American Politics

[LexusInfernus 908]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aIMgfBZrrZ8. 

 

Oligarchy much? 

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

Oligarchs come out to play

The ballot box is only a joke, they say.

[Bdub01 201]

O

I would argue that there are three types of voters in the United States:

• Those who vote for the status quo.
• Those who vote against the status quo.
• Those who vote for the status quo by virtue of not voting.

I'm in the third list. Though not by choice. Quite frankly I forgot to register to vote when I moved. Guess I could fly down to TX to vote lol.

[Duke87 1,070]

Republicans have the Senate. This could make the next couple years very interesting indeed.
 
In other news:
- Andrew Cuomo (D) has been reelected as governor of New York, of course
- Dan Malloy (D) has been reelected as governor of Connecticut, in a close race
- Tom Wolf (D) has ousted Tom Corbett (R) as governor of Pennsylvania

[LexusInfernus 908]

Republicans have the Senate. This could make the next couple years very interesting indeed.

 

Hardly. Even less will get done now, at least on the Federal level. Instead power goes back to the local level where in the absence of Washington state legislators will pass all the laws.

 

To bad the people at the state level are not always exactly fit for being in government. John Oliver did a pretty funny segment on that last Sunday. 

[NMUSpidey 3,956]

I watched that segment you posted.  It made me laugh but it also made me want to cry.  I guess at least some people lost their jobs yesterday, but honestly the whole thing needs to be cleaned out from top to bottom, and with someone other than those with either a D or an R next to their name.

[Larks2242 251]

Republicans just had their best election since 1928, So much for being a dead party, we are here to stay!

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

BBC Report.

 

Once all the glee has subsided, will anything get done?  There is still a president with veto powers.

 

This is the time for the Republican party to show their metal and remember Abe Lincoln.

[Ocram's Razr 964]

I voted on Monday. I always vote against incumbents that write or pass laws I dislike.

--Ocram

[Bdub01 201]

Reminds me of '94 and the republican revolution. Now that they have both houses of congress I'd like to see them actually try to run the gov. They can't just throw this opportunity away by bashing Obama anymore. He's going to be out in two years anyway so they need to focus on governing the US. If they continue with the Benghazi scandal and other things that get them nowhere the peeps will remember in '16. So they better not piss this away!!!

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

Reminds me of '94 and the republican revolution. Now that they have both houses of congress I'd like to see them actually try to run the gov. They can't just throw this opportunity away by bashing Obama anymore. He's going to be out in two years anyway so they need to focus on governing the US. If they continue with the Benghazi scandal and other things that get them nowhere the peeps will remember in '16. So they better not piss this away!!!

Very good points.  It is now time for them to put down the TEA cups, and get going.  There is a lot that has gone wrong with America and it needs a real federal government for a change.

[metarvo 711]

Now maybe the Senate won't be deadlocked anymore!  What we've had the last few years isn't compromise, but rather a "my way or the highway" mentality.  The GOP has been given a mandate to actually do something rather than nothing, though, so they had better not blow it.  After all, the next election's always around the corner...

[Odainsaker 2,137]

This election was long predicted to be a bloodbath, and it certainly didn't disappoint!

 

The Republican Wave's first priority will be to swiftly redistrict the new conquests at the local levels before 2016 turns out a larger segment of the electorate and the political map tilts against them.  They didn't spend six years of screeching obstructionism, scorched-earth politics, and blatant fear-mongering openly targeting from the beginning to see Obama fail on all fronts and at any costs just to merely stop here and now.  It's only two years till the next presidential election, and two liberal justices on the Supreme Court are getting very elderly and frail...

 

Of course, government shutdowns are now magically off the table, but the new crop already promises repeals, impeachment hearings, and unending committee investigations until the next election.

 

 

________________________

 

 

On the local stateside, Texas's Proposition 1, the constitution amendment to redirect "certain money" (read:  "Rainy Day funding") to partially patch multi-billion dollar holes in the state's woefully broken transportation infrastructure budget passed overwhelmingly.  Much of that money is expected to spent here in South Texas, where it is promised not to be used on toll roads.  Although both the Republican and Democratic establishment supported it, I voted against this one, not so much because the money and infrastructure maintenance aren't desperately needed, nor is the redirection especially crippling to the Rainy Day Fund, but because the need for the proposition is a symptom of the broken budget politics in Austin:  Texas politicians still cannot come up with a sane way to fully fund our state education system, leading them ask voters to raid transportation funds, subsequently creating huge shortfalls for our twenty-year neglected infrastructure, leading them now to ask voters to syphon off Rainy Day funds, which in turn we do not use in preference for demands of Federal aid, unless it's from Obama, who we accuse of stealing our Social Security and Medicare while giving us death panels and Ebola...  In the end, we weren't going to change Texas politics, so we'll accept the redirected money, and see if Austin can somehow still plug the remaining 75% budget shortfall.

 

Thankfully, the local anti-rail petition to amend San Antonio's City Charter to effectively permanently bar streetcar and light rail systems was left off this ballot.  The initial petition was found to be short on the signature threshold, and its legal wording was additionally found to be in violation of Texas law.  However, a revised petition will be added instead to the ballot next year in May during local mayoral and city council elections, which would be less wildly skewed by any nationwide political uprising.  The charter changing petition may yet succeed, foolishly turning policy questions into permanent charter and constitutional amendments, but I would rather its fate be decided on an honest city vote rather than be pulled along by this midterm's pitchfork wave.  Still, our suburban and rural state legislators are demanding that local rail mass transit funding pools also be raided to cover the state's highway costs and forestall the inevitably coming toll roads.

[blade2k5 1,523]

So the 'you know what' hit the proverbial fan last night and the hypocritical party were unfortunate to be standing in front of said fan.  About time people in this country woke up and now that the Senate obstructionists have been swept aside, maybe things will get done and there is a lot to get done.

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

Er ...  Isn't the Republican Party the party of big business and the devil with everybody else?  This ought to be an interesting couple of years if they show their true colours.  If the GOP had been in control in 2008 what do you suppose would have happened?  Surely they believe that some outfits are too big to fail as well?

 

I am feeling bearish on America.

[hym 358]

Historically, the US economy grows the fastest when Republicans control the Congress and render the President a lame duck before the end of his term. The government basically sits on autopilot and stops spending money.

Might be time to buy stock.

[Duke87 1,070]

 

Republicans have the Senate. This could make the next couple years very interesting indeed.

 

Hardly. Even less will get done now, at least on the Federal level. Instead power goes back to the local level where in the absence of Washington state legislators will pass all the laws.

 

This is what I am saying is interesting. You know longer have a blue senate and a red house to fight with each other, but you still have a red legislature to fight with a blue executive. I don't for a second think this means more will "get done". We can all be sure it means the Republican party will be turning up the heat even higher, and generating all sorts of bills which Obama will have to veto. And who knows what other antics may follow.

 

"Interesting" doesn't mean good or productive.

[LexusInfernus 908]

This is what I am saying is interesting. You know longer have a blue senate and a red house to fight with each other, but you still have a red legislature to fight with a blue executive. I don't for a second think this means more will "get done". We can all be sure it means the Republican party will be turning up the heat even higher, and generating all sorts of bills which Obama will have to veto. And who knows what other antics may follow.

 

"Interesting" doesn't mean good or productive.

 

Ahh I see your point. I think we differ on the idea of what counts as 'interesting' politics though  

[Compdude787 916]

 

Republicans have the Senate. This could make the next couple years very interesting indeed.

 

Hardly. Even less will get done now, at least on the Federal level. Instead power goes back to the local level where in the absence of Washington state legislators will pass all the laws.

 

To bad the people at the state level are not always exactly fit for being in government. John Oliver did a pretty funny segment on that last Sunday. 

 

Well, let's wait two years, and see if your claim turns out to be true. Actually, it's been the Democrats that are the obstructionists and who refuse to compromise while hypocritically insisting that the GOP does so. In the last two years, there are many times where the House would pass a bill but it would sit in the Senate and do nothing because Harry Reid (the Democrat Senate Majority leader, soon to be minority leader) doesn't like it. 

[Duke87 1,070]

Meh. Taking sides in the Republican versus Democrat debate is pointless. The two parties really aren't that different in the greater scheme of things and keeping up a fight between them is just a distraction from the reality that there are many more possibilities if only we as a country would stop being so narrow minded. So I don't really give a damn who is being an "obstructionist" or whatever such jibber jabber is the buzzword du jour. It doesn't actually mean anything and doesn't actually matter. Choosing between Democrats and Republicans is like choosing between potato chips and french fries. They may seem different but ultimately they're made from the same thing. And meanwhile there are a bazillion other foods out there which are legitimately different but which we're not giving consideration to.

 

 

As for the current congressional drama... "Sit in the senate and do nothing" makes it sound like it could pass if only it would go to the floor for a vote. Harry Reid usually has a pretty good idea what bills will or won't pass if put to a vote since senators do discuss these things with each other off record. He's not going to bother putting something for a vote if he knows it isn't going to pass.

 

So when the house votes for the 437th time to repeal Obamacare, no, the senate isn't going to vote on it this time either. It's unproductive but neither the house nor the senate here are really aiming to be productive. It's all just about looking tough because in today's toxic political climate, people who compromise get ousted in primaries.

[LexusInfernus 908]

Well, let's wait two years, and see if your claim turns out to be true. Actually, it's been the Democrats that are the obstructionists and who refuse to compromise while hypocritically insisting that the GOP does so. In the last two years, there are many times where the House would pass a bill but it would sit in the Senate and do nothing because Harry Reid (the Democrat Senate Majority leader, soon to be minority leader) doesn't like it. 

 

Oh please. Did the Democrats block a lot of stuff in the Senate? Yes. Are they therefor unwilling to compromise? No, because the stuff that got to the Senate was generally a bill pushed by Republicans without any form of acceptable compromise in the first place. Like Duke said, they are both at fault. 

 

But meh, Washington is still pretty useless for the next 2 years and all power will actually be in the hands of state legislators. So anti-Federalists, rejoice! 

[Compdude787 916]

 

Well, let's wait two years, and see if your claim turns out to be true. Actually, it's been the Democrats that are the obstructionists and who refuse to compromise while hypocritically insisting that the GOP does so. In the last two years, there are many times where the House would pass a bill but it would sit in the Senate and do nothing because Harry Reid (the Democrat Senate Majority leader, soon to be minority leader) doesn't like it. 

 

Oh please. Did the Democrats block a lot of stuff in the Senate? Yes. Are they therefor unwilling to compromise? No, because the stuff that got to the Senate was generally a bill pushed by Republicans without any form of acceptable compromise in the first place. Like Duke said, they are both at fault. 

 

But meh, Washington is still pretty useless for the next 2 years and all power will actually be in the hands of state legislators. So anti-Federalists, rejoice! 

 

We'll see about that...

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

 I suggest that no one risk asphyxia on this.

[flatron 83]

It generally seems as tough nothing really changes in america, regardless of who wins the elections. In 2008, we thought that Obama would save the world, but nothing happened. In 2012 we were desillusionised, but still hoped that the americans would give him a second chance, but then again, nothing really changed. From a european perspective, american politics looks like choosing between pest and cholera(sorry for that translated idiom, but I thought it would fit here).

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

Obama may have just saved the Internet from the hucksters.

 

If this is his only legacy, then he is a great president.  However, I think he will be mostly remembered for the ACA.

[Compdude787 916]

I don't see any reason to implement another set of regulations to another part of the economy. I would only tolerate it if it was actually passed by Congress, which there have been five attempts to pass some form of net neutrality legislation, and all have failed. The FCC should not be creating new regulations; they should only be enforcing existing laws that were passed by Congress and signed by the president. That's how it works here. (according to the Constitution, which is the supreme law of the land)

[hym 358]

I don't see any reason to implement another set of regulations to another part of the economy. I would only tolerate it if it was actually passed by Congress, which there have been five attempts to pass some form of net neutrality legislation, and all have failed. The FCC should not be creating new regulations; they should only be enforcing existing laws that were passed by Congress and signed by the president. That's how it works here. (according to the Constitution, which is the supreme law of the land)

 

Not exactly.  Congress and the President can create a law enabling a federal regulatory agency to enact regulation on behalf of the federal government.  The FCC is such an organization.  If the FCC wants to create a new regulation, it issues a "Notice of Proposed Rulemaking" announcing its intent to create new regulations.  In general, from there the FCC must allow a period for public comment by interested parties (this includes industry, advocacy groups, and general citizens).  From there, debate continues until a final decision is made on the proposed rulemaking, either accepting or rejecting the proposal.

 

Bear in mind, however, that it does not need Congressional approval to do this, as Congress gave it the authority to do this in earlier legislation.  Such is the power of a federal independent agency.  Such agencies do not create new laws themselves, but their regulations carry the full force and effect of federal law.

[Compdude787 916]

I don't see any reason to implement another set of regulations to another part of the economy. I would only tolerate it if it was actually passed by Congress, which there have been five attempts to pass some form of net neutrality legislation, and all have failed. The FCC should not be creating new regulations; they should only be enforcing existing laws that were passed by Congress and signed by the president. That's how it works here. (according to the Constitution, which is the supreme law of the land)

 

Not exactly.  Congress and the President can create a law enabling a federal regulatory agency to enact regulation on behalf of the federal government.  The FCC is such an organization.  If the FCC wants to create a new regulation, it issues a "Notice of Proposed Rulemaking" announcing its intent to create new regulations.  In general, from there the FCC must allow a period for public comment by interested parties (this includes industry, advocacy groups, and general citizens).  From there, debate continues until a final decision is made on the proposed rulemaking, either accepting or rejecting the proposal.

 

Bear in mind, however, that it does not need Congressional approval to do this, as Congress gave it the authority to do this in earlier legislation.  Such is the power of a federal independent agency.  Such agencies do not create new laws themselves, but their regulations carry the full force and effect of federal law.

Still unconstitutional though, and it is always a mistake for Congress to allow any executive agency to create new regulation. I strongly disagree with Net Neutrality. I think it puts too much power in the hands of a government which does a great job of abusing its powers. How can we trust that a small intellectual elite in a distant capital where everyone is living under a rock to make decisions for us better than we can make them ourselves? Government is not, and should not be viewed as an all-knowing god that controls every facet of our lives without our consent.

[hym 358]

Still unconstitutional though...

 

How is it unconstitutional?  Congress has the authority to create regulatory agencies and imbue them with the authority to create regulations.  There are questions concerning the constitutionality of independent regulatory agencies, but that concerns the structure of the agency, and not its authority to issue new regulations.

 

and it is always a mistake for Congress to allow any executive agency to create new regulation.

 

How so?  Who would you rather have writing federal nuclear regulations?  Individuals with decades of industry experience, or 535 Representatives and Senators, approximately half of which are lawyers and the other half are probably just as clueless about nuclear issues?

[Compdude787 916]

Still unconstitutional though...

 

How is it unconstitutional?  Congress has the authority to create regulatory agencies and imbue them with the authority to create regulations.  There are questions concerning the constitutionality of independent regulatory agencies, but that concerns the structure of the agency, and not its authority to issue new regulations.

No, the Constitution does not give Congress the authority to make executive agencies that make pages upon pages of regulations. The legislative branch makes laws; the executive branch enforces the laws. It does not make the laws. Why is it so hard to follow the constitution, when it is very short?

 

and it is always a mistake for Congress to allow any executive agency to create new regulation.

 

How so?  Who would you rather have writing federal nuclear regulations?  Individuals with decades of industry experience, or 535 Representatives and Senators, approximately half of which are lawyers and the other half are probably just as clueless about nuclear issues?

That's not even relevant though. Sure, there should be some people with knowledge on a particular field that should come and testify before Congress, but ultimately it is the job of Congress to make laws. Net neutrality is something we can live without, unlike safety regulations for nuclear power plants.

And don't try and pull the standard excuse that the Constitution is old and irrelevant to the problems we face today. The Constitution may be old in age, but its words are timeless and define the government of the most prosperous and powerful nation in the world today. It was what made our nation a leader in the world within 150 years. The Constitution seeks to address problems with government abusing its authority, which was as big of a problem at the time of writing as it is now. Our problems are not new! History works in cycles, so the same problems always come up again and again.

EDIT: Another thought that's worth adding is that if you don't like the laws your Congressman or Senator passed, you can fire them by voting them out of office in the next election. You can't do that with some nameless bureaucrat in a executive branch department or agency, so I'd rather have someone make the laws who is accountable to me, and if they do stupid stuff, then I will kick them out in the next election. Bureaucrats are almost never fired; when they screw up, all that happens is that their boss whispers to them "don't do that again" and they are put on vacation paid leave.