Politics

[Jocool]

Yes, I don't believe they should be "cut". As I said, I don't know how or if it is even possible, but they should at least look at ways to like change the code, or something of that manner, to try to save a little bit of money because they need as much as possible to make sure that all of the new people who are eligible are treated how they should be treated.

And on the matter of Republicans saying things during Bush's time, I didn't hear anyone screaming about the deficit when he enlarged it by much more than Obama did (except maybe Ron Paul). In fact, I think Obama didn't enlarge it enough. He spent just enough on the stimulus that the Tea Party wouldn't stand for more money being spent, and too little for it to help the economy enough to show that Obama's ideas do work.

[PacificGoldenPlover]

What do you think about the chief whistleblower against NewsCorp turning up dead? And the police saying it's not suspicious?

[Jocool]

I think that that makes it all the more suspicious. I think they murdered him.

[fmtiger124]

http://www.truth-out.org/goodbye-all-re ... 1314907779

[Cheesy Pie]

Why isn't anyone raising taxes on the rich, not spending money on useless things, or spending money on useful things? Washington confuses me. They (sometimes) know what the right thing to do is, but they don't do what makes sense.

[Jocool]

Ultimately, it boils down to our form of government. The representative democracy had a good, long run, but, it is finally in its death (I think). Our constitution needs reform, because our current government gives more incentive for politicians to do what the rich and powerful want, and less protection to the lesser ones. This makes many politicians go all the way to the side of the corporations (Republicans) and the others go all the way to the side of the unions (Democrats). Now, I do not think the unions are as bad, but they do have stupid rules that are out of date and should be reviewed, especially teacher's union rules. This leaves no middle ground, and leaves Washington quibbling over a third shutdown crisis in one year. The President is absolutely powerless to stop the insane politicians because of how our constitution works, yet all the blame will be pinned on him. I don't know if anybody else heard the Republican debate, on CNN I think, but the crowd was cheering for the government to let a hypothetical man die rather than pay for his health care. Is this America, or are we spectators to the making of an empire? Was this a question over how to handle health care, or some sick gladiatorial game? I do not know the answer, but it is looking more and more like the latter.

[KMHS_Dave]

UN Assembly this week... You know who's NOT going into the city.... me. Talk about gridlock!

[andrewwski]

Ultimately, it boils down to our form of government. The representative democracy had a good, long run, but, it is finally in its death (I think).

I'll challenge that statement. Show me one form of government that works better than the one we have right now.

Our constitution needs reform, because our current government gives more incentive for politicians to do what the rich and powerful want, and less protection to the lesser ones. This makes many politicians go all the way to the side of the corporations (Republicans) and the others go all the way to the side of the unions (Democrats).

Our Constitution doesn't say anything about this. The Constitution does not define what regulations should be put on business, nor does it mention political parties.

The President is absolutely powerless to stop the insane politicians because of how our constitution works, yet all the blame will be pinned on him.

Not powerless. The President doesn't always get what he wants, but he has power. Veto power, for one. The current president is one of the most willing to compromise out of any in recent memory - for good or for bad.

I don't know if anybody else heard the Republican debate, on CNN I think, but the crowd was cheering for the government to let a hypothetical man die rather than pay for his health care. Is this America, or are we spectators to the making of an empire? Was this a question over how to handle health care, or some sick gladiatorial game? I do not know the answer, but it is looking more and more like the latter.

Yes, disturbing. I think it's more of an issue of people becoming so absorbed in certain things that they can't take a step back and look at the big picture.

[Jocool]

One government that works better--something like Britain, where there is more incentive for multiple parties, forcing compromises, and more moderate ideologies.

The constitution doesn't say anything about the parties, which is exactly the problem. The politicians work for the "people", but need to get their attention. How do they get their attention? Money. Who has the money? The rich and powerful. I don't know how to do it, but something should be in the constitution about it.

The President is so weak of a position because he can't start anything. He wants a bill passed. Congress says "Eh, later". He can only scold them, but by the time the voters get rid of the do-nothing Congress, the US may have already defaulted, say.

I am not saying our system is bad, but it must be tempered with others if it is to survive.

[PacificGoldenPlover]

One government that works better--something like Britain, where there is more incentive for multiple parties, forcing compromises, and more moderate ideologies.

The constitution doesn't say anything about the parties, which is exactly the problem. The politicians work for the "people", but need to get their attention. How do they get their attention? Money. Who has the money? The rich and powerful. I don't know how to do it, but something should be in the constitution about it.

The President is so weak of a position because he can't start anything. He wants a bill passed. Congress says "Eh, later". He can only scold them, but by the time the voters get rid of the do-nothing Congress, the US may have already defaulted, say.

I am not saying our system is bad, but it must be tempered with others if it is to survive.

Well, first of all, the British have a solid alliance with the United States, i.e. their prime minister pretty much does whatever the US president tells them to. Example: Tony Blair was perhaps Bush's strongest ally on the Iraq War in the beginning, and he was LABOUR! I could just imagine David Cameron sanctioning Bush about not invading Iran.

When the Constitution was created, there were no parties. I believe that, if the Liberals ever get a majority in the Supreme Court, the first thing they should rule on is tear down Citizens United. But I don't think you can, nor should, change the actual constitution about it.

So basically, what you're saying is that Obama needs one "representative" in the house/senate to introduce the sorts of bills he likes, I completely agree with you. However, if only...