Dear America,

what THE HELL is wrong with your politicians? I was under the impression that politicians were supposed to be two-faced and fastidious, but not - what's the word? - ah, yes! Pure evil.

I'm having serious (and I mean &ltEMBOSS>serious</EMBOSS>) trouble understanding how it could possibly be possible for, what is it - 41? - Republicans (out of how many, again? 50?) to not only oppose, but vote against the 9/11 health bill on grounds of a 2-3% (it was from 37 to 39%, wasn't it?) tax increase for anyone who makes over $250K a year.

Not only that, but how the hell can a country function on the basis of "we will repeal any proposal put forth unless the richest 2% of the population can save 2% on their income in taxes"?

I'm sorry, but this simply doesn't make sense - not only the fact that such a situation can even exist, but the fact that such a stance could possibly be so unanimous. I apologize for the emphases in this post - I've been following the situation for something like a week now and dogs inheriting $12M and 37-year-old men masturbating in the back row of a Harry Potter movie aren't cutting it any more.

What is the critical piece I'm missing here? Am I just stupid? Too altruistic? Please help me.

Hush, peon. Go back to work.

Quote:

Original post by Antheus Hush, peon. Go back to work.

But, but...

To me it seems that American politicians aren't about winning, or doing good for their people, but rather they are all about just being sure the other guys can't.

You're missing the part where politics in the US is rarely about issues and more about sticking to party lines. The democrats and republicans have a nice arrangement where they divide all of the issues up in such a way that roughly half the country agrees with one side or the other. This ensures that when the country gets fed up with one side, they have no one to turn to but the other. So they trade power back and forth without really having to worry about actually losing any. They will always get their power back in 4 to 8 years.

That being said despite what most people here would have you believe. The republicans will fight against any tax increases, not just those on the wealthy.

This also should not have been a surprise. Republican senators have signed a letter saying they will filibuster everything until they get a chance to vote on the tax issue.

Quote:

We write to inform you that we will not agree to invoke cloture on the motion to proceed to any legislative item until the Senate has acted to fund the government and we have prevented the tax increase that is currently awaiting all American taxpayers. With little time left in this Congressional session, legislative scheduling should be focused on these critical priorities. While there are other items that might ultimately be worthy of the Senate's attention, we cannot agree to prioritize any matters above the critical issues of funding the government and preventing a job-killing tax hike.

They made their position abundantly clear. The democrats tested them on it and the republicans did exactly what they said they would do.

Quote:

Original post by irreversible what THE HELL is wrong with your politicians? I was under the impression that politicians were supposed to be two-faced and fastidious, but not - what's the word? - ah, yes! Pure evil.

well there's ur problem right there...

No-no-no - my problem isn't sticking to party lines or even the fact that they're fighting for a really stupid cause (saving the richest 2% of the population some pocket change). My problem is the statement "we will not allow any other bill to pass unless we get this" while "any other bill" includes the 9/11 health bill.

I'm not talking about politics or part lines - I'm talking about indication of apparent brain damage on a massive scale.

The fact that you have two parties that are as polarized as sleeping on a bunch of feathers and in a bowl of acid is a whole different issue and is somewhat irrelevant in this instance.

Quote:

Original post by way2lazy2care Quote: Original post by irreversible what THE HELL is wrong with your politicians? I was under the impression that politicians were supposed to be two-faced and fastidious, but not - what's the word? - ah, yes! Pure evil. well there's ur problem right there...

Agreed. "Pure evil" is not a word. It's a phrase. It unravels the entire argument.

The Daily Show did a good job pointing this one out,
especially the hypocrisy of that position.

But the unanimity you're talking about is also the hallmark of the party. It's how they get things that are difficult to convince others of using reason done, because people who disagree are barred from the party a priori.

It's a political game. The Republicans can't lose right now. If they don't get their tax cut extension, any perceived problems with the economy can be pinned on that, and they'll ensure that there are more negatives to come by denying any efforts to help. If they do get tax cut extensions, any improvements will be credited to supply-side ideas. They don't care about the deficit or helping 9/11 responders, because none of that will get more republicans elected in 2012.

[Edited by - Khaiy on December 15, 2010 3:50:59 PM]

Quote:

Original post by irreversible No-no-no - my problem isn't sticking to party lines or even the fact that they're fighting for a really stupid cause (saving the richest 2% of the population some pocket change). My problem is the statement "we will not allow any other bill to pass unless we get this" while "any other bill" includes the 9/11 health bill. I'm not talking about politics or part lines - I'm talking about indication of apparent brain damage on a massive scale. The fact that you have two parties that are as polarized as sleeping on a bunch of feathers and in a bowl of acid is a whole different issue and is somewhat irrelevant in this instance.

I think another related problem is that Bills are way to expansive. If the health care bill were split into 5-15 separate shorter bills, the ones that ended up passing congress would probably reflect the views of the american public significantly more (I'm using health care as a general large recently passed bill).

Shorter bills would help in significant part to better highlight pork spending and earmarks as they stand out a lot more in a 10 page document than a 1000 page document as well as ending with a set of laws that best reflect the beliefs of the entirety of congress.

For example, if the establishment of a health records database for the US was pulled out of the health care bill and put in a separate bill, it would have passed months before the bill actually was passed, which would benefit everyone NOW while the rest of the bill was debated.

This is obviously idealism, as our politicians would undoubtedly find a way to waste time anyway.