fate
Yes, but I would not agree that this time in American history is comparable to that one. We are not coming out of WW2. We don't have a massive, booming economy. So, you can't draw precise parallels and prescribe the same tax structure and expect the same results


One can never be entirely precise.

I must say that I laughed when this is posted in another forum right after asking for more precision here...

bbauska wrote:Which is why I posted it as a premise. I will not be doing THAT much data mining due to time constraints.

Please feel free to do it your way...

Well even your way we can pretty easily see that a party that gets 50%+1 votes in the 218 smallest districts, and 0 votes in the rest would be able to get a majority in the House with less than 25% of the national vote.

For the Senate, it's even lower - the smallest 25 states contain less than 16.7% of the population. The 24th contains 1.5% of the population. Assuming that electorates are broadly proportionate to population, less than 20% of the voters are in the smallest 26 states, so less than 10% would be enough.

Sass., I do not mean to sound like I"m mocking you, because I am not, but you just cheered me up immensely. When I read that I am merely "regurgitating Republican propaganda", OMG, I nearly shat myself I laughed so hard. You have my thanks.

We've established that you're gay and that because of this you no longer feel at home in the Republican Party. I didn't say that you were just a shill for the Republicans, just that you were repeating Republican propaganda. They maintain that Obama is at fault for the gridlock in Congress because he refuses to compromise. Take a look at most things posted here by Steve (Dr Fate) and you'll see this point made again and again. The Dems, and most of the 'liberal media' place all of the blame on Republican intransigence. Both arguments are ludicrous of course, there's quite clearly fault on both sides. From my outsiders perspective, and speaking as a man who's broadly centre right in my political outlook (our politics are probably quite similar as it happens), I must say that I see more blame on the Republican side. Both sides are hyper-partisan and actively obstructionist towards the other's agenda, but there's a crucial difference. The difference is the Democrats are largely non-ideological. Yes, they're seen as being the left wing party of America, but they're not really. What they care about is more power for its own sake. This means that the rottenest examples of machine politics tend to come from the Dems (not always, but more often, and particularly at the local level), but at the same time it means that Democratic politicians are less ideologically motivated and far more likely to be willing to compromise their principles in order to cut a deal. Republicans used to be like that too, but over the last maybe 30 years they've increasingly been taken over by insurgent ideologues with a hardline agenda. They've grown to sufficient numbers now that they dominate the workings of the Congressional party, and to make matters worse they face constant pressure from even more extreme primary challengers with backing from mega-rich donors. As the ideologues have grown in numbers so they've started to make use of every trick in the Congressional playbook to try and frustrate the Dems at every turn. This has brought about a reaction and the Congressional Dems have gotten much more actively partisan than they used to be. So both parties are most definitely at fault, but there's only one party that seems like they're committed to these kind of scorched earth political tactics. That's how I see it anyway. I admit that my position as a foreign observer might cause me to miss some of the nuances, but I do think that if the Republicans were to ease off on the gridlock the Dems would rapidly follow suit, whereas if the Dems were to ease off the Reps would just bank all the concessions and double down.

sass

Democratic politicians are less ideologically motivated and far more likely to be willing to compromise their principles in order to cut a deal. Republicans used to be like that too, but over the last maybe 30 years they've increasingly been taken over by insurgent ideologues with a hardline agenda. They've grown to sufficient numbers now that they dominate the workings of the Congressional party, and to make matters worse they face constant pressure from even more extreme primary challengers with backing from mega-rich donors

Pressures that make them irrantional. And irrational people don't comprehend compromise.

Example? Criticism from one of their own follows...

Charles Krauthammer came down hard on the Republican reaction to the crisis of unaccompanied minors crossing the U.S.-Mexico border on Thursday during Fox News' "Special Report."
On Wednesday, House Republicans passed a resolution that would allow House Speaker John Boehner to sue President Obama for overstepping his authority, specifically with regard to the Affordable Care Act. One day later, House Republicans issued a statement on immigration, claiming that "there are numerous steps the president can and should be taking right now, without the need for congressional action, to secure our borders and ensure these children are returned swiftly and safely to their countries."
A frustrated Krauthammer called this kind of flip flop "ridiculous" and "incomprehensible."
"It is, to me, incomprehensible that Republicans aren't getting together on this," he said. "It is ridiculous to sue the president on a Wednesday because he oversteps the law, as he has done a dozen times illegally and unconstitutionally, and then on a Thursday say that he should overstep the law, contradict the law that passed in 2008 and deal with this himself.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/08/0 ... 40979.html

We've established that you're gay and that because of this you no longer feel at home in the Republican Party.

What? Who the hell said I was gay? Point taken.

I understand what you are saying about the Republican propaganda. But it would be ridiculous to think that those in power do not spread misinformation or exaggerations to massage public opinion for them and against their opponents/enemies. Remember when I said that I hear "certain words" I start to get a little skeptical. This comes from half a lifetime (OK, almost a quarter of a lifetime...turned 36 fairly recently) of first, being in a county Republican club, then doing a 179 (one wouldn't call it a 180) politically speaking. During this journey I have learned that politics tends to be in code. I do not carry the pretense of having deciphered it all, like I am Bletchley Park and the political system is one, big Enigma machine (though it acts like a machine sometimes, and it is a rather large enigma, eh?) During this entire time, having walked along the pathways within both realms, I have learned to be skeptical of rather a lot it, believe it or not.

You can make the assertion of my having bought the official GOPropaganda on this issue--my own deciphering machine has its own flaws, and everyone wants to think (s)he's the one person in the room capable of seeing through the bulls*** that everyone else is believing--but the fact of the matter is that there is plenty of Democrap floating around in the bowl at this point. (Forgive the metaphor.)

However, I am glad that you said in your last statement (though I wish you could have broken it up into a few distinct paragraphs to have made it easier to read ) that there is ridiculousness on both sides. A lot of people watching internationally tend to "take sides" in American politics. Usually they take the side of the Democrats for some reason. To me, having done a 179 or not, this is not conclusive proof I should necessarily be voting Democratic. (Is the majority always right? I think it's frequently misguided, one of the inherent flaws in a democratic society; and one must remember that only a fraction of the rest of the World watching the United States and its politics is actually composed of democracies, anyway!)

Still disagree that the Dems are less ideologically motivated. Not the ones I've experienced! Then again, I am in a highly ideologically-motivated sector of society. Which, by the way, is a special interest group, no different at the end of the day than Big Oil [or Big Whatever] as far as lobby groups go--perhaps our "end" is just different?

And of course we know (and obviously you were being sarcastic when you put liberal media in quotation marks) that the American media is not all liberal!

I admit that my position as a foreign observer might cause me to miss some of the nuances, but I do think that if the Republicans were to ease off on the gridlock the Dems would rapidly follow suit, whereas if the Dems were to ease off the Reps would just bank all the concessions and double down.

Well, it's definitely not through lack of intelligence I have to say that. You're obviously all intelligent and interested observers. But yes, I think that those on "the outside" of American politics--I mean that figuratively because no one is really on the "outside" of the politics of the superpower if it's the superpower, right?--tend to miss certain things. It's all too easy a trap to fall into to see the United States through the eyes of one's own country, and perhaps apply to it certain political norms of one's own country which are not valid or relevant in the United States. Americans are often accused of looking at the rest of the World through their own eyes, politically--like "If Iraq were democratic, like us, they'd be happier and less oppressed" for example--and of course we're guilty of that charge...as is everybody else when they look back...not all of them realize it though; and I have to give you kudos for seeing that to that degree.

If either side of the political equation were to ease off, the other would rapidly double down and try to fill the void with their own ideology. Everyone wants to think that only their politics are the benevolent ones, and that the opposition's policies are just horrific, so we must, "for the good of the people", continue to fight for them on their behalf. That's what they all deceive themselves into thinking. It almost creates a bipolar, nuclear brinksmanship state of things. Have you seen the movie Thirteen Days? It's about the Cuban Missile Crisis. One of the more hard-line, rabidly anti-communist generals (might have been Curtis E. LeMay or one of his associates) was talking like, if we don't apply all this pressure to the Soviets, and bring them to the brink, if we look weak in the face of their threat it'll just encourage them. We let them have Cuba, it'll just encourage a nuclear strike on us, and then we'll have to make a pre-emptive strike on the Soviet Union...etc., etc. And so are some American politicians. Like this business of suing the President.

I will say that the Democratic Party is *slightly* more fractured than the Republicans. But the GOP will fracture soon enough, with "traditional" Republicans (whatever than means) vs. Teabaggers--excuse me, Partiers---and believe it or not there are a lot in between. Because of course, you have Blue Dog Democrats still in existence in Congress (though probably very few and their numbers are getting less). I gather, in contrast, there is no such thing as a "Blue Dog Labour M.P." is there?

So who is at fault for the gridlock? I hate to sound like the typically-disgruntled or an "unintelligent" voter, but a lot of the bastards are at fault. Or at least, they are following the bastards who are at fault. And I'm sorry, guys, but both of the parties must take equal blame for this Cold War-style nuclear/political "brinksmanship".

Other people are trying to build fallout shelters, thinking they can "win"; I think the more honest among us should start a "nuclear freeze" movement, of sorts, if you get my drift. For me, I almost wonder if the best defense I have against it, is to be as close as possible to Ground Zero when it goes off that I won't feel anything.

I gather, in contrast, there is no such thing as a "Blue Dog Labour M.P." is there?

Oh, there are. The most obvious example is Tony Blair, although he's no longer in Parliament. There are plenty of Blairites left around though.

Sass: Since we had been speaking of bills & laws, you mentioned before that in the UK very few of what you called private member bills make it to the promised land (e.g., landing on the Queen's desk for Royal Assent). Just as a question offhand: What good does a variety of views within the party do for democracy when there is a party line that the MPs almost always have to vote along? Say what you will about congressional gridlock; what good does an "energetic executive" (as Hamilton put it in The Federalist Papers) do, if individual dissent is being squashed in favor of party unity? The argument [either you or Ricky] brought up for a "strong government with the ability to act" seems to be a double-edged sword where "democratic government" is concerned.

Would that not be an argument in support of Madison's position regarding a "tyranny of the Majority"?

Also: do not forget, Danivon, that in order to win an election for U.S. Senator (since only one at a time will be elected within a given state, never both) or for the House, you only need ONE vote greater than the 2nd place candidate. That might make it below 50%, possibly well below it, and this is why Americans prefer a two-party structure.

hacker

Sass: Since we had been speaking of bills & laws, you mentioned before that in the UK very few of what you called private member bills make it to the promised land (e.g., landing on the Queen's desk for Royal Assent). Just as a question offhand: What good does a variety of views within the party do for democracy when there is a party line that the MPs almost always have to vote along?

In Canada private members bills are the same as the UK i beleive.
You should not judge the efficacy of a parliamentary system by the numbers of bills that pass from private members bills... They are generally private because the proposal comes from a very small minority of members. However, those that ARE resoundingly popular have been passed as bills.

hacker

What good does a variety of views within the party do for democracy when there is a party line that the MPs almost always have to vote along?

The caucus and the cabinet serves as a debating ground within the party. Generally whats agreed upon in cabinet becomes policy if it gets wide support in caucus. Because a leadeer (PM) serves at the pleasure of the party, if a leader finds he cannot earn caucus support he often finds himself gone....
There is democracy within the party, as much as within the parliament.
In parliamentary systems the discipline of discussion and formation of policy is much stricter than in the looser American party systems... at least what has evolved in the US today.

Well I understand that, Ricky (judging the efficacy, etc. by private member bills). It's probably the same here (barring all the other sh*t we've been discussing), nothing really happens unless more than just a few people want it to. Principle of democracy I guess.

In this state there is something analogous, the Maryland Constitution--a 108-page hodgepodge which makes me pity those studying the law--mentions counties that have "home rule" and counties that don't. Counties like ours therefore have to submit what is almost the same thing, like a private member bill, of legislation they need passed just for Carroll County (or whoever). For some reason it all has to be submitted to Annapolis for approval. They're kind of like a private member bill...just private to our county's delegation to the General Assembly (the senators and delegates whose districts overlap the county in question which doesn't have home-rule).

What caucus? I do not remember you or Sass mentioning that. Or maybe you did.

Well, Yes, like I was saying, it's still (from what I know) fairly "loose" discipline in the American system, whatever polarization the country may be going through. Though I strongly suspect America's polarization could be bottom-up as well as top-down.

Even within the one-party state that is Maryland, the majority does break up a bit. I do not know how strong the "discipline" is within the Democratic Party in the State Senate and House of Delegates, but I imagine it isn't that firm: the last time in American history there was a period where there was only one party---following the breakup of the Federalist Party in the 1820s--governing the country, it turned the presidential election of 1824 into a sexy little four-way that had to be resolved by the House of Representatives (fortunately, sort of, Henry Clay's influence as Speaker of the House allowed the same to produce a winner on the first ballot, so there was no repeat of 1800). [That Phun Phact brought to you by...]

I started reading through the first page of this thread and then I realized there was about 16 pages of political dribble, sigh. You Yanks and Europeans and your silly politics. Politics 101. Does not matter whether you vote for Democrats, Republicans, Liberals, Labor, Tories, Monarchists, Anarchists, Fascists, Socialists, Communists and anyone else I may have not covered with that list. At the end of the day, it does not matter who you vote for. Big business and big industry win. The latest Oxfam investigative study has revealed that out of 7.5 billion people on this planet, a mere 85 people control over half of the worlds entire wealth. If you really want to know who is running your country, figure out who those 85 people are, and you'll have a pretty good idea, but let me assure you. It certainly is not your president or prime minister...

Ozzy.

Well there is a good point to that, Ozzie. But we were all discussing how that can be minimized.

Ricky, Danivon and Sassnach seem to believe that it happens mostly in the United States. My worry is how to minimize it. I think people saying it only happens in the United States (the WAY it happens here, at any rate, in such an outright manner) are ignoring that in their countries it's possible that it's going on more behind the scenes. Or maybe I'm wrong. Danivon, Sass., and Rickyp seem to think I'm dead wrong on that. Then again, they may be optimists. Or perhaps I'm being an optimist. Or perhaps it's really the King of Saudi Arabia, the Emir of Kuwait, and the Prime Minister of Iraq (who is really run from Tehran anyway).

Who the hell knows. The only thing I know right now is that, as far as having one's nose in "the trough", that's exactly what I have been dong for the last couple of hours (if you can call a beer tap a "trough") because I, again, didn't have to drive home this time. There was supposed to be a star party tonight, but the weather was crappy so I went out to have a bite to eat and drink myself silly. Which probably accounts for my incoherent statement above. Cheers, mates. <clinks his glass>

P.S. Ozzie was I not just in a game with you GM'd by GM Mike? (SLOTerp)? you were Italy but had to retire? I forget...

If you really want to know who is running your country, figure out who those 85 people are, and you'll have a pretty good idea, but let me assure you. It certainly is not your president or prime minister...

I would agree. Believe it or not you do not go into politics in the United States for the money. That's for corporate "golden parachutes"...THAT is where you make the money: be a shitty CEO and get fired.

Current annual salaries in the federal political system are as follows:
President or Vice-President: $400,000
Senator or Representative: $174,000*
*[no extra compensation for committee attendance, or chair/vice-chairmanship of one; but the Speaker of the House, President Pro Tempore of the Senate, House Majority Leader, House Minority Leader, Senate Majority Leader and Senate Minority leader do get extra; I am unaware how much.]
Cabinet Member and other top administration; not sure
"CJ and the Supremes"; not sure...

In what you all know to be my favourite (not favorite!) Britcom, Yes, Prime Minister, Mrs. Hacker complained that they had to pay rent for the "flat" at No. 10. Is that true? I guess you could include in the president's "compensation" the fact that he is taken care of in a manner befitting his rank as Chief of Police [oops, Chief of State]; ditto to the Vice-President (he, too, gets his own official residence & staff). Poor, poor, CJ & his 8 associate justices must drive their own cars to work, though they do get official parking spaces in the parking garage that no one else may park in or they get towed. Of course our federal lawmakers do get other perquisites I am sure that one must consider "compensation". [Free hookers?] So yeah, by their salaries and compensations alone you can tell our politicians are not the most corrupt people on the planet compared to their corporate brethren, else they would be making more money.

Oh, and I think the word you were looking for is "drivel" not "dribble".

What's the PM and other members of the government, junior ministers, PPS's, and the opposition leader/shadow cabinet get?

BTW: Does the Governor-General do the royal assent thing in Canada, these days? Saw an old photo of KGVI doing it personally in front of a joint session of the Canadian parliament. That had to be pretty damned inconvenient!

JimHackerMP wrote:Well there is a good point to that, Ozzie. But we were all discussing how that can be minimized.

There really is only one way it can be minimized, this is going to sound really messed up to anyone reading this. But to eliminate it you need to eliminate mankind as a species. Sadly but all mankind is corruptible because greed is part of human nature, we always want to indulge and over indulge, we always ... want more. If a man will not give into greed, he can always be turned by other means. So the phrase "Every man has his price" is in fact very true. While those respective traits remain hard wired into our DNA, there is no minimizing it.

Yes I did play in a game with you I believe, I had to resign because I moved to a new city in the far northern tropics of Queensland Australia.

hacker

Ricky, Danivon and Sassnach seem to believe that it happens mostly in the United States

.

To a greater degree.... not mostly. And frankly it matters more because the US matters more than small countries where money isn't as important within countries. Even more than say Germany, where money is far less important in the political system. And where, because of this corporations have had to adapt their methods and are far more cooperative with policy changes.
I'll illustrate this with an important EU trade treaty ... There was a part of a recent EU agreement that allowed corporations to sue governments (The EU) if laws or regulations negatively affected the corporation. When Germany decided to move away from nuclear energy, a Swedish corporation was affected very negatively and they sued the EU.... For billions.
In the trade agreement negotiated recently between Canada and the EU this particular item became a sticking point. Not so much because theEU feared being sued by Canadian businesses, but because the EU will next negotiate with the US. Popular will in most EU nations is that they don't want corporations, particularly US corporations (obvious bias there) to be able to flaunt the will of the people expressed through their laws. They are really worried about runaway coporatism and the Swedish suit (irronically Swedish...) highlighted the problem.
So future trade agreeements will eliminate the ability of corporations to sue for the effects of laws that negatively affect their businessses.... (This is a major part of NAFTA....btw).
The reason that the corporations aren't favored is that political parties get to power without the need for corporations, or even rich people individually, to fund their politcal campaigns.
In the US, corporations money controls the political process to the extent that they can never be ignored...
Here's a discussion of the issue..
https://www.opendemocracy.net/ourkingdo ... ws-may-be-


Hacker

BTW: Does the Governor-General do the royal assent thing in Canada, these days?

Whenever the Queen isn't in the country. Yes.
I think the last thing she signed directly was the patriation of the Constitution in 1982. Madge doesn't spend a lot of time here, and even when she does she isn't doing the Roayl Assent Business.... But the patriation of the Constituion was the final vestige of the "colonial days" and it was an important symbolic act. (Until then, any changes to the constituion had to be rubber stamped in westminster)
And caucuses are the group meetings of the parties. You have them in congress, but in the parliamentary systems they have more importance.
In the US, Congressmen can be punished by their congressional leaders by eliminating important committee memberships or even chairs... Similarly the leaders of the House are elected by their caucuses. However the opportunity to make changes really only happens at the beginning of each congress. Once the leaders are elected and committeee memberships assigned your set for the duration ...(2 years)
However in Canada, at least and I suspect the UK, the caucus is like parliament. Subject to change at any time. So although the PMO in Canada has enormous power (beyond that of any other parliamentary system according to jeffery Simpson) should the caucus ever decide that the leader has to go .... they can do so.
Its one of the dangers of minority governments. A PM is weaker both outside the caucus and in...

You see that currently in the House where a conservative extreme view has eliminated the chance to pass any legislation on the current crisis at the border. The republican's have passed a bill that has no chance of being taken up by the Senate.
Now, they do this for political reasons within the party only. It actually hurts their political chances in the next mid term (overall chances, in their individual districts it may well help). Moreover it highlights an enormous hypocrisy. The border situation with illegals minors they characterize as a crisis. But they are unwilling to present the Senate a bill that has a chance of passing because they cannot be seen to compromise...... making them vulnerable to their own reelection in their local district....
And nothing gets done. Despite there being a crisis.
I haven't seen many examples of this inability to act in Canadian or European politics.... Usually there is eventually room for compromise...