What do we have to do for the government to become functional again?

[SteveFromYellowstone]

As the title says, what do we have to do for the government to become functional again? I think it's pretty sad that once rarely used measures are now becoming commonplace practice for the GOP. They filibuster just about every piece of legislation that Democrats support, even if it was originally a Republican idea. I read an article the other day where apparently two GOP senators had come up with a bill that Obama began to support, and because of his support they resfused to vote for their own bill. Now I'm not saying that every single problem we are having right now is directly attributable to the GOP, but the fact that we can't pass routine legislation or actually work towards fixing our problems is. Are we just going to have to accept this political extremism as normal? Are we going to have to have our problems get even worse than they are now? I could accept people blaming Obama for everything (even though our economy is now growing at a steady rate and is creating jobs instead of losing them) if he was actually able to do most of what he set out to do. The minority party was never meant to hold such power. Do we need a change of congressional rules? Will the Republicans start to drift back towards the middle after the baby-boomers die out?I'm really not sure.

What I'm afraid of is that this gridlock is going to make things worse and worse and it will be blamed on Obama and the Democrats. No other president in history has had to deal with such indignant opposition. If Obama said the sky was blue I wouldn't be surprised if the house passed a bill saying it's red and called a press conference to say that he is a liar. Why does the media continue to act like both positions are inherently equal when one position is usually outrageous?

Now I know a lot of people will brush this off as liberal pinko commie dribble, but you have to admit that government wasn't meant to be run like this and it's only going to get worse and worse until someone says enough is enough. What can we do?

[SnyderShrugged]

The best solution would be to strictly limit things the Federal Govt can do to only the enumerated powers. Nothing outside of them. That way, a limited list of items allows a maximum focus on those few things and they can do extremely well with it.

Just my opinion, of course

[SteveFromYellowstone]

The best solution would be to strictly limit things the Federal Govt can do to only the enumerated powers. Nothing outside of them. That way, a limited list of items allows a maximum focus on those few things and they can do extremely well with it.

Just my opinion, of course

I think that's an entirely different subject in itself. I want to know how are we going to get the government functional again with all this unprecedented gridlock in congress. We can't even do things that were routine for the last presidency. The whole debt ceiling thing for example is a bunch of baloney because no one cared about it 5 years ago when we had two wars that we refused to pay for. Someone can say all they want about it being different now because our debt is "out of control" but we all know thats not the real reason. It is because a democratic president is asking for it.

[SnyderShrugged]

I think that's an entirely different subject in itself. I want to know how are we going to get the government functional again with all this unprecedented gridlock in congress. We can't even do things that were routine for the last presidency. The whole debt ceiling thing for example is a bunch of baloney because no one cared about it 5 years ago when we had two wars that we refused to pay for.

I want gridlock, they cant spend money they dont have when they are locked up.

[Larry]

I would say that a big part of the problem is lack on knowledge by the electorate.

This lack of knowledge creates a situation where people can do things, and somebody else gets the blame for it. Where it becomes to a Party's advantage to make the country worse, because hey, the voters will blame somebody else for it.

----------

Now, the problem that I see with that overly glib statement of the problem, though, is that curing it might not be a good idea.

Do we really want, say, for the Senate to change the rules, to make the filibuster harder? Or to make it more public?

I think we all agree that there are some times when obstructionism is a good thing. (We just disagree on which things.)

Maybe what's needed is something like the NFL's rules on "the red flag": Maybe what I think of as the "stealth filibuster" could only be used a certain number of times, per Senator. Say, twice a year per Senator, or some such.

Anything beyond that, and he can still filibuster. But the public knows about it.

I think that the NFL put those limitations on "the red flag", because they wanted to make sure that it only got used when it was really important. If the "bad call" really didn't cost you much, then Coach will decide to ignore it.

Maybe a similar limitation on secret filibusters would have a similar effect: It would only get used on important things.

[LadySkinsFan]

Stop the 2 wars. Bring back troops from friendly countries, cut foreign aid, start rebuilding our infrastructure by hiring the returning soldiers and others out of work, abolish the Bush tax cuts, everyone contributes, step up recycling, quit paying far subsidies unless they are really family owned businesses no more subsidies to megacorporate farmers, invest in putting alternative energy into homes rather than building megaenergy farms that are corporate owned, abolish the income level for Social Security contributions, institute sliding scale premium non-profit single payer public option that is open to all in the US with similar benefits as Congress gets and it's not employer based-get employers out of the insurance business. There's a start.

[pjfootballer]

Ban Lobbyists.

[Kilmer17]

I think that's an entirely different subject in itself. I want to know how are we going to get the government functional again with all this unprecedented gridlock in congress. We can't even do things that were routine for the last presidency. The whole debt ceiling thing for example is a bunch of baloney because no one cared about it 5 years ago when we had two wars that we refused to pay for. Someone can say all they want about it being different now because our debt is "out of control" but we all know thats not the real reason. It is because a democratic president is asking for it.

What specifically was Bush or Clinton able to accomplish that Obama is not? Both of those Presidents ran into obstructions when they veered to far from the middle.

[SteveFromYellowstone]

I would say that a big part of the problem is lack on knowledge by the electorate.

This lack of knowledge creates a situation where people can do things, and somebody else gets the blame for it. Where it becomes to a Party's advantage to make the country worse, because hey, the voters will blame somebody else for it.

----------

Now, the problem that I see with that overly glib statement of the problem, though, is that curing it might not be a good idea.

Do we really want, say, for the Senate to change the rules, to make the filibuster harder? Or to make it more public?

I think we all agree that there are some times when obstructionism is a good thing. (We just disagree on which things.)

Maybe what's needed is something like the NFL's rules on "the red flag": Maybe what I think of as the "stealth filibuster" could only be used a certain number of times, per Senator. Say, twice a year per Senator, or some such.

Anything beyond that, and he can still filibuster. But the public knows about it.

I think that the NFL put those limitations on "the red flag", because they wanted to make sure that it only got used when it was really important. If the "bad call" really didn't cost you much, then Coach will decide to ignore it.

Maybe a similar limitation on secret filibusters would have a similar effect: It would only get used on important things.

Gotta agree with that Larry. I was going to write about the electorate being an issue. I see so many willfully ignorant voters around me who refuse to listen to the other side at all. I don't understand how some people cfould be happy with being angry all the time and ignoring facts?

---------- Post added June-11th-2012 at 12:19 PM ----------

Ban Lobbyists.

I think what we really need to do is ban this absolutely bull**** "corporations are people law". How can ANYONE think that corporations being able to donate unlimited amounts practically anonymously is a good things for politics?

[Larry]

What specifically was Bush or Clinton able to accomplish that Obama is not?

Pass a budget.

Raise the debt ceiling. Without threats to blow up the economy unless a Constitutional Amendment is immediately passed.

[scruffylookin]

Look when one side is obstructionist, bordering on being labeled traitors in my book, you are not going to have an easy solution. When this side's stated position is that they hate government and basically would like to "drown it in a bathtub" well there isn't much room to negotiate with that ilk.

Just have to work that much harder to defeat and marginalize them.

When Obama wins his second term, they will even be worse.

All I have to do is point to Bill Clinton. As bad as they were in his first term, after he shocked them by easily winning a second term, they resorted to trying to impeach him.

I suspect everything is on the table after Obama wins in November for this trash.

Bottom line, until we get a smarter electorate and get smarter people in Congress this is the kind of crap we will see.

But I will say this, as bad as the gridlock is I'll take what Obama has gotten through over the mess created by the rubber stamp Congress of term 1 and a half of Cheney.....I mean Bush between 2001-2006.

[SteveFromYellowstone]

What specifically was Bush or Clinton able to accomplish that Obama is not? Both of those Presidents ran into obstructions when they veered to far from the middle.

Debt ceiling increases. Routine appointments. Hell if Clinton proposed a health care reform law with 90% Republican ideas, it might have gotten passed.

---------- Post added June-11th-2012 at 12:22 PM ----------

I know this might sound bad, but does anyone think that the electorate will get more reasonable once the baby-boomers die out?

[pjfootballer]

I saw something on the news that said when all is said and done with this presidential election, all of them will have spent about 7 billion on campaigning. SEVEN BILLION? Why not use that money to feed some people or lower medical costs or something worthwhile instead of me watching ad after ad on every channel about how the other guy is a moron.

[Larry]

Completely remake society in accordance with my demands

Completely remake society in accordance with my demands

[JMS]

We have to hold our leaders accountable independent of Party. The "horse sense" of the common American must be able to assist us in finding a leader capable of solving our mounting problems.

Nice to Haves would be:

• A state of the art education system like we enjoyed in the 60's and 70's. ( K - University )
  
• A general populous which could follow a complex argument.
  
• A nation which agreed upon what denoted a reputable source of information
  
• Tolerance for the differences amongst our melting pot
  
• End to denograting intelligence as a bad thing
  

[Larry]

I know this might sound bad, but does anyone think that the electorate will get more reasonable once the baby-boomers die out?

No.

(Well, will things be more reasonable, 20 years from now? It could happen. (In theory). Will it be because the baby boomers died out? No.)

[Kilmer17]

Debt ceiling increases. Routine appointments. Hell if Clinton proposed a health care reform law with 90% Republican ideas, it might have gotten passed.

---------- Post added June-11th-2012 at 12:22 PM ----------

I know this might sound bad, but does anyone think that the electorate will get more reasonable once the baby-boomers die out?

I think you are conveniently forgetting the troubles Bush had with some of his appointments. If you want to look at where the modern era of Judicial Nominee attacks began, go back and look at what the Democrats did to Robert Bork and then to Clarence Thomas. Then compare that to how the GOP treated Ginsberg and Breyer.

This isnt a GOP problem.

[Bang]

Burn down the propaganda that serves as news and does nothing but misinform and incite people.

All of it.

Demand truth, the bull**** can't stand up to it.

~Bang

[thebluefood]

"Quotes" from two other posters

This maybe the main problem with our government, and nation, as a whole. Everyone is convinced their way of thinking is what's best for the nation. We can't seem to accept the idea that the other side may have some good points or that the best solution, for now, maybe somewhere in the middle.

[deejaydana]

When the Economist magazine runs a cover story about how grossly over-regulated the United States is compared to other economies you know we've reached a bad spot (this cover story ran about 2 months back). I mean we have a gov't that during a time of dire economic happenings wastes time pursuing Roger Clemens steroids issue and a NY Mayor trying to legislate the size of soda we're allowed to buy. Where is the seriousness? We need to shrink gov't imho.

[twa]

We need the Dems to capitulate or quit blaming others for their failure

lead ,follow,or get out of the way

[SteveFromYellowstone]

When the Economist magazine runs a cover story about how grossly over-regulated the United States is compared to other economies you know we've reached a bad spot (this cover story ran about 2 months back). I mean we have a gov't that during a time of dire economic happenings wastes time pursuing Roger Clemens steroids issue and a NY Mayor trying to legislate the size of soda we're allowed to buy. Where is the seriousness?

You really blame our troubles on over-regulation? Really? The financial crash in 2008 was because of massive DE-regulation.

---------- Post added June-11th-2012 at 12:33 PM ----------

We need the Dems to capitulate or quit blaming others for their failure

lead ,follow,or get out of the way

How can you lead when it IMPOSSIBLE to get anything passed? 60 votes in the senate shouldn't be the norm. It hasn't been the norm until recently.

---------- Post added June-11th-2012 at 12:35 PM ----------

This maybe the main problem with our government, and nation, as a whole. Everyone is convinced their way of thinking is what's best for the nation. We can't seem to accept the idea that the other side may have some good points or that the best solution, for now, maybe somewhere in the middle.

Sure the answer if often somewhere in the middle. Obama has compromised many times on many things and then the line for compromise gets moved further right. The minority party was not meant to run government.

[Larry]

I think you are conveniently forgetting the troubles Bush had with some of his appointments.

Yeah, you're right.

Filibustering 100% of Obama's appointments, for all positions, no matter how routine and low level, and filibustering the confirmation on what, six Bush appointees, in 8 years, are the same thing, and it's all the Democrat's fault.

[SteveFromYellowstone]

I don't care if you're conservative and believe wreckless spending needs to be reigned in, you can't be dumb enough to think the answer to get out of this economic mess is to simply cut, cut, cut (except for defense, even though we spend more than all other miltaries combined), lower taxes for the rich, and deregulate. Government spending is NEEDED to get us back on track. Just about every respected economist agrees with that. Since when has austerity ever gotten us out of a recession?

And I'm getting off track. What can we do to stop this gridlock? What can we do to stop this economic terrorism of the GOP? Opposing Obama on everything is more important to them than helping this country get back on it's feet. I truly believe that even if the GOP knew a bill Obama was supporting would help the country and bring jobs, they would oppose it anyway and say " We refuse to accept this president's misguided policies, blah blah...."

[DjTj]

Gotta agree with that Larry. I was going to write about the electorate being an issue. I see so many willfully ignorant voters around me who refuse to listen to the other side at all. I don't understand how some people cfould be happy with being angry all the time and ignoring facts?

Facts are complicated. And I actually think they are probably too complicated these days. I consider myself well informed on politics, but it is basically impossible to keep up with all of the major issues of the day. Is the typical voter supposed to be following the latest developments in gay marriage, the status of our draw-down in Afghanistan, the economic status of the EU, the crises in various state budgets, the Constitutionality of Obamacare, immigration enforcement, the Keystone pipeline, the Volcker Rule, capital gains taxes, unemployment benefits, student loans, solar energy, NFL concussions, steroid use, affirmative action, teaching evolution in schools, funding science education, etc., etc., etc. ??? And then we are supposed to vote in primary elections and general elections based on the candidates' views on those issues? It's just not possible.

Elections are swayed on the general mood of the country rather than the minutiae of particular issues. And maybe we should try to do something to make things a little more focused on issues. Congress is divided into specific committees, but the voters seemingly have no say in this. Does it make less sense now to have representative democracy based solely on geography? Could we have at-large representatives with limited jurisdiction? In local politics, there are specific boards and committees that deal with particular issues. Would it make sense to do it on a national level?

It feels like our representatives represent their party more than they represent any particular issues. And the voters thus choose their representatives by party more than by issue. So we get a politics of party rather than a politics of issues. There should be structural ways to address this problem.