Quit picking on Obama……

[SirJosephPorter]

Gopher, it is easy to pay lip service to constitution, due process of law, elections, people’s will etc. Conservatives are especially good at doing that.

Until it produces the results they don’t like, that is. Then all this talk of constitution, duly elected representatives of people etc., goes out the window. Then protests, teabagging etc. becomes more important than anything else.

Thus, the teabaggers argue that forget that Democrats were elected by people, forget that Republicans got the worst drubbing in a century in 2006 and 2008, those things are not relevant. What is relevant is that these extremists are angry about all the Democratic agenda, so the Democrats must vote against everything they have ever stood for (helping the poor, trying to get affordable health care to all, protecting the environment, pro choice, protecting gays from harassment and beatings, trying to stimulate the economy to prevent the Bush meltdown into morphing into another Great Depression) and must vote the way the teabaggers dictate them to.

The love that teabaggers supposedly show for constitution, elections etc. exists only as long as they get the result they want. Indeed, I read the TownHall blogs sometimes, and there is talk there of armed revolution.

These people are hate mongers who want to subvert the results of the last election, and demand that Democrats vote as the teabagger tell them to vote. Well, I for one am glad that Democratic Senators did not give in to the threats, intimidation and bullying tactics of the teabagging extremists.

To me, these hate mongers are noting more than another Brown Shirts.

 

[ironsides]

Of course you can love the Constitution and hate the result. The Constitution gives you that right, it also gives you the right to change those results at the next election. We also have the idiots who think that just because the results did not go their way that elections were fixed. The Democrats, Republicans and "Tea Baggers" are not trying to change the Constitution, they may not have liked the results of a particular election or vote, but that is why we have political parties and if they don't work for you, you can always try and form a third or fourth party that may. Look at countries with multiple parties, they just limp along, occasionally building a majority thru a coalition, but very rarely accomplish anything. In the U.S. although we all may not like it, political goals get accomplished. Those so called hate mongers are just on the fringes of the Left and Right, usually nobody pays any attention to them.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

. Look at countries with multiple parties, they just limp along, occasionally building a majority thru a coalition, but very rarely accomplish anything. In the U.S. although we all may not like it, political goals get accomplished.

That is not true, ironsides. In a Parliamentary democracy, it is not important now many parties there are, it is important if one party has the majority.

Indeed, if one party has the majority, it can move its agenda very quickly, much more quickly that can be moved in USA. Thus in Canada (and UK for that matter), the PM and the majority party decides what the agenda would be in a caucus. Then they simply implement it by a majority vote in the Parliament.

This is in contrast to the US system, where things move slowly, and many times get bogged down. There is no party discipline, so there is no guarantee that the President’s party will agree to his agenda, even if they have the majority in the House. In Canada, the majority party always agrees with PM’s agenda (because they supported that agenda during the election).

Then in USA there is the filibuster in the Senate, where 60 votes are needed. So I disagree with you there, things move much slower in USA than they do in a Parliamentary democracy, where one party has the majority. How many times have presidents railed against a 'do nothing' Congress?

In the past year, Democrats have been able to accomplish a lot, but that is not typical of your system. Democrats have 60 votes in the senate, and so they can move their agenda forward.

Indeed, there is a special election in Massachusetts for the Senate seat in January. If Democrats lose that seat (rather unlikely), they will lose the filibuster proof majority in the Senate and their agenda will come to a screeching halt.

 

[ironsides]

In the U.S. we have a true majority rule system. If the Democrats lose one seat,as you said they will face having to work for their votes. Right now they can do what they want.

Now more than ever you can see where the (so called) elite retain control over the goverment. The House of Representative consisting of roughly 435 members can be checked or over ruled by the Senate which has 100 members. But legislation still can move much faster than a Parliamentary type goverment, it can also be slowed down a lot more. Really depends if your trying to force something upon your citizens or not.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

In the U.S. we have a true majority rule system. If the Democrats lose one seat,as you said they will face having to work for their votes. Right now they can do what they want.

Now more than ever you can see where the (so called) elite retain control over the goverment. The House of Representative consisting of roughly 435 members can be checked or over ruled by the Senate which has 100 members. But legislation still can move much faster than a Parliamentary type goverment, it can also be slowed down a lot more. Really depends if your trying to force something upon your citizens or not.

Legislation does not move fast in your system, ironsides; it usually needs agreement of both parties before it can be approved in the senate. That is a long and painful process, with no guarantee of success at the end.

In a Parliamentary system, if one party has the majority, consent of other parties is not necessary. Also party loyalty is very strong in a Parliamentary system; it is not strong in your system.

The majority party in a Parliamentary system can move its agenda much faster than they can in your system, where generally the agreement of both parties in required, needing protracted and difficult negotiations.

Indeed, if Democrats did not have 60 Senators (say, they had only 59), most of their agenda would not have moved forward. Health care reform would be dead in its track. Hate crime legislation incorporating gays would not have passed. Two of the major planks which Democrats had run on would have been dead on arrival.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

Ironsides, another big difference is that in a Parliamentary system, they have elections every four years. That means when a PM is elected with a majority, he (and the MPs) is not answerable to the public for four years.

So he can push forth unpleasant, unpopular legislation during the first two years, secure in the knowledge that his majority is not in any immediate danger. After four years well, people have short memories. What he did in the first two years may be forgotten, or it may have beneficial effects, so that while people may have been opposed to it, now they are in favor of it etc.

In your system they have elections every two years (actually they have some elections practically every year; in 2009 they had elections in Virginia and New Jersey). So politicians are afraid to take decisions which may not prove popular with the people. But sometimes it is necessary to enact unpopular legislation. People have short term sight; they don’t look at long term. Sometimes the short term effects of legislation may be unpleasant, but it may be absolutely necessary in the long term. Such legislation cannot be passed in USA; it can readily be passed in Canada or UK (assuming the PM has a majority).

 

[ironsides]

Ironsides, another big difference is that in a Parliamentary system, they have elections every four years. That means when a PM is elected with a majority, he (and the MPs) is not answerable to the public for four years.

So he can push forth unpleasant, unpopular legislation during the first two years, secure in the knowledge that his majority is not in any immediate danger. After four years well, people have short memories. What he did in the first two years may be forgotten, or it may have beneficial effects, so that while people may have been opposed to it, now they are in favor of it etc.

That is exactly a big problem that you could have that we do not. We can correct a wrong a lot quicker.


Your maybe half right about what would be going on if the Senate Dems.only could get 59 votes , the Health bill would still be being debated, but the gays would still have been added to the hate crime legislation. Still trying to figure out why anybody or group (not just gays) are entitled to more protection than anyone else though. The law is the law, anyone breaks it they go to jail.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

That is exactly a big problem that you could have that we do not. We can correct a wrong a lot quicker.

Sometimes it is necessary to pass unpopular, unpleasant legislation for the long term good. But people normally don’t realize that and are likely to throw the politicians out of office before he can see it through and the positive effects of the legislation are realized. That is a disadvantage of having elections every year.

Let me give you an example right here in Ontario. When the current Liberal Premier, McGuinty won the election, the deficit (according to governing conservatives) was 2 billion $. Relying on that figure, McGuinty promised to balance the budget without any tax increase. He figured even if deficit is actually 4 billion $, he can still do it.

After the election, it turned out that Conservatives had heavily cooked the books, the actual deficit was 6 billion $. McGuinty could not see any way to balance the budget without tax increase, he promptly increased taxes.

All Hell broke loose, everybody was criticizing him for breaking election promise right after the election. Even though it was conservatives who cooked the books, they were shamelessly the loudest in criticizing him.

If McGuinty had to face the electorate in one or two years time (as would be the case in USA), he very likely would have lost the election, Conservatives would have won, they would have repealed the tax increase, again racked up a huge deficit, and the whole madness would have continued.

But McGuinty had four years. At the end of four years he was able to balance the budget and people saw that the tax increase was indeed necessary. At the end of four years, he won reelection and got an increased majority.

Under our system, he was able to get rid of the deficit, under your system, he wouldn’t have been able to. Sometimes it is necessary that politicians pass unpopular legislation and they should be given enough time for it to work (or not) before people can judge them. Your system does not have that advantage, in your system, the politician is immediately held accountable.

 

[ironsides]

People do not like tax increases, if a unpopular tax increase occurs (like when medicare increased its coverage a while back) people will argue against it. But the tax went thru, and rarely ever does a tax get repealed, we just get used to it and move on. In a couple of years Americans will be paying over +50% of their taxable income to pay off the debt plus health and education. 10 years from now no one will care, now is the time to change things while we can. Obama has not gotten rid of anything yet, just put us deeper into debt. I am just worried that we or our children will not have the option to wait and see if this works or not. I wish the politician was immediately held accountable for his actions like any corporate executive.

 

[Kreskin]

Obama has done what he had to do. He didn't create the problems, but his choices have been to spend to keep things afloat or do nothing and watch the entire economy collapse. If you want him to let it collapse why not wait and let the house of cards go if it doesn't work. You will end up with the same result anyway.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

. I wish the politician was immediately held accountable for his actions like any corporate executive.

This is where we disagree, ironsides. Many times, the policies implemented are the long term policies, their benefits do not become clear to population at large for a few years. I think politicians must be given enough time to implement their agenda and then people can judge them in an election.

If people are going to veto each and every decision taken by a politician, then it is not a representative democracy any more, it is a mob rule. Most people don’t have the knowledge or the experience to judge if a particular decision is good or bad, except in hindsight. The only fair way is to give the politician enough time to implement his agenda, see the results of it and then pass judgment on the agenda in an election.

Indeed, it happens many times in Parliamentary democracy. At its mid term, the majority government may be intensely unpopular, because it has done many unpleasant but necessary things. Then it all comes together in four years’ time and the government wins reelection.

Mrs. Thatcher came to power shortly after we went to Britain. Two years after they took office, the Tories were intensely unpopular, indeed, they were running third, behind Labour and Liberals. At the end of four years, they easily won the reelection.

In my opinion, it is nonsense to judge a politician right after he implements something, he deserves sufficient time to see if what he has implemented works or not.

As I said before, in Canadian system McGuinty was able to get rid of the deficit, in your system, he won’t have been able to, he would have been defeated long before the tax increases worked, and we would have continued to run astronomical deficits (under Conservatives, who would have repealed the tax increase).

 

[SirJosephPorter]

Obama has done what he had to do. He didn't create the problems, but his choices have been to spend to keep things afloat or do nothing and watch the entire economy collapse. If you want him to let it collapse why not wait and let the house of cards go if it doesn't work. You will end up with the same result anyway.

Quite so, Kreskin, it is just as well that a president has four years, and doesn’t have to face the electorate after tow years.

Even if Republicans win the control of Senate and/or House, they won’t be able to reverse any of the legislation implemented by Obama. Apart from the fact that Democrats can filibuster any attempt to repeal any legislation (health care reform etc.) assuming they lose control of the Senate, Obama can veto any attempts to repeal anything, even if it survives the filibuster.

So Obama has four years to implement his agenda. At the end of four years, people will pass judgment on him, that is as it should be.

However, if Republicans get control of either the House or the Senate, that will mean that Democrats and the President won’t be able to pass any legislation in the last two years, anything they want to pass will be opposed by Republicans. In most cases, they won’t even let it come to vote. Then we are talking of total gridlock in Washington. All the more reason why Democrats should pass as much legislation as possible before next election.

 

[ironsides]

This is where we disagree, ironsides. Many times, the policies implemented are the long term policies, their benefits do not become clear to population at large for a few years. I think politicians must be given enough time to implement their agenda and then people can judge them in an election.

If people are going to veto each and every decision taken by a politician, then it is not a representative democracy any more, it is a mob rule. Most people don’t have the knowledge or the experience to judge if a particular decision is good or bad, except in hindsight. The only fair way is to give the politician enough time to implement his agenda, see the results of it and then pass judgment on the agenda in an election.

Indeed, it happens many times in Parliamentary democracy. At its mid term, the majority government may be intensely unpopular, because it has done many unpleasant but necessary things. Then it all comes together in four years’ time and the government wins reelection.

Mrs. Thatcher came to power shortly after we went to Britain. Two years after they took office, the Tories were intensely unpopular, indeed, they were running third, behind Labour and Liberals. At the end of four years, they easily won the reelection.

In my opinion, it is nonsense to judge a politician right after he implements something, he deserves sufficient time to see if what he has implemented works or not.

As I said before, in Canadian system McGuinty was able to get rid of the deficit, in your system, he won’t have been able to, he would have been defeated long before the tax increases worked, and we would have continued to run astronomical deficits (under Conservatives, who would have repealed the tax increase).

How can anyone justify deficits that will be around for our grandchildren's children? Right now, our politicians showed poor judgment and lack of experience by creating this deficit. The problem's did not need total reinventing, just fixing which would have been much cheaper. For example those 47 million who are uninsured, they just could have been added to Medicare for 500 million. They did not have to reinvent the wheel and create another goverment beaurcracy. AS for jobs created, the only jobs created were some road construction. No major blue collar manufacturing jobs, nothing. That is why some myself included want to see our politicians reshuffled again and replaced with some more qualified to do this job, with the exception of President Obama, we have same old, same old nothing has really changed. Some of those who ran and robbed the country in non federal capacities before are still around and still robbing us. (for example. Tim Geithner ran NY FED, Richard Parsons - Citigroup)

If Canada is deficit free than McGuinty is a miracle worker in this day and age.

 

[ironsides]

Obama has done what he had to do. He didn't create the problems, but his choices have been to spend to keep things afloat or do nothing and watch the entire economy collapse. If you want him to let it collapse why not wait and let the house of cards go if it doesn't work. You will end up with the same result anyway.

No one is blaming Obama for the crisis, at least not me. I believe he is doing what he thinks will correct the problems. But he is wrong and is being guided by the wrong people. Therefore he must be removed at the next election, nobody outside his little ring are going to allow him to change anything now, they are just getting richer. The American people have no new jobs to speak of, banks have recovered and are functioning, but they would have anyway. Fannie Mae which was a prime cause of this collapse is back in business doing the same thing (giving loans to unqualified home buyers again) but now the goverment is guaranteeing them bonds to do it. Yes, Obama and his henchmen must go.

 

[Kreskin]

But it's funny Ironsides, when a good-news economic story comes many will say 'it's not real, it's just the result of the stimulus package..etc'. Republicans are quick to point out that things are actually far worse than they appear. The good numbers are just from excessive spending.

How do you measure how bad things would've been without the spending?

 

[ironsides]

But it's funny Ironsides, when a good-news economic story comes many will say 'it's not real, it's just the result of the stimulus package..etc'. Republicans are quick to point out that things are actually far worse than they appear. The good numbers are just from excessive spending.

How do you measure how bad things would've been without the spending?

I am not sure the average person would have noticed anything. The economy has fallen apart, would have anyway. If any fixing is actually happening, it is the American people who are fixing the problem, not the goverment. As usual the goverment try's to take credits for the positives and blames the negative on others. This money stimulus package what ever they call it comes directly from the people. The goverment is broke and is trying to dip into the individuals funds now. Social Security never had a reserve of funds, the goverment just paid what ever was needed every month to cover all expenses. In answer to your question, I think the private sector would have gotten us out of this recession faster and more efficiently than what is going on now. I am not saying everything would be all fixed now, but further along than it is now.

 

[TenPenny]

Seems to me that there's someone here who keeps harping about Obama and teleprompters. I came across this, and thought it was perfect.

http://www.youtube.com/v/2tJjNVVwRC...xcfcfcf&hl=en_US&feature=player_embedded&fs=1

 

[countryboy]

I am not sure the average person would have noticed anything. The economy has fallen apart, would have anyway. If any fixing is actually happening, it is the American people who are fixing the problem, not the goverment. As usual the goverment try's to take credits for the positives and blames the negative on others. This money stimulus package what ever they call it comes directly from the people. The goverment is broke and is trying to dip into the individuals funds now. Social Security never had a reserve of funds, the goverment just paid what ever was needed every month to cover all expenses. In answer to your question, I think the private sector would have gotten us out of this recession faster and more efficiently than what is going on now. I am not saying everything would be all fixed now, but further along than it is now.

Now that commentary makes sense - common sense - to me! Excellent summary there, Ironsides! Not a hint of left/right crap, just a good, straightforward opinion. I think you are particularly "right on the money" with your opinion about the private sector.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

But it's funny Ironsides, when a good-news economic story comes many will say 'it's not real, it's just the result of the stimulus package..etc'. Republicans are quick to point out that things are actually far worse than they appear. The good numbers are just from excessive spending.

How do you measure how bad things would've been without the spending?

That is politics, Kreskin. I remember during the last year's campaign Republicans were accusing Obama and Democrats of talking down the economy. Now Republicans are talking down the economy because it is in their interest to do so.

I think at the end of the day it will come down to what unemployment does. If unemployment starts going down by November, Democrats will suffer only minimal losses in November. If unemployment shows no sign of going down, they will suffer heavy losses.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

I am not sure the average person would have noticed anything. The economy has fallen apart, would have anyway. If any fixing is actually happening, it is the American people who are fixing the problem, not the goverment. As usual the goverment try's to take credits for the positives and blames the negative on others. This money stimulus package what ever they call it comes directly from the people. The goverment is broke and is trying to dip into the individuals funds now. Social Security never had a reserve of funds, the goverment just paid what ever was needed every month to cover all expenses. In answer to your question, I think the private sector would have gotten us out of this recession faster and more efficiently than what is going on now. I am not saying everything would be all fixed now, but further along than it is now.

Sorry ironsides, but economists do not agree with you, this was not something that private sector would have fixed on its own. Government had to get involved.

Last year after Lehman Brothers went belly up, we were staring in the face of disaster. The credit had completely frozen up, nobody was lending to anybody. If such a large, reputable firm like Lehman Brothers can go belly up, what guarantee is there that anybody would receive their money back?

With no credit flowing, the whole world would have fallen in to the abyss of depression literally in weeks. We would have had another Great Depression within a month or so. The government had to act, had to inject massive amounts of money in the market, so that credit could flow again. That is why Bush proposed a massive stimulus package, and most of the governments in the world (both of the left and the right) followed.

So you are right, private sector would have eventually bailed us out, but not for at least ten years, we would have had unemployment near 25% before any improvement occurred.