What would happen if nobody could settle on a candidate and Boehner didn't feel like staying on anymore? No Speaker? I mean I realize I guess that this is a crazy thing that couldn't happen, but we're here already.
No speaker means effectively no house and thus no budget, laws or damn near government.
Marty: The future, it's where you're going? Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
It's taken a remarkably long and dedicated effort even for elected anarchists to bring the system to the edge, and it's still not over the edge. The US system can take something like 20% of its legislators actively trying to dismantle it. I'd say that's pretty good.
Given the productivity of the last couple of congresses, I'm not sure we'd notice a difference. Other than fewer Obamacare repeals being sent to die in the senate.
I can't imagine how we could bring back earmarks though. Can you imagine the invective that would hurled at someone who proposed bring back pork and bacon?
It would have to be brought back sort of gradually and sideways. While definitely not being called earmarks. Like other kinds of bribes to politicians have become gradually legal, provided you don't actually call them bribes.
Given the productivity of the last couple of congresses, I'm not sure we'd notice a difference. Other than fewer Obamacare repeals being sent to die in the senate.
The government would totally shut down, which was terrible the last time, and we'd actually default on our loans, which would mean we've smashed the rock that the global economy is built on. That's a hell of a lot worse than the previous brinksmanship.
In a Parliamentary system we would literally just not have a government right now. Aside from the bureaucracy.
In a parliamentary system, Obama would be president because his party had a majority. When the parliamentary party turns against the head of government, the situation is resolved pretty quickly.
I missed it a bit on the last page, but people are talking about earmarks as a tool for political gain, and implying that they no longer exist. When did this happen, and how? To my knowledge, earmarks are still very alive and well.
the house was unable to elect a speaker by majority at least twice in the 1800s; both times, they instead passed a resolution that allowed a speaker to be elected by plurality
a sitting speaker is also empowered to designate a list of pro tempore successors in the event of a vacancy, although I don't think Boehner has done so
it was the smallest on the list but
Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
Given the productivity of the last couple of congresses, I'm not sure we'd notice a difference. Other than fewer Obamacare repeals being sent to die in the senate.
The government would totally shut down, which was terrible the last time, and we'd actually default on our loans, which would mean we've smashed the rock that the global economy is built on. That's a hell of a lot worse than the previous brinksmanship.
well
it's pretty unlikely that the U.S. government would actually default; what would probably happen is the president would direct federal agencies to begin shutting down so that the government could provide for foreign/private debt service. Theoretically everything but payments to the SS trust fund (since it's funded by debt service) could eventually be stopped, but I doubt it would get that far.
it was the smallest on the list but
Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
Yea, I'll be honest, I'd never really realized how much of our functional government was apparently based on earmarks.
It's pretty astounding to me to see so many people pine away for the days of legal bribery. I'm trying really hard not to respond with vicious cynicism but damn guys.
You are not making the progressive wing look good by wishing for the return of that "system".
0
Options
FencingsaxIt is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understandingGNU Terry PratchettRegistered Userregular
Yea, I'll be honest, I'd never really realized how much of our functional government was apparently based on earmarks.
It's pretty astounding to me to see so many people pine away for the days of legal bribery. I'm trying really hard not to respond with vicious cynicism but damn guys.
You are not making the progressive wing look good by wishing for the return of that "system".
Yes, how dare we wish the return of a government that works. You can't compromise and make deals when all sides have nothing to offer.
And also, this sort of shit is basically economic stimulus as it is. It isn't money on a congressperson's pocket. It's a jobs thing here or there to make them more popular, to help them with reelection.
Also, the SCOTUS ruled that as long as you weren't literally handing out sacks with $$$ on them, it's legal, so it's not like the system is pristine now.
Fencingsax on
+13
Options
No-QuarterNothing To FearBut Fear ItselfRegistered Userregular
edited October 2015
Are you saying that ceaseless gridlock and fiscal hostage-taking from a lunatic fringe is better?
EDIT: Also bribery, what the hell do you think CU is?
Yea, I'll be honest, I'd never really realized how much of our functional government was apparently based on earmarks.
It's pretty astounding to me to see so many people pine away for the days of legal bribery. I'm trying really hard not to respond with vicious cynicism but damn guys.
You are not making the progressive wing look good by wishing for the return of that "system".
:rotate:
for all the grief earmarks got from conservatives, they actually served a useful purpose. Not every minor expenditure really needs full legislative consideration, especially when we're talking about funds that were already appropriated. The vast majority of earmarks were not really problematic at all.
it also turns out that so-called 'honest graft' was a really important part of the negotiating process; is it 'bribery' if one side in a negotiation offers to sweeten the pot a bit?
it was the smallest on the list but
Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
And Congresspeople are supposed to represent their constituents. That's literally what they were elected to do. If one uses an earmark to get a project started in their home district that'll bring money to that area... great? What's the big deal? When they were used they were an infinitesimally small portion of the total budget, and their use actually got things done.
Yea, I'll be honest, I'd never really realized how much of our functional government was apparently based on earmarks.
It's pretty astounding to me to see so many people pine away for the days of legal bribery. I'm trying really hard not to respond with vicious cynicism but damn guys.
You are not making the progressive wing look good by wishing for the return of that "system".
We're pining for the days when your party wasn't 3 trigger pulls deep in the game of Russian Roulette it decided to play with our country. Please don't read anything more into it.
wazilla on
Psn:wazukki
+9
Options
No-QuarterNothing To FearBut Fear ItselfRegistered Userregular
And Congresspeople are supposed to represent their constituents. That's literally what they were elected to do. If one uses an earmark to get a project started in their home district that'll bring money to that area... great? What's the big deal? When they were used they were an infinitesimally small portion of the total budget, and their use actually got things done.
Some people are so short-sighted they go apoplectic when they believe that someone else might be benefiting from their money while being utterly clueless to the advantages the system gives them.
Are you saying that ceaseless gridlock and fiscal hostage-taking from a lunatic fringe is better?
I don't think a lot of bills necessarily = a good Congress. I don't have a problem with obstructing much of the president's legislative agenda. Debt showdowns are asinine, but I don't want to go back to running things by allowing members to use the Treasury as their personal election fund / legacy creation engine.
Are you saying that ceaseless gridlock and fiscal hostage-taking from a lunatic fringe is better?
I don't think a lot of bills necessarily = a good Congress.
Granted, but very few bills necessarily equals a bad Congress, because running the country is complicated, and for the past year it's been done shittily.
I don't have a problem with obstructing much of the president's legislative agenda.
Barring the votes in Congress to be able to do so, however, the government should function.
Debt showdowns are asinine,
There we agree.
but I don't want to go back to running things by allowing members to use the Treasury as their personal election fund / legacy creation engine.
Yea, I'll be honest, I'd never really realized how much of our functional government was apparently based on earmarks.
It's pretty astounding to me to see so many people pine away for the days of legal bribery. I'm trying really hard not to respond with vicious cynicism but damn guys.
You are not making the progressive wing look good by wishing for the return of that "system".
Yes, how dare we wish the return of a government that works. You can't compromise and make deals when all sides have nothing to offer.
And also, this sort of shit is basically economic stimulus as it is. It isn't money on a congressperson's pocket. It's a jobs thing here or there to make them more popular, to help them with reelection.
Also, the SCOTUS ruled that as long as you weren't literally handing out sacks with $$$ on them, it's legal, so it's not like the system is pristine now.
When a politician can't go back to his constituents after voting on (corporate tax cuts/welfare reform/planned parenthood funding) and say well I did do that, but I tempered the bill in *blank* way and oh look we have a new, less collapse prone bridge being built because of it... well apparently things just break down.
Like pork barrel spending is just one of those things that everyone, myself included used to think is bullshit but removing it apparently removed the last vestiges of pragmatism from Congress. Unintended consequences and all that.
RedTide#1907 on Battle.net
Come Overwatch with meeeee
Hah OK guys. That is definitely an opinion you guys have!
I am unsurprised to learn it, but kudos for just putting it right out front like that.
If the options are "bribes" or "the country almost collapses every year or two", I'll suck it up and go for bribes. I mean, I could hope that they wouldn't be necessary for representatives to do their damn jobs, but apparently they are.
It's almost like voters don't really care about national bills as lon as the home state bacon keeps flowing
Marty: The future, it's where you're going? Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
earmarks aren't even bribes! The funds are already appropriated; an earmark is just congress directing (a tiny part of) the spending rather than delegating that authority to the executive branch or to a particular state government.
there's nothing actually wrong or even problematic about so-called 'pork barrel spending'; it's just a convenient thing to rail against because most people have no idea what the actual process is that's being talked about
it was the smallest on the list but
Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
The "problem" with earmarks that leads to the whole "bribes, corruption!" angle is this:
1. Leadership wants to pass a bill but doesn't have the votes locked up
2. Some congresscritter, in exchange for his vote, gets a line item added to the bill earmarking $5 million for road construction in his district
3. The private contractor who ends up getting paid with that $5 million cuts the critter a check for his reelection campaign
Can you spot the corruption?
Hint: it's not #2
First they came for the Muslims, and we said NOT TODAY, MOTHERFUCKERS
The "problem" with earmarks that leads to the whole "bribes, corruption!" angle is this:
1. Leadership wants to pass a bill but doesn't have the votes locked up
2. Some congresscritter, in exchange for his vote, gets a line item added to the bill earmarking $5 million for road construction in his district
3. The private contractor who ends up getting paid with that $5 million cuts the critter a check for his reelection campaign
Can you spot the corruption?
Hint: it's not #2
This is slander.
Buying congresscritters is glorious free speech not bribery.
The Supreme Court said so and therefore it is true.
The "problem" with earmarks that leads to the whole "bribes, corruption!" angle is this:
1. Leadership wants to pass a bill but doesn't have the votes locked up
2. Some congresscritter, in exchange for his vote, gets a line item added to the bill earmarking $5 million for road construction in his district
3. The private contractor who ends up getting paid with that $5 million cuts the critter a check for his reelection campaign
Can you spot the corruption?
Hint: it's not #2
Or, more frequently, 2. Some congresscritter, in exchange for her vote, gets a line item added to the bill earmarking $455,000 for a children's hospital in her district.
3. The congresscritter is the featured speaker at the hospital's $2k a plate fundraiser the next month, with plenty of press on hand.
The "problem" with earmarks that leads to the whole "bribes, corruption!" angle is this:
1. Leadership wants to pass a bill but doesn't have the votes locked up
2. Some congresscritter, in exchange for his vote, gets a line item added to the bill earmarking $5 million for road construction in his district
3. The private contractor who ends up getting paid with that $5 million cuts the critter a check for his reelection campaign
Can you spot the corruption?
Hint: it's not #2
Or, more frequently, 2. Some congresscritter, in exchange for her vote, gets a line item added to the bill earmarking $455,000 for a children's hospital in her district.
3. The congresscritter is the featured speaker at the hospital's $2k a plate fundraiser the next month, with plenty of press on hand.
Clearly those sick kids need to be brought up on RICO charges.
First they came for the Muslims, and we said NOT TODAY, MOTHERFUCKERS
Yea, I'll be honest, I'd never really realized how much of our functional government was apparently based on earmarks.
It's pretty astounding to me to see so many people pine away for the days of legal bribery. I'm trying really hard not to respond with vicious cynicism but damn guys.
You are not making the progressive wing look good by wishing for the return of that "system".
I consider earmarks to be a useful check on the Executive/civil service and formula funding when used appropriately. When used inappropriately then they are terrible. But the same can be said about literally every aspect of governance. I'm glad eminent domain gave me a faster commute. I hate that it put a coal plant across from my dad's desk and let ComEd give out higher dividends in the process. Should we eliminate eminent domain because of how it has been abused? Or should we retain it and put stronger ethics requirements on its use? The same for earmarks.
But, again, the issues that the House is facing (and Senate to a lesser extent) has very little to nothing to do with earmarks. The problem is a fractured majority that cannot control enough of its members to effectively govern on its own. 'Giving' those 40 guys in the caucus a new bridge or something isn't going to change their minds about the list of demands that they want to have happen. It's just not. They want to run the House regardless of how many votes they have. Even though that is not how democracy works. That is the problem. Earmarks don't address it.
Yea, I'll be honest, I'd never really realized how much of our functional government was apparently based on earmarks.
It's pretty astounding to me to see so many people pine away for the days of legal bribery.
You're defining legal bribery as a rep getting something they want out of a deal.
Compromise means both parties get something out of a deal.
Therefore you've defined compromise as inherently bribery.
This is goosiest thing you could have written.
I mean, yes, if we just redefine things so that they mean something else then logically that makes an argument winning claim. But do we really want to potato cask petunias?
Yea, I'll be honest, I'd never really realized how much of our functional government was apparently based on earmarks.
It's pretty astounding to me to see so many people pine away for the days of legal bribery.
You're defining legal bribery as a rep getting something they want out of a deal.
Compromise means both parties get something out of a deal.
Therefore you've defined compromise as inherently bribery.
This is goosiest thing you could have written.
I mean, yes, if we just redefine things so that they mean something else then logically that makes an argument winning claim. But do we really want to potato cask petunias?
Can you explain how this doesn't follow from what spool wrote? I see this as an accurate descriptor of his opinion.
Posts
No speaker means effectively no house and thus no budget, laws or damn near government.
Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
In a Parliamentary system we would literally just not have a government right now. Aside from the bureaucracy.
It's taken a remarkably long and dedicated effort even for elected anarchists to bring the system to the edge, and it's still not over the edge. The US system can take something like 20% of its legislators actively trying to dismantle it. I'd say that's pretty good.
I doubt the founders planned on this many suicidal madmen being elected to office.
The government would totally shut down, which was terrible the last time, and we'd actually default on our loans, which would mean we've smashed the rock that the global economy is built on. That's a hell of a lot worse than the previous brinksmanship.
In a parliamentary system, Obama would be president because his party had a majority. When the parliamentary party turns against the head of government, the situation is resolved pretty quickly.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Margaret_Thatcher#Challenges_to_leadership_and_resignation
a sitting speaker is also empowered to designate a list of pro tempore successors in the event of a vacancy, although I don't think Boehner has done so
Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
In a parlimentary system we'd have a coalition government and the crazies would have very little power.
well
it's pretty unlikely that the U.S. government would actually default; what would probably happen is the president would direct federal agencies to begin shutting down so that the government could provide for foreign/private debt service. Theoretically everything but payments to the SS trust fund (since it's funded by debt service) could eventually be stopped, but I doubt it would get that far.
Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
It's pretty astounding to me to see so many people pine away for the days of legal bribery. I'm trying really hard not to respond with vicious cynicism but damn guys.
You are not making the progressive wing look good by wishing for the return of that "system".
Yes, how dare we wish the return of a government that works. You can't compromise and make deals when all sides have nothing to offer.
And also, this sort of shit is basically economic stimulus as it is. It isn't money on a congressperson's pocket. It's a jobs thing here or there to make them more popular, to help them with reelection.
Also, the SCOTUS ruled that as long as you weren't literally handing out sacks with $$$ on them, it's legal, so it's not like the system is pristine now.
EDIT: Also bribery, what the hell do you think CU is?
:rotate:
for all the grief earmarks got from conservatives, they actually served a useful purpose. Not every minor expenditure really needs full legislative consideration, especially when we're talking about funds that were already appropriated. The vast majority of earmarks were not really problematic at all.
it also turns out that so-called 'honest graft' was a really important part of the negotiating process; is it 'bribery' if one side in a negotiation offers to sweeten the pot a bit?
Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
We're pining for the days when your party wasn't 3 trigger pulls deep in the game of Russian Roulette it decided to play with our country. Please don't read anything more into it.
Because fuck yours, got mine
Or variants of this:
Some people are so short-sighted they go apoplectic when they believe that someone else might be benefiting from their money while being utterly clueless to the advantages the system gives them.
Today for you, tomorrow for me
Spend that shit and get on with the process of governance!
I don't think a lot of bills necessarily = a good Congress. I don't have a problem with obstructing much of the president's legislative agenda. Debt showdowns are asinine, but I don't want to go back to running things by allowing members to use the Treasury as their personal election fund / legacy creation engine.
I am unsurprised to learn it, but kudos for just putting it right out front like that.
Barring the votes in Congress to be able to do so, however, the government should function. There we agree. Fine by me, because that's not what earmarks are.
Election threads, but yeah this is too close to the bone. *smokebomb*
When a politician can't go back to his constituents after voting on (corporate tax cuts/welfare reform/planned parenthood funding) and say well I did do that, but I tempered the bill in *blank* way and oh look we have a new, less collapse prone bridge being built because of it... well apparently things just break down.
Like pork barrel spending is just one of those things that everyone, myself included used to think is bullshit but removing it apparently removed the last vestiges of pragmatism from Congress. Unintended consequences and all that.
Come Overwatch with meeeee
If the options are "bribes" or "the country almost collapses every year or two", I'll suck it up and go for bribes. I mean, I could hope that they wouldn't be necessary for representatives to do their damn jobs, but apparently they are.
Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
there's nothing actually wrong or even problematic about so-called 'pork barrel spending'; it's just a convenient thing to rail against because most people have no idea what the actual process is that's being talked about
Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
1. Leadership wants to pass a bill but doesn't have the votes locked up
2. Some congresscritter, in exchange for his vote, gets a line item added to the bill earmarking $5 million for road construction in his district
3. The private contractor who ends up getting paid with that $5 million cuts the critter a check for his reelection campaign
Can you spot the corruption?
This is slander.
Buying congresscritters is glorious free speech not bribery.
The Supreme Court said so and therefore it is true.
Or, more frequently, 2. Some congresscritter, in exchange for her vote, gets a line item added to the bill earmarking $455,000 for a children's hospital in her district.
3. The congresscritter is the featured speaker at the hospital's $2k a plate fundraiser the next month, with plenty of press on hand.
Clearly those sick kids need to be brought up on RICO charges.
I consider earmarks to be a useful check on the Executive/civil service and formula funding when used appropriately. When used inappropriately then they are terrible. But the same can be said about literally every aspect of governance. I'm glad eminent domain gave me a faster commute. I hate that it put a coal plant across from my dad's desk and let ComEd give out higher dividends in the process. Should we eliminate eminent domain because of how it has been abused? Or should we retain it and put stronger ethics requirements on its use? The same for earmarks.
But, again, the issues that the House is facing (and Senate to a lesser extent) has very little to nothing to do with earmarks. The problem is a fractured majority that cannot control enough of its members to effectively govern on its own. 'Giving' those 40 guys in the caucus a new bridge or something isn't going to change their minds about the list of demands that they want to have happen. It's just not. They want to run the House regardless of how many votes they have. Even though that is not how democracy works. That is the problem. Earmarks don't address it.
You're defining legal bribery as a rep getting something they want out of a deal.
Compromise means both parties get something out of a deal.
Therefore you've defined compromise as inherently bribery.
This is why the republican party is going down the tubes.
This is goosiest thing you could have written.
I mean, yes, if we just redefine things so that they mean something else then logically that makes an argument winning claim. But do we really want to potato cask petunias?
Can you explain how this doesn't follow from what spool wrote? I see this as an accurate descriptor of his opinion.