patrick.net

Gridlock was designed into the system intentionally. That is why the founders were against a single legislative body and implemented the bicameral Congress. The founders were specifically against a simple majority rule democracy.

"Had every Athenian citizen been a Socrates, every Athenian assembly would still have been a mob." James Madison in Federalist # 55

Paralithodes says

Gridlock was designed into the system intentionally. That is why the founders were against a single legislative body and implemented the bicameral Congress. The founders were specifically against a simple majority rule democracy.
“Had every Athenian citizen been a Socrates, every Athenian assembly would still have been a mob.” James Madison in Federalist # 55

That being said, when the "conservatives" are in power they basically NEVER roll back all the insane spending increases that "progressives" pass. To make matters worse "conservatives" have brought about some major spending increases as well, for example "war on terror" and Medicare part D.

AdHominem says

Paralithodes says

Gridlock was designed into the system intentionally. That is why the founders were against a single legislative body and implemented the bicameral Congress. The founders were specifically against a simple majority rule democracy.

“Had every Athenian citizen been a Socrates, every Athenian assembly would still have been a mob.” James Madison in Federalist # 55

That being said, when the “conservatives” are in power they basically NEVER roll back all the insane spending increases that “progressives” pass. To make matters worse “conservatives” have brought about some major spending increases as well, for example “war on terror” and Medicare part D.

The GOP (the only conservatives getting elected) have had the mantra of "starve the beast" for years. That's why they only cut taxes, never spending.

Of course, they're too big of pussies to even think about cutting the big three cost centers, because, well, very few americans want to do that.

Until the average american says:

- Cut the military
- Fix social security
- Fix medicare

You won't see any change from any politician. They'll bicker over shit that doesn't matter (earmarks), and shit that matters even less (gay marriage and abortion), but they won't fix the real problems until a true crisis emerges.

AdHominem says

Paralithodes says

Gridlock was designed into the system intentionally. That is why the founders were against a single legislative body and implemented the bicameral Congress. The founders were specifically against a simple majority rule democracy.
“Had every Athenian citizen been a Socrates, every Athenian assembly would still have been a mob.” James Madison in Federalist # 55

That being said, when the “conservatives” are in power they basically NEVER roll back all the insane spending increases that “progressives” pass. To make matters worse “conservatives” have brought about some major spending increases as well, for example “war on terror” and Medicare part D.

I wish this were not true, but unfortunately you are absolutely correct.

Paralithodes says

AdHominem says
Paralithodes says

Gridlock was designed into the system intentionally. That is why the founders were against a single legislative body and implemented the bicameral Congress. The founders were specifically against a simple majority rule democracy.
“Had every Athenian citizen been a Socrates, every Athenian assembly would still have been a mob.” James Madison in Federalist # 55

That being said, when the “conservatives” are in power they basically NEVER roll back all the insane spending increases that “progressives” pass. To make matters worse “conservatives” have brought about some major spending increases as well, for example “war on terror” and Medicare part D.
I wish this were not true, but unfortunately you are absolutely correct.

No--you're wrong. It isn't true. Conservatives are the ones who increase spending. see Reagan, GW Bush. They spend it on guns instead of butter, but they spend it nonetheless.

tatupu70 says

They spend it on guns instead of butter

Medicare Part D was guns instead of butter? Bush 41 did not enact significant cuts to the military following the collapse of the USSR? LOL, next you'll tell us that GWB didn't actually initiate funding for human embryonic stem cell research....

Meanwhile, your sarcasm aside, what do you actually disagree with in that exchange? Don't like it when conservatives defend conservative policymaking, and don't like it when conservatives criticize conservative policymaking? Or is this simply your way of getting beyind partisan BS?

Paralithodes says

Medicare Part D was guns instead of butter? Bush 41 did not enact significant cuts to the military following the collapse of the USSR? LOL, next you’ll tell us that GWB didn’t actually initiate funding for human embryonic stem cell research….
Meanwhile, your sarcasm aside, what do you actually disagree with in that exchange? Don’t like it when conservatives defend conservative policymaking, and don’t like it when conservatives criticize conservative policymaking? Or is this simply your way of getting beyind partisan BS?

I disagree with Ad Homs statement about "insane spending increases that “progressives” pass". I'm tired of reading statements like that taken as fact. Let's look at facts in the future.

And I specifically used Reagan and W. Bush because they were supposedly "conservative" Presidents. HW Bush wasn't ever considered a true conservative. And, yes, you are correct W also threw money away on prescription drugs too.

He presented his statement as a "fact" and not a very strongly held opinion? Sorry, I don't see it that way... I typically interpret "insane" in this type of context as a personal judgment on the behavior in question. Unless the fact that you question is whether progressives have passed spending increases? If you want to stick to facts, how about starting by sticking to facts about how words are used?

Paralithodes says

He presented his statement as a “fact” and not a very strongly held opinion? Sorry, I don’t see it that way… I typically interpret “insane” in this type of context as a personal judgment on the behavior in question. Unless the fact that you question is whether progressives have passed spending increases? If you want to stick to facts, how about starting by sticking to facts about how words are used?

Huh? It was his opinion. But it's an opinion that is easily contradicted by historical data. That's why I said let's stick to facts, so we don't get people posting BS...

Meanwhile, he still made a point to give conservatives very little/no quarter in the same issue, so acknowledge that, give the guy a break, and move on.....

All social programs could legitimately be labeled progressive no matter what label the people who pass them claim for themselves (like a “conservative” passing the biggest social spending increase since FDR). My comment clearly pointed out the hypocrisy of “conservatives” and therefore supported the hypothesis that politics cannot be fixed. (not to be confused with the hypocrisy of a nobel peace prize winner who expands American involvement in an unnecessary foreign war, or the hypocrisy of blaming a previous administration for all our problems and then continuing/expanding the vast majority of the previous administrations policies. Why was Bernanke who fought for the bailouts and under whose watch the crisis culminated reappointed and recommended for such by Obama, unless Obama agrees with what he did under Bush?)

If you weren’t so offending by a perceived attack on your ideology/party you could clearly see that this article and my comments are a criticism of politics and not necessarily party or ideology.