... and world economy menaced as Republican Party hijacked by the far right plays the giddy goat.
Tea Party. Sounds so reassuring somehow to a British ear. Cosy, knowImean?
|
|
Obama as always talking a good job,has he actually delivered on anything either domestically or internationally (apart from drone attacks which he promised to stop) - seems he's as impotent as usual. As always US policy driven by southern hicks.
|
|
It can all be summed up with one word, "Politicians". Its a pity we have to have someone running the assorted foulups around the world.
|
I'm amazed that the US govt accounting machine is accurate enough to know to the day and to the cent when the debt ceiling is being reached.
In the UK we often are told after a crisis that the figures were wrong anyway - we never had a recession, there wasn't a double dip, exports have been understated, etc.
They seem to know precisely how much money is left in the kitty. They could employ a park-keeper for one more day for a few dollars more, but no, the accounts clerk says the tin is empty, so that's that.
|
>> ... and world economy menaced as Republican Party hijacked by the far right plays the
>> giddy goat.
Seems to me that that argument can go both ways.
If congress has been voted in..and it is a different political party to that of the President..then the president has to negotiate to get his ideas through.
There doesn't seem to be very much proper negotiating going on. It ought to be some ways like a coalition government if you have to have compromise for your legislation. Trouble is the presidential system has the President act all presidential.
As much as 'Obama care' seems sensible to me...he still has to negotiate, not dictate.
I think the Tory boundary change ideas were fair to the voters as a whole...but the Libs vetoed it...too bad, that's coalition politics...Labour sure as hell weren't going to back it, were they?
|
|
When we get a fully-elected second house with an equally valid democratic mandate, we can have the same problems here too.
|
>> When we get a fully-elected second house with an equally valid democratic mandate, we can
>> have the same problems here too.
Spot on. While you'd never arrive at the current situation on a clean sheet of paper the Lords actually works incredibly well.
|
|
Exactly. The Lords knows its limits, knows when to push things, when to back down, when to revise and question, but also when to sense a more general public feeling or disquiet that is not represented in the Commons.
|
>> Exactly. The Lords knows its limits, knows when to push things, when to back down,
>> when to revise and question, but also when to sense a more general public feeling
>> or disquiet that is not represented in the Commons.
Votes in the Commons are, on anything that matters, whipped. Members can and do show their independence on select Committees which can produce robust and evidenced reports questioning policy and actions of the Executive.
But the votes are still whipped and the Executive ploughs on at full steam.
|
>> Seems to me that that argument can go both ways.
>>
>> If congress has been voted in..and it is a different political party to that of
>> the President..then the president has to negotiate to get his ideas through.
>>
>> There doesn't seem to be very much proper negotiating going on. It ought to be
>> some ways like a coalition government if you have to have compromise for your legislation.
>> Trouble is the presidential system has the President act all presidential.
>>
>> As much as 'Obama care' seems sensible to me...he still has to negotiate, not dictate.
Up to a point. The compromises on 'Obamacare' were made at time of Bill's passage through Congress. It was effectively endorsed by Obama's re-election. What the TP contingent are trying to do now is exercise a veto by linking health reform with the budget.
If you follow the money then the stink of funding from those profiting from the current health system is overpowering.
|
>> Up to a point. The compromises on 'Obamacare' were made at time of Bill's passage
>> through Congress. It was effectively endorsed by Obama's re-election.
Hmm. I don't see it the same way.
The elected senate doesn't have to roll over just because Obama was re-elected. Obama might prefer it that way, but that isn't how it works or how it should work.
What the TP contingent are trying
>> to do now is exercise a veto by linking health reform with the budget.
Yes..but as they have been elected, it is their right to do so. I or you or others might not agree with the principle of the issue involved, but the bigger picture right to do it remains.
Same as me saying above the Lib Dems vetoed any boundary changes. I happen to think they were very wrong to do so and it effects our democracy..but..they have power in a coalition govt, so I have to shrug and put up with it...and the govt (and majority) leader had to give up on that political aim.
>>
>> If you follow the money then the stink of funding from those profiting from the
>> current health system is overpowering.
Quite possibly so..in which case an investigative journalist needs to expose that, so the electorate can see through it and vote the TP out.
>>
|
I see that NOAA and NASA web sites are down with a government message.
I guess in NASA.... nobody can hear you scream!
|
>> an investigative journalist needs to expose that, so the electorate can see through it and vote the TP out.
There are good investigative hacks in the US, but the 'electorate' on average doesn't read, or watch serious current affairs TV. You are talking about the land of Fox News, Rupert Murdoch's 24-hour venom-spewing station.
People here are quite bad enough but US political vox pop has to be heard to be believed.
|
Personally, I can't see the problem. Federal government shuts down? So what? Life goes on as normal, since most things in life don't really need government, and if they do, in the US, it's either local government or state government that do things.
The Federal government shut down 17 years ago. I'm sure if affected some people - but it was such a non-event that I have no recollection of it.
|
>> Personally, I can't see the problem. Federal government shuts down? So what? Life goes on
>> as normal, since most things in life don't really need government, and if they do,
>> in the US, it's either local government or state government that do things.
>>
>> The Federal government shut down 17 years ago. I'm sure if affected some people -
>> but it was such a non-event
Slightly different perspective in today's Guardian:
www.theguardian.com/world/shortcuts/2013/oct/01/us-government-shutdown-clinton-presidency
Aerticle also points out that it was during such a shutdown that Bill Clinton's eye wandered to a certain intern..........
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Wed 2 Oct 13 at 13:59
|
>> Aerticle also points out that it was during such a shutdown that Bill Clinton's eye
>> wandered to a certain intern..........
which eye would that be that wandered in the general direction....
|
>> Slightly different perspective in today's Guardian:
The Guardian has a different perspective from me?
I must confess that I am a little surprised.
However, I suppose it will happen every few years.
|
US Congress deadlocked - R.P.
