Quote:

Original post by irreversible 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've noticed the lies from politicians doesn't get any uproar. Failed promises won't be remembered. To me, it seems like they can say whatever fairytale they want and the public wont care. So long as it's entertaining.

Quote:

Original post by tstrimp You're missing the part where politics in the US is rarely about issues and more about sticking to party lines.

Which is plain wrong, given 2 party system. Seems broken to me.

Quote:

Original post by tstrimp The republicans will fight against any tax increases, not just those on the wealthy.

I thought the republicans voted for the bush tax cuts to expire. To raise the taxes for everyone.

Quote:

Original post by tstrimp Republican senators have signed a letter saying they will filibuster everything until they get a chance to vote on the tax issue.

What I've noticed, republicans stall and ultimately kill everything for the next 4 years if they can.

Quote:

Original post by way2lazy2care I think another related problem is that Bills are way to expansive. If the health care bill were split...

Too expensive for who? Some businesses wont like them. In my opinion you guys have huge saving to be made at health sector. That would reduce spending in health for inviduals and for the government.

Quote:

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

My guess would be that the attempt to tie two seperate political issues together, namely, 9/11 medical issues and redistribution of wealth, is the primary thing bugging republicans. (havnt asked them, but just putting myself in their shoes)

If democrats cared so much about the medical issue, youd figure they would craft a bill specifically targeted at that, funded by a proportional tax increase on everyone, rather than trying to piggyback one of their most hotly contended platform points on top of it.

Quote:

Original post by Ftn Too expensive for who? Some businesses wont like them. In my opinion you guys have huge saving to be made at health sector. That would reduce spending in health for inviduals and for the government.

expAnsive... with an A.

Quote:

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

First, you are citing the sound-bite headlines, and missing a lot of the meat. The whole thing is almost 2000 pages long and contains a lot of complexity. People are rejecting it for a wide range of reasons.


Second, I think the detail you missed is that you are listening too closely to a few small parts of the process without understanding it all.


"Laws are like sausages, it is better not to see them being made."

You are talking about a small part of the process, a part that it is generally best to ignore. If you want to understand it, you should gain a deep understanding of the entire process and learn to ignore the disgusting parts. If you just listen to the headlines and peek in at random parts of the process you won't like what you find.

On the whole the bickering is a good thing. When various groups take hardline views and are vigorously opposed to each other the net results tend to be something that is acceptable to the mainstream. There is usually a LOT of fighting, a lot of extreme actions and threats, posturing for the media, sound bites trying to get the opponents to change their mind. At the every end of the process they suddenly behave like statesmen, make a compromise, and they all try to claim credit. The process is often very messy; this instance is no different.

Quote:

The whole thing is almost 2000 pages long and contains a lot of complexity

For the same reason insurance and other contracts contain 35 pages of fine print.

Quote:

On the whole the bickering is a good thing. When various groups take hardline views and are vigorously opposed to each other the net results tend to be something that is acceptable to the mainstream.

Design by committee. Rarely put into same context as "good thing".

Quote:

There is usually a LOT of fighting, a lot of extreme actions and threats, posturing for the media, sound bites trying to get the opponents to change their mind.

Aka, distractions and diversions.

Quote:

At the every end of the process they suddenly behave like statesmen, make a compromise, and they all try to claim credit.

The important stuff passed under radar, time to shutdown the fireworks.

Or, to quote a very reputable source in these matters:

Quote:

For this reason the President is always a controversial choice, always an infuriating but fascinating character. His job is not to wield power but to draw attention away from it.

Welcome to politics 101. This process is same in all countries with free media. Since they cannot be controlled, other means must be used.

Quote:

Original post by irreversible 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.

They're not nearly as polarised as the media would have you believe. You essentially have a choice of centre-right (democrats), far-right (republicans) and insane-drolling-lunatic-fringe-right (tea party). There is no viable socialist/left wing view point in america as it is understood in the rest of the western world (UK, Europe, Australia, NZ, etc.)

I lmao when I see signs accusing Obama of being a socialist.

see

Quote:

Original post by ChaosEngine insane-drolling-lunatic-fringe-right (tea party).

The tea party at least as it originally was wasn't on the right side of the republicans. It was below them more than anything, and it's not quite as radical a movement as it's made out to be.

Quote:

Original post by Antheus Quote: The whole thing is almost 2000 pages long and contains a lot of complexity For the same reason insurance and other contracts contain 35 pages of fine print.

it is 400 times the length of the entire constitution.

Quote:

Original post by way2lazy2care it is 400 times the length of the entire constitution.

In EU, we call this: Appendix C to paragraph 6 of addendum to preliminary proposal of informal suggestion of member.

Quote:

Original post by way2lazy2care The tea party at least as it originally was wasn't on the right side of the republicans. It was below them more than anything, and it's not quite as radical a movement as it's made out to be.

When did Canadian progressive rock become so important to US politics anyway?