"need a deeper understanding of the process"

Regarding the cited case, I'm not entirely sure I do. As in - regarding invading Iraq, yes; regarding rendering humanitarian aid to own citizens vs. tax cuts for rich people - nah, not so much. The The Daily Show link Khaiy posted is a brilliant example as to what things can be simplified down to. Stewart's been at it for a few days now and having done some additional reading, I'm having trouble interpreting his arguments as wrong or, well, not sane.

I'm a huge fan of Yes, (Prime) Minister and I think I understand the almost poetic nature of politics relatively well, but sometimes saying that the cat Schroedinger put in the box is neither dead nor alive is just wrong. I believe this to be one such case. There shouldn't be a question - neither a political or a social one. There's only the moral question and sentience should presuppose the one single humane answer to it.

On a larger scale: this kind of bureaucracy is not needed and I, honestly, cannot understand why you guys keep stabbing yourselves in the neck with a dull paper knife (let's not even go back to the Bush administration, but limit ourselves to things like Fox News' ratings and the almost hilarious dance around don't ask don't tell). In all honesty, being elsewhere, one could almost not care, but one can't help feeling that, surely, you're people, too, and whatever you do, more often than not affects - in one way or another - a very large number of people elsewhere around the world.

ChaosEngine: nice chart; quite useful for Europeans such as myself!

I'm not sure what's going on either. What happens if the Senate refuses to pass any legislation at all? Does the U.S. have the equivalent of a double dissolution where both houses of Congress are kicked out and put up for re-election?

Quote:

Original post by ChaosEngine You essentially have a choice of centre-right (democrats), far-right (republicans) and insane-drolling-lunatic-fringe-right (tea party).

Just recently I heard there are people who wants to vote for centre between democrats and republicans, that made me chuckle. American political compass is so out of sync from other western nations. And I think they are continuing to shift more to the right and up. It's funny but at the same time scary, what if Palin gets to power. She thinks world is 6k year old and final judgement is upon us?

Quote:

Original post by Trapper Zoid I'm not sure what's going on either. What happens if the Senate refuses to pass any legislation at all? Does the U.S. have the equivalent of a double dissolution where both houses of Congress are kicked out and put up for re-election?

Nothing quite so dramatic. If no legislation gets passed, there could be a government shutdown, in which the government falls back to providing only essential services. It happened twice here in the mid-nineties. I don't know what would happen in a prolonged shutdown though. Someone always blinks and caves in, because shutdowns are dramatic and citizens tend not to like them.

If they reject tax raises for everyone then they at least remain coherent.

It would be a real sonovabitchness if they rejected that for the rich and approved it for the middle-class/poor people...

Ideally, the idea behind rejecting tax rises (beyond one's pocket) is to force the government to find a better solution (making business/lowering costs etc).

What's is really funny is that the richest man in the world would cry like a pussy for an increase of 2% in his taxes while a low-class single mother would probably just pay it.

In short: Rich people have an extraordinary ability to become fags.

Rich people didn't become rich by giving away 2% here and there. It's all on the margins.. manage your money right and if you luck out you can probably retire by 30.. That's how you become rich in America anyways.. :)

-ddn

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'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.

The funniest part... Fox News, the #1 news org in the country, actually left out the part that the Republicans voted against it and actually implied that it was the Democrats who voted it down!


This is my official exit from caring about politics. This country is too stupid to deserve a good government, so I'm not going to waste any more time trying to show the ignorant how the media misleads them every step of the way into voting against their own interests.

America, you're on your own.

Quote:

Ideally, the idea behind rejecting tax rises (beyond one's pocket) is to force the government to find a better solution (making business/lowering costs etc). What's is really funny is that the richest man in the world would cry like a pussy for an increase of 2% in his taxes while a low-class single mother would probably just pay it. In short: Rich people have an extraordinary ability to become fags.

well taking bill gates as an example he'd end up paying $110 million dollars in taxes more for that extra 2%(I'm fairly sure that was before he stepped down as CEO. I just grabbed the first number google gave me) where a single mother earning $60,000 would pay $1,200.

for that kind of money he could pretty much walk around and pay for all their health care himself. I'd seriously question why paying taxes to give these people health care would cost less than paying for their health care directly. Noting that this is just the added taxes for ONE GUY.

edit: fixed quote

Quote:

Original post by way2lazy2care for that kind of money he could pretty much walk around and pay for all their health care himself.

Indeed.

Quote:

Original post by way2lazy2care Quote: Ideally, the idea behind rejecting tax rises (beyond one's pocket) is to force the government to find a better solution (making business/lowering costs etc). What's is really funny is that the richest man in the world would cry like a pussy for an increase of 2% in his taxes while a low-class single mother would probably just pay it. In short: Rich people have an extraordinary ability to become fags. well taking bill gates as an example he'd end up paying $110 million dollars in taxes more for that extra 2%(I'm fairly sure that was before he stepped down as CEO. I just grabbed the first number google gave me) where a single mother earning $60,000 would pay $1,200. for that kind of money he could pretty much walk around and pay for all their health care himself. I'd seriously question why paying taxes to give these people health care would cost less than paying for their health care directly. Noting that this is just the added taxes for ONE GUY. edit: fixed quote

Yeah. I've been thinking about this... In a way, business owners/creators become a permanent part of a country's government. if they withdrew from the game and closed their companies a lot of people would be left out without job, a lot of taxes would not be paid anymore, etc. That certainly gives them power to twist a government's arm to do things that favors them before than the masses.

I guess that's the catch on this type of capitalist_democracy. The government's main function seems to be to mask the presence of the real tyrants who own everything.