always said that who we send to Congress actually matters more than the president, but people just enjoy the sort of "personality contest" that is presidential politics, it's simpler to grasp than Congressional politics. Obama didn't single handedly pass Obamacare, it took the approval of Congress first!
Anyway, I think this can be an interesting discussion, though I doubt it will get even a tenth of the posts as the presidential thread. I live in California, which has been a Democrat stronghold for a long time... Barbara Boxer, Nancy Pelosi, Maxine Waters, etc. Ugh, I can't stand most of them, but I don't bother to vote because I don't expect it to make any difference in this state.
Well I mean anything can happen. Pelosi's pretty deeply rooted in her district for example, but the senators I'd say it's a closer margin. Here in New Jersey we have somewhere close to a 2-1 Dem-to-Rep ratio, and people in the the state ended up siding with Republicans in most cases in the last few years. Although it might be because the Democrats screwed up so badly that there wasn't really a choice.
I'm a little surprised Pelosi's had as little trouble as she has. During election season of 2010, I took a road trip down to Florida and got to watch a shitload of campaign ads for the congressmen of the eastern seaboard. Virtually all of the Republican attack ads mentioned Pelosi in some way. I'd think it would make the numbers at least a bit more even than the 80-15 difference she won with.
|
On September 18 2012 08:15 urashimakt wrote:Show nested quote +On September 18 2012 07:56 cLAN.Anax wrote:On September 18 2012 07:39 Praetorial wrote:
...he's not going to succeed in his bid since McGaskill can capitalize on that with advertising.
Yap. I'm afraid this is true. He'll win the honest ones, but he'll lose everyone else because politically he's a step below McCaskill. Reminds me of Talent.... ;_; Come on, "He'll win the honest ones" is just a flame fanning statement. Like saying "Mitt Romney stands for the good guys", etc.
Erm. I think you're misunderstanding me here, and I didn't help things, lol. I meant, the voters who want an honest conservative who won't sell-out the right when he's elected (I use "when" because he's been a state Representative for a number of years; I'm not saying he's assured the Senatorial spot), rather than the folks who change their vote simply because the other candidate is more charismatic. This holds true for the left as well; you'd rather have someone who says they're liberal, and proves he/she is liberal when in office, instead of quietly passing off as a centrist, like Clinton did.
On September 18 2012 08:32 [UoN]Sentinel wrote:
I'm a little surprised Pelosi's had as little trouble as she has. During election season of 2010, I took a road trip down to Florida and got to watch a shitload of campaign ads for the congressmen of the eastern seaboard. Virtually all of the Republican attack ads mentioned Pelosi in some way. I'd think it would make the numbers at least a bit more even than the 80-15 difference she won with.
Holy junk. People there like her that much? O_O' I knew she had to be a little popular to keep getting reelected term after term, but if the margin is THAT substantial, then... frick. I just...wow. That's unbelievable to me.
|
On September 18 2012 12:06 cLAN.Anax wrote:
Holy junk. People there like her that much? O_O' I knew she had to be a little popular to keep getting reelected term after term, but if the margin is THAT substantial, then... frick. I just...wow. That's unbelievable to me.
Apparently so. She's been rolling high numbers since the day she got elected to the House.
Boehner's been pulling in sixties himself, which is high when you consider the fact that he lives in a notoriously purple state that the Republicans have to endeavor to win every four years.
Also concerning the rock and hard place Congress is in concerning the economy (and confronting the fiscal cliff), they have elected to do nothing.
The Federal Reserve has done its part to jumpstart the U.S. economy but a lack of action by Congress has prevented a recovery, Dallas Fed President Richard Fisher told CNBC.
Richard Fisher, president and chief executive officer of the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas.
Speaking just a few days after the central bank took the unprecedented step of declaring an open-ended quantitative easing initiative, Fisher said he objected to the program but understands why the Open Market Committee acted as it did.
Fisher is a nonvoting FOMC member who has been critical of previous QE programs.
"The efficacy of this program is where we disagree. There are costs and benefits. I argue more on the cost side, others argue on the benefits side," Fisher said on the "Squawk Box" program. "A decision was taken. But instead of hammering the Federal Reserve, point your fingers at Congress."
Specifically, Fisher said business owners are plagued with questions of "what are my taxes going to be, what kind of spending patterns are going to come out of the federal government, how do I deal with this explosion of regulatory morass that we have come out of Washington?"
|
I have a question, in Congress it is rather well known that 50% of congressmen (at least recently) are millionares while 1% of the American public reside in that ratio. Is that not a little strange? http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2011/11/47-of-congress-members-millionaires-a-status-shared-by-only-1-of-americans/
I apologize if this is a bit offtopic I just feel like the meaning of the job has went from getting things done to maintaining your position because it's pretty nice. Also running for congress would take a large portion of cash restricting the position to the wealthy or easily lobbied.
|
On September 19 2012 04:19 NeMeSiS3 wrote:I have a question, in Congress it is rather well known that 50% of congressmen (at least recently) are millionares while 1% of the American public reside in that ratio. Is that not a little strange? http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2011/11/47-of-congress-members-millionaires-a-status-shared-by-only-1-of-americans/I apologize if this is a bit offtopic I just feel like the meaning of the job has went from getting things done to maintaining your position because it's pretty nice. Also running for congress would take a large portion of cash restricting the position to the wealthy or easily lobbied.
This is true, and not restricted to Congress. Oftentimes the presidential election is decided by money as well (because it goes into things like ads and campaigns). It's also self-promoting because the salary of a congressman is usually around $170k, so they make up for it by agreeing to lobbies and other stuff.
|
On September 19 2012 04:19 NeMeSiS3 wrote:I have a question, in Congress it is rather well known that 50% of congressmen (at least recently) are millionares while 1% of the American public reside in that ratio. Is that not a little strange? http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2011/11/47-of-congress-members-millionaires-a-status-shared-by-only-1-of-americans/I apologize if this is a bit offtopic I just feel like the meaning of the job has went from getting things done to maintaining your position because it's pretty nice. Also running for congress would take a large portion of cash restricting the position to the wealthy or easily lobbied.
It's ridiculous if you ask me. We've been lax on reining in our representatives for quite a few decades now, and because of that, they've basically had no popular opposition to do whatever the flip they want, like raise their salaries to needlessly-ostentatious sums. Instead of, you know, important stuff like, balance the f-ing budget, lol.
|
On September 20 2012 01:07 cLAN.Anax wrote:It's ridiculous if you ask me. We've been lax on reining in our representatives for quite a few decades now, and because of that, they've basically had no popular opposition to do whatever the flip they want, like raise their salaries to needlessly-ostentatious sums. Instead of, you know, important stuff like, balance the f-ing budget, lol.
Congressional members really don't get paid all that much. I know $174,000 is a lot for a lot of people, but relative to the private sector a good many of the "rich" people in congress take pay cuts to move into public life. Basically, any time there's a "OMG Congress voted themselves a raise!" type rage in the U.S. it's a cover for the crap we really should be caring about.
Now, what does need to happen is that the voters need to make them do their job of oversight. It seems that it only gets done when the opposition is in power and frankly the legislative branch has been giving away it's constitutionally derived power to the executive for decades now.
I'm a Republican and yes the 2010 round of gerrymandering helped us, but this really needs to stop. That there's really only about 30 seats in play due to how districts are drawn rigs the elections for the two major parties. For example, I'm in the GA 6th (yes, Newt was my congressman when I was in High School) and Tom Price won in 2010 with 99.9% of the vote. We need more seats in play, and more debate not less.
|
On September 20 2012 01:46 ey215 wrote:Show nested quote +On September 20 2012 01:07 cLAN.Anax wrote:On September 19 2012 04:19 NeMeSiS3 wrote:I have a question, in Congress it is rather well known that 50% of congressmen (at least recently) are millionares while 1% of the American public reside in that ratio. Is that not a little strange? http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2011/11/47-of-congress-members-millionaires-a-status-shared-by-only-1-of-americans/I apologize if this is a bit offtopic I just feel like the meaning of the job has went from getting things done to maintaining your position because it's pretty nice. Also running for congress would take a large portion of cash restricting the position to the wealthy or easily lobbied. It's ridiculous if you ask me. We've been lax on reining in our representatives for quite a few decades now, and because of that, they've basically had no popular opposition to do whatever the flip they want, like raise their salaries to needlessly-ostentatious sums. Instead of, you know, important stuff like, balance the f-ing budget, lol. Congressional members really don't get paid all that much. I know $174,000 is a lot for a lot of people, but relative to the private sector a good many of the "rich" people in congress take pay cuts to move into public life. Basically, any time there's a "OMG Congress voted themselves a raise!" type rage in the U.S. it's a cover for the crap we really should be caring about. Now, what does need to happen is that the voters need to make them do their job of oversight. It seems that it only gets done when the opposition is in power and frankly the legislative branch has been giving away it's constitutionally derived power to the executive for decades now. I'm a Republican and yes the 2010 round of gerrymandering helped us, but this really needs to stop. That there's really only about 30 seats in play due to how districts are drawn rigs the elections for the two major parties. For example, I'm in the GA 6th (yes, Newt was my congressman when I was in High School) and Tom Price won in 2010 with 99.9% of the vote. We need more seats in play, and more debate not less.
Yeah, I'd care a lot less about their salary size if they actually did their job. You're right, though, that it's a drop in the bucket to our other major financial difficulties. But the more they argue about what number to raise their income, the less they debate actual issues. That's primarily what bugs me.
|
They'll always find a way to ignore the big issues while finding a way to pull in big numbers.
Arnold Schwarzenegger actually addressed this issue when his State Senate was pretty much doing the same thing. There might be a way to fix this issue, but it'll take a lot of voting power and a lot of time to fix.
Concerning wage increases, I'd actually support it if they passed something like South Korea where lobbying was banned in return.
![[image loading]](http://bawaal.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/arnold-letter-fuck-you.jpg)
|
I don't actually know who my congressmen are yet, but in my defense I only moved to this state three weeks ago!
|
sigh the problem is it takes serious balls (or the metaphorical female equivalent for the honored congressmen of the opposite gender) to do any real reform
for instance debt:
try telling seniors medicare benefits are being cut. try raising the age of retirement or messing with social security. can't really cut defense spending esp with tensions ramping up everywhere and carrying a big stick does help a lot. where do you cut? cut this and seniors gut you, cut that and you get accused of not caring about national security. can't cut education spending either because it bascially is a blip and everyone will cry. ok yea you can cut out some of the fat but its a numbers game for a lot of the government's spending: if you spend less you help less people. its easier to not give things away than to take them back.
and to be quite honest, its not even a cynical view to say it almost doesn't matter who gets elected. ok yes if obama wins (probably) and then the house swings blue, dems get an easier way, but they still don't dare propose serious cuts to spending for instance. no one ever wants to raise taxes: good times, why do we need to? bad times, we can't!
and then for instance campaign finance. the supreme court ruled on citizens united and it did its job: judicial review. it upheld obamacare because it was constitutional just like its constitutional to have superpacs and the like. itd be such a huge fight to get through a constitutional amendment to bar it.
green energy? no one can agree on what to do. its just everyone proposing a different one and shooting all the other ideas down. nuclear energy? unsafe. wind? unsightly and ineffecient. water? unsightly and not practical. solar? costs too much. natural gas? releases toxins. import oil? national security concerns....
to be completely honest what is needed isnt the results of individual elections but a truly charasmatic leader to push forward reforms AND change the public mind to agree with it (i.e. FDR)
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
