American Politics

[Barbarossa 51]

.

  Edited September 7, 2012 by Barbarossa  

[thesimbug 0]

    

a foreigner learns the us politics.
helps requested.

first, on barbarossa's very first post, not much can i say about quality of candidates nominated to departments.
this foreigner even sees few of them only on television and newspapers, knows them only by name and appearance.
most even i totally never ever see, not even ever hear their names.

what can i say is perhaps this:
~ israel is led by moderate peace-leaning kadima's tzipora livni;
~ palestine is led by moderate peace-leaning fatah's mahmoud abbas;
~ the us is led by moderate peace-loving democrat's barack obama.
the question then is: will these 3 factors lead to nothing?
no free independent state of palestine?
no peaceful mideast with israel and palestine live side by side in harmony?
let time and barry answer this!
hopefully the answer is not too disappointing and tragic!

change to other topics, this foreigner has some really disturbing unsolved questions on the us politics, ladies and gentlemen.
the longer, the wider, and the deeper your answers are, the more helpful they are for this curious foreigner.
and not less important, lecture me in as "earthly" as possible words, please: less technical terms, more popular words.

1. ~ what is "earmark"?
    ~ why is "earmark" important in the us politics?

2. ~ what is "hedge fund"?
    ~ why is "hedge fund" important in economy?

3. on the us' big 3 automakers bailout, democrat is pro, republic is contra.
    while, as far as i know, democrat is pro laborer, republic is pro business.
    ~ why is the pro business republic contradictively contra to the big 3 automakers bailout?
    ~ why is traditionally democrat pro laborer and republic pro business?

indeed, i hope lengthy answers.
and as "earthly" as explainations, please!

thank you a big big bunch for your helpful answers!
i do appreciate your attention!

    

[Aontan 0]

It appears that Clinton will be Obama's Secretary of State now.

Though there won't be an official announcement until after Thanksgiving...

[Duke87 1,070]

Originally posted by: thesimbug

~ what is "earmark"?

~ why is "earmark" important in the us politics? quote>

An earmark is when a specific amount of money in a specific piece of funding legislation is set aside for a specific purpose.

Example: let's say congress passes a bill that allows for $500 million in funding for transportation improvements nationwide. That's all it starts as when first thought up. But by the time the legislation is actually voted on and passed, it's been amended to say that of that $500 million, $3 million set aside is for building a new exit off of an interstate in Arkansas, $20 million is set aside for Chicago to buy new trains for their subway system, $50 million is set aside for Connecticut to rebuild the railroad bridge over the Mianus River, etc. etc. Such that at the end of it all much of the money the bill provided for has been allotted to specific tasks by the federal government and is not up for the taking by states and municipalities for other purposes. All of those special allotments are reffered to as "earmarks". As in, "$3 milion is earmarked for a new exit".

Earmarks are a controversial issue. On any federal funding bill, there will probably be several. Congressmen love them. Many other people hate them unless the earmark is for something they have a personal interest in. Still others hate them no matter what.

The problem is that it gives congress the power to, on the federal level, push specific local projects through. If the feds throw a few million dollars at a project, it's probably going to go through. This generally occurs when a congressman wants something done in their district. A congressman from Michigan will try and get funding for projects in Michigan and thus improves his state and wins votes. Trouble is that that happens at the expense of the other 49 states, since every dollar that's set aside for Michigan to use is a dollar that can't be used elsewhere.

The argument against this is that while it's congress' job to allot that $500 million for transportation improvements, it ought to all be left completely up for grabs so that anyone can go and make their case as to why they should get some of the money - that it's unfair to give some of the money to one thing before anyone else gets a chance at it.

Let's try a more familiar comparison here: let's say you're one of 10 children in a family. Your parents decide they're going to spend a certain amount of money to buy you all christmas presents. But of that money, they decide to spend a quarter of it to buy their little girl a pony before they decide what they're going to get anyone else. They've "earmarked" the money for the pony. If you were that little girl, you'd probably be happy about it. If you were one of the other nine kids, you probably wouldn't be. Hence the issue.

Out of all this also comes the concept of "pork", or "porkbarrel funding" - earmarks for something which isn't really necessary and which probably is not the best use of the money, but looks good and wins votes.

~ what is "hedge fund"?

~ why is "hedge fund" important in economy? quote>

A hedge fund is essentially when you have a private fund that you only allow certain people to invest in (as opposed to a public fun which anyone with the money can invest in). The manager of the fund is also allowed to invest money from it in ways which he would not be if it were a public fund.

Rich people partake in these things all the time. If you're poor, you probably not going be able to since no one will let you.

It's for this reason that a lot of people don't like them: they're a means of making the rich richer. You pretty much have to have alrweady earned wealth to partake in them. Unlike the stock market or a legitimate business, you can't get rich off of them. You can only get richer off of them.

on the us' big 3 automakers bailout, democrat is pro, republic is contra.

 while, as far as i know, democrat is pro laborer, republic is pro business.

~ why is the pro business republic contradictively contra to the big 3 automakers bailout?

~ why is traditionally democrat pro laborer and republic pro business? quote>

The Republican party is pro-business in the sense that it favors letting businesses do as they see fit without the government interfering. This means minimal regulation. But at the same time it also means that the businesses must be independent of the government. The government doesn't tell them what they can or can't do, but at the same time it won't help them out if they get into trouble.

"Pro-business" is perhaps misleading. "Laissez-faire" would be the classic term. Hands off. The government neither supports nor impedes things.

As for why the parties have the positions they do... well, that's a tougher question. There isn't so much a reason why as there is an explanation as to how it's consistent with their political views.

The Republican party is typically economically permissive but socially restrictive, while the Democratic party is typically economically restrictive but socially permissive.

There's a saying that goes "Democrats want to regulate the boardroom, Republicans want to regulate the bedroom".

There's a stereotype that the Republican party is the party of the rich white people while the Democratic party is the party of th working class minorites, but that isn't always true. It is a stereotype after all. Still, more urban and less wealthy areas do tend to lean more democratic than more rural and more affluent areas. Not surprising considering that Republican policies are often good for the rich but bad for the poor, while Democratic policies are good for the poor but bad for the rich. People tend to vote with their pocketbook a lot.

But there are poor republicans and rich democrats - they're just people who are more concerned about the social issues than the economic ones. People who would rather remain poor if it means maintaining the right to own a gun, or people who would rather have their wealth cut into than see sam-sex marriage banned (as examples).

[thesimbug 0]

    

a foreigner learns the us politics.

help requested.

duke87, thanks a lot for your, indeed, lengthy explanation!

that does help me understand the us politics.

but one part of your explanation i still find less enlightening.

explanation for question no. 1 on "earmark" is perfectly clear.

explanation for question no. 3 on the us' big 3 automakers bailout is perfectly clear.

but explanation for question no. 2 on "hedge fund" is, for me, totally hard to understand.

however i want to concentrate on "earmark" first.

Q (all are still about "earmark"):

1. how does earmaker legislator do earmarking?

    why can't other states' legislators inhibit him/her?

2. is earmarking perceived as bad practice by public opinion and political elites?

    if yes, why can't it be stopped up to this day?

3. "soft earmark" is "earmark" found in the text of "congressional committee report".

    what is "congressional committee report"?

4. would you show me the full chain of all earmarking-involving-legislation processes?

    please, with information on in which points of those chains earmarking usually happens!

hopes for replies:

1. please, long, wide, and deep answers.

2. use "earthly" language, please. less technical terms, more popular words.

3. use plain simple english.

guys and girls, i'm waiting for your replies!

thanks a lot for your helps!

i do appreciate them!

    

[confused04 14]

Minnesota still recounting... hundreds collectively sigh as they read EACH and EVERY ballot by HAND. Roughly 3/4 of the 2.9 million ballots cast have been counted, most from outside Hennepin County (Minneapolis) and Ramsey County (St. Paul). Colemans lead had shrunk to less than 120 but is now back up to 198 although there is one important note. Up until Saturday, both Coleman and Franken were challenging ballots and a relatively equal rate but on Monday, Coleman racheted up the challenges which may help him win the spin war which this recount has pretty much turned to. If Coleman challenges enough (mostly legit) ballots, it'll make him look like the winner after the preliminary recount before the challenges are sorted to their respective piles. This would be a PR nightmare for Franken who would THEN look like Gore did in 2000 despite the fact that he could win legitimately after the Coleman challenges are thrown out for being quite frankly frivolous. Franken has requested Coleman to withdraw challenges (again, a spin move). Right now... we are all just wanting a quick resolution although we know its not gonna happen.

[Duke87 1,070]

Okay, let's see what I can do here:

1) Earmarks often get forced onto bills by the congressman who proposes the earmark threatening to vote no on the bill if the earmark is not included. Earmarkers therefore often get their way because people don't want to lose a yes vote and risk the bill not passing. This is not the only way it happens, but from my understanding, it's the most common.

2) By public opinion? Usually, yes, it's considered bad practice. By political elites? Not sure on that one but I do know that Obama has spoken out against excessive earmarking. Whether he'll actually do something about it remains to be seen.

As to why it hasn't stopped despite people not liking it... it's simply part of the way many things in politics are sustained by the system. Just like you can expect that politicians won't always be honest, and you can expect that politicians will try and place blame for problems on their opponents before they attempt to solve them, so can you expect that politicians will earmark. It's just one of those "that's the way it's done around here" type things. You either do it or you accept that you won't be as powerful as the people who do. Politicians are big on power. They tend to choose the former.

3) Okay, well, a congressional committee is a small group of congressmen that handle a specific task or topic. A congressman will first propose a bill to the relevant committee. That committee then discusses it, perhaps makes changes to it, and if they think it's viable, they'll present it to the whole house for discussion and if it still looks good it'll go to a vote.

A congressional committee report is a regular report each committee has to give on what it's been doing/discussing. In these reports, the committee may "recommend" or "endorse" that funding go to a specific purpose. This is "soft earmarking".

4) Um, I think I already sort of discussed this above:

Committee

↓

Committee report  {soft earmarking occurs}

↓

Floor discussion {earmarking occurs}

↓

Vote

↓

repeat discussion and vote in the other house of congress if it passes

↓

send to president's desk if it passes

↓

becomes law if the president signs it, if the president vetoes it, both houses must re-pass it with a 2/3rds majority for it to become law.

That's, short and sweet, how all laws in this country are made, whether they involve funding for things or not. Obviously, if they don't involve funding, there won't be earmarking.

[thesimbug 0]

    

a foreigner learns the us politics.

help requested.

hurraaaaaaaaaay!

after 3 days of waiting, finally comes a reply!

and ... is that you again, duke87?

o, god, what can i say to you, duke87?

you help me really really much!

i can only thank you very very much for all patience you spare to respond my questions!

i highly appreciate your attention!

and, duke87, all of your answers on the last post are perfectly clear for me.

they contribute much to my understanding on the us politics.

once again, thank you, duke87!

but this foreigner has a full big truck of curiousity on the us politics.

and this full big truck of curiousity, of course, needs some place to unload.

so here come other questions:

1. what are the contrast differences between republican party's and democratic party's

    traditional policies on immigration and illegal immigration?

2. ~ is it republican party or democratic party which raises hybrid innovation to the big 3

       automakers as requirement for bailout?

    ~ why is such requirement raised? what is the purpose?

       is this requirement related to the big 3 automakers' "economic health" more or less in

       the same way structural adjustment program (sap) is related to international monetary

       fund (imf) client countries' economic health?

    ~ are there other requirements for bailout raised to the big 3 automakers?

       if there are, what are they and which party does raise them?

    ~ by the way, what energies does a hybrid car consume?

3. ~ what is "hedge fund"?

     ~ why is it important and frequently discussed in the realm of economy?

note on question no. 3:

i'm a man of minimal touch with economy and economics.

duke87 already effortfully tries to explain what "hedge fund" is and i fail to understand it.

read duke87's first post on this thread, please!

for example, duke87 explains that ...

A hedge fund is essentially when you have a private fund that you only allow certain people to invest in (as opposed to a public fun which anyone with the money can invest in).quote>

... and this dumb foreigner starts to question this thing ...

money should be the thing we invest, right?

money should not be the place where we invest something in!

we invest money in some business!

hopes for replies:

1. long, wide, and deep explanations, please!

2. use "earthly" words, please: less technical terms, more popular words!

3. use plain simple english, please!

guys and girls, i'm waiting for your replies!

thanks a lot for your answers!

i do appreciate your attention!

    

[Jasoncw 11,840]

I'll try to answer your questions, but I haven't had time to follow the news lately.  Somebody can correct me if I'm wrong on anything.

1.

I think Democrats are usually more pro-immigration, and are softer on illegal immigration.  Both sides are anti-illegal immigration, and both sides can be pro-immigration.  Sometimes illegal or legal immigration is seen as a moral issue, so sometimes Republicans are against both legal and illegal immigration.  But Americans are usually ok with legal immigration.

2.

There is a good wikipedia article about this.

3. 

I'm not completely sure, but I think this is what it is.  With a hedgefund, a small group of people will get together and decide to "put some of their money into" (which is to say they will "invest in") a hedgefund.  Then, the money in the hedgefund will be invested in something.  But it has a very specific investment strategy which is supposed to be safer than normal investing.

So, people will invest money into a hedgefund (an investment), and then the hedgefund will invest money into other things.  So people will invest in investments.

There's a wikipedia article about it.

[thesimbug 0]

    

a foreigner learns the us politics.

help requested.

jasoncw, thanks a lot for your reply!

that's very helpful for my learning!

jasoncw, your answer for question no. 1 is perfectly clear.

your answer for questions no. 2 is extremely terse, but, let me tell you, it's extremely enlightening!

that's exactly the wikipedia page i'm looking for these days.

all key words i have in mind already i try, but i still fail to find it up to the day you tell me.

unfortunately, the page you show me answers only parts of my questions, not all.

so i'll raise again some questions on no. 2 here.

i least like your answer for questions no. 3, jasoncw.

why do you only reexplain duke87's previous explanation?

i wait for your own whole perspective, jasoncw.

you don't even answer question "why is "hedge fund" important and frequently discussed in the realm of economy?".

while the wikipedia page you show me i already read some weeks ago.

but that's not a page easy to understand by a man of zero touch with study of economics.

it's why i raise these questions.

by the way, i'll leave questions on "hedge fund" temporarily now.

i think i must make some explorations on it first: read it, read that, things like that.

well, jasoncw, once again, thanks a lot for your helpful reply!

Q:

1. is it republican party or democratic party which promotes $25 billion funding to the big 3

    automakers in october 2008 to help them meet new fuel efficiency standards of at least

    35 miles per gallon by 2020 for vehicles they produce?

2. what energies does a hybrid car consume?

note on question no. 2:

i already read "hybrid vehicle" page on wikipedia, but it's too general.

what i ask you is what energies hybrid cars which you most commonly find in the your country, the us, consume.

guys and girls, i'm waiting for your replies!

thank you very much for the answers you send!

    

[Boggy1 45]

And Obama has now appointed most of his 'Cabinet' (I'm not sure what the Americans call it), and Hillary is Sectary of State! yay!

It's great, as there will be a President who will be surrounded by people who shall disagree and criticise him.

[Meg 368]

Originally posted by: Boggy1

 And Obama has now appointed most of his 'Cabinet' (I'm not sure what the Americans call it), . . .quote>

Yes, it's called the Cabinet.

and Hillary is Sectary of State! yay! quote>

I am less than thrilled with this and wish she didn't look so smug about it.   I suspect that folks overseas will be happier with this choice than many people here are.   It will be interesting to see how the confirmation hearing goes.

It's great, as there will be a President who will be surrounded by people who shall disagree and criticise him.quote>

I agree this is important.   One of the many problems with Bush is no one around him seemed willing to do this.

This was quite obvious one day when he wanted to surprise the President of Mexico who was visiting the White House.  So he set off fireworks over Washington, DC.  At midnight on a Tuesday night.  Without warning anyone.  

People were, to put it mildly, less than happy.  He was confused as to what the problem was.   It had to be explained to him that he just woke up a half a million people with sudden, unexpected explosions.   It never occurred to him that would be a problem and no one around him had been willing to tell him.

[DocRorlach 25]

I wondered when this topic would crop up. It appears that the euphoria that G.W.Bush will be gone soon remains high enough to ensure a certain blindness towards Master Obama. The honeymoon is about to begin and may well last a wee bit longer than usually.

What tends to be forgotten is that voters had to choose the lesser of two evils: John McCain - a G.W. Bush with brains - versus Barrack Obama, an inexperienced novice and - in my opinion - a dangerous idealist who knows nothing about Realpolitik.

What is already being overlooked is that that very man bowed to his adviser and thus kept William Gates, a dangerous hawk, as the chief of the Pentagon. Hillary Clinton, as Secretary of State, will not be able to nullify Mr. Gates ambition to "win" in Iraq and Afghanistan, regardless of the cost.

This cabinet is being put together for the inauguration; it will probably not last through the first year, when reality, aka, economics, will catch up with the young man about to enter the oval office.

He has, nonetheless, one advantage no other candidate could have brought to the office: the overdose of goodwill from the people and most governments around most of the western hemisphere. If he should squander that, the United States will cease to be as important and influential as it is now. And it can be squandered very easily.

Edit: While the definition of a hedge fund as a fund with restricted access is correct, it is incomplete: a hedge fund, as currently used in particular by institutional investors such as pension funds, is that its composition is largely aimed to hedge against the market variances. The trouble with such funds is that the fund manager has to be excellent at second guessing market trends. Finally, hedge funds tend to be underfinanced and - and this turned the crisis a few notches sharper, they largely are financed with future profits.

[hym 358]

Originally posted by: Boggy1 And Obama has now appointed most of his 'Cabinet' (I'm not sure what the Americans call it), and Hillary is Sectary of State! yay!quote>

I would have rather he picked someone else for the position.  I do wonder a couple of things though:

1) If you're trying to create unity among the American people, why pick a woman that just a few years ago had a near 100% disapproval rating from Republicans, and a 60% disapproval rating from Democratic males.

2) What does Hillary really think of her new post?  It's fairly well known that Hillary wants to be President, and she's been dropping hints of that for the last 16 years.  Additionally, she has a history of rather extreme temper tantrums, to the point that back in Bill's campaigning days, she had to be forcibly removed from a stage or two to keep her from going ballistic in front of the press.

It's great, as there will be a President who will be surrounded by people who shall disagree and criticise him.quote>

Will his advisers disagree?  Sure.  Will they criticize?  Those that aren't afraid of losing their jobs will (the others won't).  Does any of that mean anything if Obama does what he wants to do?  Not really, no.  Obama has his own ideas, and he is suddenly in a position where he can make them happen.  Don't be too quick to think that the power won't go to his head.

[Duke87 1,070]

Originally posted by: thesimbug

is it republican party or democratic party which promotes $25 billion funding to the big 3 automakers in october 2008 to help them meet new fuel efficiency standards of at least 35 miles per gallon by 2020 for vehicles they produce? quote>

Sounds like something the democrats would want. They're the green environmentalist bunch.

Then again, there's always those that dissent from their party. I'm sure there are republicans that favor it and democrats that oppose it. Nothing ever perfectly divides down the party line.

And the minority party still has the power of filibustering* to get their way or at least stall.

what energies does a hybrid car consume? quote>

They take chemical energy and transform it into mechanical energy, with some loss to heat. Just like a normal car.

Okay, that's the answer to what you asked, but I don't think it's what you meant. You probably meant "what fuels does a hybrid car consume?", right?

Well, a hybrid car has a tank you fill with ordinary gasoline just like any other car. The difference is that rather than just having a gasoline engine it also has a nickel-metal-hydride rechargeable battery and an electric engine. When you hit the brakes, rather than that kinetic energy simply being lost as it would be in a conventional car, some of it is recovered and converted to electrical energy to recharge that battery.

Let me try and put it a bit less technically: the faster you're moving, the more energy you have. When you slow down, you lose energy. The key difference between a hybrid car and a normal car is that in a hybrid car some of that energy will be recovered rather than it all being lost. Which makes it more efficient.

It's also why a hybrid has much more benefit in city driving (where you're doing a lot of stopping and starting) than in highway driving (where you're traveling at a more constant speed).

To my knowledge, there's no significant difference between hybrid cars in America and hybrid cars in other countries. All hybrid vehicles, regardless of the make and model, run on the same basic principle.

* anticipating that your next question might be to ask what filibustering is, I'll answer that right now:

When the senate or the house is discussing an issue, whoever is talking at the moment "has the floor". Only they can talk until they're done. This is done to prevent things from breaking down into unorganized arguments. People wait their turn to speak. Only one person speaks at a time.

However, it is possible to abuse this by having someone, when it comes to be their turn, standing up, talking, and continuing to talk ad nauseum, refusing to shut up. Obviously this can get tiring, so it's usually tag teamed. Senator A talks for a while, then hands it off to Senator B, who after a while hands it off to Senator C, who after a while hands it back to senator A, etc.

This is known as "filibustering".

What it does is it serves to give power to the minority. They can filibuster and refuse to yield unless the majority makes some concessions to them.

It also can be used as a stalling tactic. You may not be able to get your way, but you can at least delay progress and be an annoyance, minimizing the amount of things that actually get done, hoping that maybe after the next election your party will have more seats.

When the president nominates someone to a a position as a judge or a cabinet member, the senate has to vote to approve it. Back before the democrats gained a majority in 2006, they were filibustering president Bush's nominations and did so enough that they forced him to withdraw a couple of nominations and try someone else - someone less conservative. Hence the democrats were able to lessen the amount that courts were pushed towards the right wing. It's a common concern that conservative judges will make conservatively biased rulings while liberal judges will make liberally biased rulings - so neither party likes it when the president is from another party and is nominating judges from his wing. The abortion issue in particular is highlighted as a reason many people don't want to see the supreme court go to the right - they recognize that the further right the court goes, the more likely it is that Roe v. Wade (the decision which said women had the right to abortions) will be overturned, and they don't want to see that happen.

[LarksTonguesInAspic 28]

Just 'cause I like to stir the pot once in a while, I'll throw this out there. Apparently there are unsolved issues with Obanana's candidacy. Now someone is making a formal challenge to his eligibility. [link]

Without caustic reactionary fervor, what does the crowd think?

[screamingman12 30]

link broken

Edit, after looking this up, I hope it gets resolved and he can take office in January.

For those who don't know, the debate is whether or not he registered with selective service.

[Duke87 1,070]

Originally posted by: screamingman12

For those who don't know, the debate is whether or not he registered with selective service.quote>

Uh... he was registered to vote, was he not? You can't register to vote if you haven't registered for the draft.

This honestly sounds like a pathetic last ditch attempt to take him down by people who hate him. I doubt there's any real validity to the accusation.

EDIT: Okay, here's a working link.

So they have scans of a document with supposed flaws. Big deal. I know what photoshop is.

Besides, it's some no-name website I've never heard of before. I don't trust it as a reliable source.

The fact that the article opens naming him as "Barack Hussein Obama", as opposed to omitting the middle name as is commonly done by and for most people raises a red flag in my mind of "okay, this is someone with an agenda against Obama".

[zane900 1]

As I see it, Obama has the right ideas, but so many political and commercial forces are set against him. At the moment, corporations essentially rule over America, and while these companies hold so much responsibility, they do not reserve moral or ethical obligations. Here's a guy who honestly isn't all that liberal, but if his political stances grow any more radical, our political and commercial systems will pick him up by an ear, cut him off at the knees, and drop him into a meat grinder.

[Barbarossa 51]

.

  Edited September 7, 2012 by Barbarossa  

[LarksTonguesInAspic 28]

Let's try my original link again here...(edit: didn't work, the target is http://www.wethepeoplefoundation.org/UPDATE/misc2008/ChicagoTribune-ObamaLtr-Nov-2008.pdf. )

The appointment of Clintonistas throughout the new administration doesn't exactly underline the theme of 'change', does it? Good intentions be damned, there is no new wave coming to Washington. NAFTA will go on destroying our economy unmolested, and have company in some of the trade pacts yet unfinalized.

[DocRorlach 25]

While this may only be understood by those who are informed about past British politics, still:

The US of A was in dire need for an American version of a Margret Thatcher type of political animal; what it got instead is a John Major crossed with Tony Blair.

If this would only affect said US of A, it would hardly matter. Unfortunately, it affects the hold world.

I suggest praying to whatever gods you are closest to (Blind Io or Offler sounds about right to me) - because prayers are soon all there is left..

[Barbarossa 51]

.

  Edited September 7, 2012 by Barbarossa  

[DocRorlach 25]

Originally posted by: Barbarossa LOL, you're hilarious!  Discworld is not the real world, and pragmatism is a useful tool for governing.quote>

 

So it seems. Still I would maintain that most of our socalled (and mislabeled) world leaders could learn a thing or three from reading TP's books, since they tend to lambast "humanism" - the art of appearing human - using the artifice of fantasy.

Yes, I agree, we could do with tons of pragmatism in politics; but what we got was a man who appears to me a walking, albeit dorman vulcano: lots of hot air, the occassional bit of smoke. One, however, who could erupt and land this planet into an even bigger mess than even the ineptitude & greed of the current administration.

[Barbarossa 51]

.

  Edited September 7, 2012 by Barbarossa  

[DocRorlach 25]

Of course, everything is open to interpretation. I don't see hot air. I see a careful leader who will tread warily over the next few months in order to follow the repercussions of his actions.quote>

As you said. Being an economist, I look down the road rather than just down the street. Thus, let's agree to disagree - time will tell, she always does..

[confused04 14]

The Filibuster-Proof Dream for the Democrats was shattered this evening has Chambliss demolished Democratic opponent Martin in the Senate runoff in Georgia. The Senate make up currently stands at 56-41-2 and one undecided in the state of Minnesota. Minnesota is still going through the recount as yet even more ballots are found. Currently the unofficial difference between the two campaigns stands at 350+ in favor of the Republican Norm Coleman. However...Coleman has challenged more ballots than Franken and there are still about 100,000 uncounted ballots in Hennepin and Ramsey County. This morning 171 ballots were discovered in Ramsey County that were never included in the initial tally which gave a net increase of 39 for Franken which means that from the 215 initial difference, that has fallen to at LEAST 176. Other than those ballots, no other REAL assumptions can be made about the current vote difference because 6000 ballots have been challenged AND Franken has convinced the Secretary of State to order a re-examination of the absentee ballots to see if any were incorrectly rejected due to clerical errors (which would presumably favor Franken since the metro area disproportionately issued absentee ballots). Right now... this is a true tossup with the % difference standing at 0.006%. Not many races are measured in the thousandths of percents.

[thesimbug 0]

    

a foreigner learns the us politics.

help requested.

o, duke87, that's a long long long long explanation!

that's a very very "earthly" explanation!

perfectly clear!

you even take a peek on my list of future questions.

"filibuster" is technical term really enlisted in my list of questions far before you ever say it.

so you reduce my jobs by answering it, perfectly clearly, even before i ask it to everybody here.

duke87, i really really highly appreciate that!

i appreciate your patience to reply my questions and share your knowledge!

thank you!

and, docrorlach, thank you too for your perspective on "hedge fund"!

that enriches my comprehension on "hedge fund"!

thank you!

guys and girls, my next question is related to the ideology of republican party and democratic party.

based on my knowledge so far, republican party's and democratic party's ideologies are inconsistent.

~ republican party's ideology in economy is liberal i.e. advocates small role of government in

   economy e.g. deregulation, tax cut, no social security net, etc.

   inconsistently, republican party's ideology in social issues is not liberal/conservative e.g. no

   condom spread, no abortion, no gay-lesbian marriage, etc.

~ democratic party's ideology in economy is not liberal/social democratic i.e. advocates big role

   of government in economy e.g. reregulation, tax raising, yes social security net, etc.

   inconsistently, democratic party's ideology in social issues is liberal e.g. yes condom spread,

   yes abortion, yes gay-lesbian marriage, etc.

Q:

1. ~ what are the ideologies of republican party and democratic party respectively?

    ~ which one of them is more liberal?

    ~ is "liberal" label on a politician or political group/party good, bad, or neutral based on

       public opinion?

    ~ why?

    ~ is "socialist" label on a politician or political group/party good, bad, or neutral bad based

       on public opinion?

    ~ why?

2. ~ what is the official national ideology of the us?

    ~ would you show me the legal-constitutional base of that national ideology?

3. (back on "filibuster")

    ~ does "filibuster" only happen in senate and not happen in house of representatives?

    ~ why?

    ~ based on present rule, does a "cloture" need supporting votes from 3/5 of all "duly

       chosen and sworn" (non vacant) legislators regardless however low the number of

       legislators present in the legislation making?

       3/5 of all "duly chosen and sworn" (non vacant) legislators is not the same with 3/5 of

       all legislators present in the legislation making.

4. duke87 previously says:

When the president nominates someone to a a position as a judge or a cabinet member, the senate has to vote to approve it.quote>

    ~ so whenever a president fires a minister and appoints a replacement he/she needs

       senate's approval?

    ~ does he/she need house of representatives' approval?

    ~ does barack obama need senate's and house of representatives' approval for all

       persons he currently chooses as members of his future cabinet?

    ~ when does that decision making on approval (on obama's cabinet members) take place

       in senate and house of representatives?

    ~ would you show me the legal-constitutional regulations which regulate this requirement

       of senate's (and house of representatives'?) approval for president's appoinments of

       cabinet members?

hopes for replies:

1. long, wide, and deep explanations, please!

2. use "earthly" words, please: less technical terms, more popular words!

3. use plain simple english, please!

4. choose questions you can answer, leave the rest for the others!

i'm waiting for your replies, everybody!

thanks so much for your answers!

thanks so much for your attention!

    

[Barbarossa 51]

.

  Edited September 7, 2012 by Barbarossa  

[Duke87 1,070]

Originally posted by: thesimbug

what are the ideologies of republican party and democratic party respectively? quote>

As you said: the Republicans believe in smaller government with lower taxes and fewer regulations on business, but more restrictions on social, or dare I say "moral" issues.

The Democrats believe in larger government with higher taxes and more regulations, but fewer restrictions on social issues.

I can understand where it would seem contradictory for both parties to believe in more control in one area but less control in another, but that's how it works. Not too many people believe in more control in both areas (Statism) or neither area (Libertarianism) in this country.

which one of them is more liberal?quote>

The "liberal" label is always applied to the democrats, while the "conservative" label is always applied to the Republicans. It's not necessarily the best description, but that's how it's done.

And, of course, "liberal" by American standards is not necessarily all that liberal by European standards. We don't have national healthcare and few politicians here actually believe in going to that extreme. We don't have government censorship or restriction on published media (books, movies, video games), and it would, in fact, violate our constitution if we did. Glaring example: some European countries have laws saying you cannot deny that the holocaust ever happened. We do not. The first amendment to our constitution states that:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Emphasis on the part in red. Such a law would be abridging (that is, limiting or placing restriction on) freedom of speech, so no such law could ever stand here.

Most countries don't respect freedom of speech as such an absolute thing that can never under any circumstances be restricted at all.

is "liberal" label on a politician or political group/party good, bad, or neutral based on public opinion? quote>

It depends.

why? quote>

Well, if you the voter are a liberal, it's a good thing. If you the voter are a conservative, it's a bad thing. If you're somewhere in the middle (which a fair portion of the population of this country is), it might not make a difference.

But being labeled "liberal" or "conservative", at least on a national level, will not make or break your campaign. On a local level, it can make a difference since some areas are very liberal while others are very conservative. Generally, rich and rural areas tend to lean conservative while poor and urban areas tend to lean liberal.

is "socialist" label on a politician or political group/party good, bad, or neutral bad based

on public opinion? quote>

This one can be more of a bad thing.

why? quote>

Many americans have trouble separating "socialist" from "communist". Our country was in a cold war aainst the "communist" USSR for decades. So if you get thought of as "socialist", you're inevitably going to get associated with a (former) enemy.

Then again, people may or may not take someone seriously if they try and throw the "socialist" label at a candidate.

what is the official national ideology of the us? quote>

Depends on who you ask. The fact that we're so diverse means there's a fair diversity of opinion.

It's easy enough to say that the US stands for things like "liberty" and "freedom", though.

would you show me the legal-constitutional base of that national ideology? quote>

Well, the Declaration of Independence says:

We hold these truths to be self-evident that all men are created equal, and are endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights, and among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

Of course, as important as it is, the Declaration of Independence does not actually hold any legal weight. You can't use it to defend or attack something in a court of law.

Really, there isn't a single place you can point to support those things, but they're ingrained in our culture. And the fact that the constitutional amendments do a lot of guaranteeing rights of the people and restricting government power but never restrict rights of the people and less often guarantee government power could be seen to support it.

does "filibuster" only happen in senate and not happen in house of representatives? quote>

It can happen in either. But it's more associated with the senate.

why? quote>

The senate is a smaller group (100 members to the house's 435), so it's easier to pull off since you don't need as many people to do it. Also, the senate is considered the more powerful of the two, and senators serve six year terms while representatives only serve two year terms, so they have more power and are more wiling to wield it.

based on present rule, does a "cloture" need supporting votes from 3/5 of all "duly chosen and sworn" (non vacant) legislators regardless however low the number of legislators present in the legislation making? 3/5 of all "duly chosen and sworn" (non vacant) legislators is not the same with 3/5 of all legislators present in the legislation making. quote>

Yes. 60 out of 100 senators are required to override a filibuster regardless of how many of those senators are actualy present.

so whenever a president fires a minister and appoints a replacement he/she needs senate's approval?quote>

Well, we don't call them "ministers", we call them "cabinet members". He can fire a member of his cabinet whenever he wants, but the replacement must be approved by the senate. The position is allowed to remain vacant for as long as necessary for this to occur.

does he/she need house of representatives' approval? quote>

No. Just the Senate.

does barack obama need senate's and house of representatives' approval for all persons he currently chooses as members of his future cabinet?quote>

The senate's approval, yes. The house's, no.

when does that decision making on approval (on obama's cabinet members) take place

in senate and house of representatives?quote>

As soon as the senate gets to it. There's no set date.

would you show me the legal-constitutional regulations which regulate this requirement of senate's (and house of representatives'?) approval for president's appoinments of cabinet members? quote>

Quoting wikipedia:

Article Two of the Constitution provides that the President can require "the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any Subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices."^[1] The Constitution did not then establish the names (or list or limit the number) of Cabinet departments; those details were left to the Congress to determine.

United States Cabinet nominees are chosen from a large pool of potential candidates. One of the few qualification restrictions is set out in Article One of the Constitution: "no person holding any office under the United States, shall be a member of either house during his continuance in office." Accordingly, a sitting member of the United States Congress must resign his or her seat before accepting a Cabinet appointment. Likewise, a governor appointed to a cabinet post must resign as governor. Furthermore, the Emoluments Clause bars any former Congress member from holding any executive office that was created by law while s/he was serving in Congress.