Congress Is As Bad As You Think, Scholars Say

Assuredcw · Dec 28, 2011

stamperben said:
Obama is a worker bee of corporate money. They pull his strings the same as they have pulled every President in modern history. There is no liberal, conservative or moderate in the world Washington operates in - there is only monetary profit.

Now I wouldn't go that far either. You don't remember Wing2000's thread on ALEC on Crosswalk? Congressmen are "worker bee(s) of corporate money." The current gridlock, believe or not, would IMO tend to exponerate the President from this kind of a charge. Corporate money is backing the people who oppose President Obama, otherwise that same money would have resulted in more cooperation. Historians say it hasn't been this bad since just before the Civil War, and we know what ended up happening after that.

Here's a link on ALEC:

Common Cause accuses conservative American Legislative Exchange Council nonprofit of lobbying - Los Angeles Times

I am trying to be fair, because if I were to hear of a liberal lobbying group that left constituents out of the loop, that would upset me, too. But yeah, the Tea Party may have started out grass roots, but now it's Koch and his rich friends yanking the GOP to the right.

stamperben · Dec 28, 2011

Wolseley said:
People vote for Republicans, and the Republicans screw things up, and everything gets worse.

So to counter that, people then vote for Democrats, and the Democrats screw things up, and everything gets worse.

So to counter that, people then vote for Republicans, and the Republicans screw things up, and everything gets worse.

So to counter that, people then vote for Democrats, and the Democrats screw things up, and everything gets worse.

Q: What is the definition of insanity?

A: Doing the same things over and over again and expecting different results.

Until the American public wakes up to the fact that the current two-party system is broken and cannot be fixed, we will continue to have this problem, and things will only get worse. Our election laws need to be reformed so that somebody other than Republicans and Democrats can be elected to office.

Unfortunately, the election laws are written by......Republicans and Democrats.

I'm not sure what to do about, but one thing I can guaran-freakin'-tee you: you ain't gonna change anything for the better by crossing your fingers, hoping for the best, and voting in rigged elections that favor Republicans and Democrats. I'm sorry, but there it is.

How about Range or Fair Voting? Voters would rank or score the candidates much like they do in the Olympics. Here's a link with more info.

Assuredcw · Dec 28, 2011

blueapplepaste said:
The problem is that people tend to like their Congressperson, whereas they dislike Congress. One person's congressperson bringing in $50 million for a new civics center is a "community investment", whereas another congressperson bringing in $50 million to their district is "wasteful pork spending".

The thing is though, Americans do want compromise, unfortunately what has happened is that the extremes on both ends are controlling the dialog and have the megaphone, and the middle is being drowned out.

That's what I think, too, blueapplepaste!

stamperben · Dec 28, 2011

Assuredcw said:
Now I wouldn't go that far either. You don't remember Wing2000's thread on ALEC on Crosswalk? Congressmen are "worker bee(s) of corporate money. The current gridlock, believe or not, would IMO tend to exponerate the President from this kind of a charge. Corporate money is backing the people who oppose President Obama, otherwise that same money would have resulted in more cooperation. Historians say it hasn't been this bad since just before the Civil War, and we know what ended up happening after that.

What absolves Obama from corporate control? Surely not his ties with GE or the fact that the great campaign promise he made to rid Washington of lobbyists has fallen by the wayside.

Assuredcw · Dec 28, 2011

stamperben said:
What absolves Obama from corporate control? Surely not his ties with GE or the fact that the great campaign promise he made to rid Washington of lobbyists has fallen by the wayside.

So we throw the baby out with the bathwater? I hear you, but he's a lot better than the alternative IMHO - I added a link to the post you quoted.

stamperben · Dec 28, 2011

Assuredcw said:
So we throw the baby out with the bathwater? I hear you, but he's a lot better than the alternative IMHO - I added a link to the post you quoted.

If Obama is the baby, then yes, throwing him out really doesn't change much. Until we teh people can get Mr. Smith back in Washington we're stuck with dirty used bathwater. We need election finance reform. We need a new way of doing things that works. Why is it that what Woolsey said is true? Elect D or R, nothing gets better. Obama sounded so good in 2007 leading up to obtaining the nomination, they fooled a lot of voters who are left wing radicals who should have known better who fell for the Hope and Change line and now three years later are mad as all getout.

What's the alternative anyway? Poverty is still increasing at alarming rates while the profits of the top tier of society continues to skyrocket. The alternative is to actually get the corporate cash out of campaigns. Did you look at the link I put up? Range Voting. Yet another way of changing a broken system. And yes, the system is broke.

Assuredcw · Dec 28, 2011

stamperben said:
If Obama is the baby, then yes, throwing him out really doesn't change much. Until we teh people can get Mr. Smith back in Washington we're stuck with dirty used bathwater. We need election finance reform. We need a new way of doing things that works. Why is it that what Woolsey said is true? Elect D or R, nothing gets better. Obama sounded so good in 2007 leading up to obtaining the nomination, they fooled a lot of voters who are left wing radicals who should have known better who fell for the Hope and Change line and now three years later are mad as all getout.

What's the alternative anyway? Poverty is still increasing at alarming rates while the profits of the top tier of society continues to skyrocket. The alternative is to actually get the corporate cash out of campaigns. Did you look at the link I put up? Range Voting. Yet another way of changing a broken system. And yes, the system is broke.

You and Wolesley agree on this idea, I see.

But I don't think it's that bad yet. Obama got a lot of people engaged in the electoral process who hadn't previously bothered to vote. But they didn't understand that process, which makes it at least as important (if not more important!) to vote for your Congressional representation, too. So if we look at the fact that President Obama didn't keep some of his promises (he got a lot done, though), that might have to do with forces outside of his control - Democratic voters who stayed home and let conservatives choose the members of Congress he'd have to work with. Obama didn't engineer this with the help of Corporate America - the voters stuck it to him. I'm sorry, but I do not see President Obama as corrupt, even if he did take a lot of oil money, because as we have seen, the oil companies have not exactly gotten their way. Nor did the banks - but Dodd Frank made things illegal now, that weren't, and the law isn't retroactive.

stamperben · Dec 28, 2011

he "took a lot of oil money" is an understatement. I'll give you ten names and ask you to look them up along with their ties to the Obama administration.
Jeff Immelt
David Cote
Allan Mulally
James McNerny Jr.
Ivan Seidenberg
John Donahoe
Edward Mueller
Andrew Liveris
Greg Brown
John Faraci

Assuredcw · Dec 28, 2011

stamperben said:
he "took a lot of oil money" is an understatement. I'll give you ten names and ask you to look them up along with their ties to the Obama administration.
Jeff Immelt
David Cote
Allan Mulally
James McNerny Jr.
Ivan Seidenberg
John Donahoe
Edward Mueller
Andrew Liveris
Greg Brown
John Faraci

Thanks - I will Google these fellas (they're all guys, I see) while I am taking some time off for the holidays.

But presumably these men have made friends with Congress and not just Obama. That would have created bipartisan support for much of what Obama might have tried to do on these gentlemen's behalf (if that's what Obama was doing). So why would so many Congressmen obstruct him so severely (the last time it was this bad was 1850) if he is doing corporate bidding? Because believe me, Corporate America donates more than half if not the vast majority of their political money to the Republicans. Giving some of it to President Obama might just be common prudence.

stamperben · Dec 28, 2011

Assuredcw said:
Thanks - I will Google these fellas (they're all guys, I see) while I am taking some time off for the holidays.

But presumably these men have made friends with Congress and not just Obama. That would have created bipartisan support for much of what Obama might have tried to do on these gentlemen's behalf (if that's what Obama was doing). So why would so many Congressmen obstruct him so severely (the last time it was this bad was 1850) if he is doing corporate bidding? Because believe me, Corporate America donates more than half if not the vast majority of their political money to the Republicans. Giving some of it to President Obama might just be common prudence.

Even corporations will infight on how to maximize profits. The Dems will think they have the most palatable way, the old style GOP thinks their way is best and now we have the Tea Drinker Association who are nothing more that a bit blatant about how to get 'er done. Bottom line is that Obama is not clean when it comes to being controlled by corporate interests.

Assuredcw · Dec 28, 2011

stamperben said:
Even corporations will infight on how to maximize profits. The Dems will think they have the most palatable way, the old style GOP thinks their way is best and now we have the Tea Drinker Association™ who are nothing more that a bit blatant about how to get 'er done. Bottom line is that Obama is not clean when it comes to being controlled by corporate interests.

No, he may not BE clean but he may have to COME clean to get re-elected.

But IMO it isn't fair to have such negative opinions of a man who hasn't been allowed by Congress to do much of ANYTHING. He hasn't been in a position to do anyone's bidding. Just wanted to be upfront about my impressions of the man.

But yes, I will research these folks, and tell you what I think when I come up for air. I might have to PM you, though.

BlessEwe · Dec 28, 2011

stamperben said:
get the corporate cash out of campaigns.

YES! And to make the Congress /Senate pay for their own health insurance, and lifestyles that we have allowed them to have. Its all crooked! They are sitting high in the hog making our life changing decisions. Makes me angry.

Wolseley · Dec 28, 2011

stamperben said:
How about Range or Fair Voting? Voters would rank or score the candidates much like they do in the Olympics. Here's a link with more info.

That might be a dandy idea, stamper, but how are we gonna get the Washington politicians to agree to this, short of a massive armed rebellion and civil war?

Maren · Dec 28, 2011

blueapplepaste said:
The problem is that people tend to like their Congressperson, whereas they dislike Congress. One person's congressperson bringing in $50 million for a new civics center is a "community investment", whereas another congressperson bringing in $50 million to their district is "wasteful pork spending".

The thing is though, Americans do want compromise, unfortunately what has happened is that the extremes on both ends are controlling the dialog and have the megaphone, and the middle is being drowned out.

I'm going to disagree a little bit. I'm not sure Americans (as a group) do want compromise. There seem to be a group of Americans, both left and right, that instead of trying to work within the current structure want things their way. The Tea Party, rightly or wrongly, has become a huge symbol of a group that refuses to compromise but wants things done their way now.

Even here on CF we see how people, rather than trying to debate and find a middle ground instead demonize the other side. It doesn't matter that Obama administration by and large has largely ruled similarly to Bush, he is always talked about as if he were the most liberal president ever and is leading us directly to communism. On the other side, the left seemingly feels Sarah Palin and some other conservatives are "the devil"; believing they want to govern by greed and allow corporations to rule the US.

While I would think that this current problem was caused by the politicians -- the game of demonizing the other side has slowly grown and become more vitriolic over the last few decades. And it seems that many (and maybe most) Republicans and Democrats have bought into the vitriol about "the other side."

It seems the only group of Americans wondering why we can't compromise is the independents, those neither to the left or the right. And I'm not sure those independents are a majority.

stamperben · Dec 28, 2011

Wolseley said:
That might be a dandy idea, stamper, but how are we gonna get the Washington politicians to agree to this, short of a massive armed rebellion and civil war?

Change is a slow process. First of all we don't get the established pols to agree, but much like Grover Norquist did, we get the new ones we vote for to pledge to it. Or they won't get elected. Or if they don't abide by their pledge to us they don't get re-elected. But that takes US to convince our neighbors and our local precincts to get on board. It's called activism. If you start with a good idea it WILL spread.

Assuredcw · Dec 28, 2011

Wolseley said:
That might be a dandy idea, stamper, but how are we gonna get the Washington politicians to agree to this, short of a massive armed rebellion and civil war?

Just like after 1850. LOL!

Assuredcw · Dec 28, 2011

Maren said:
I'm going to disagree a little bit. I'm not sure Americans (as a group) do want compromise. There seem to be a group of Americans, both left and right, that instead of trying to work within the current structure want things their way. The Tea Party, rightly or wrongly, has become a huge symbol of a group that refuses to compromise but wants things done their way now.

Even here on CF we see how people, rather than trying to debate and find a middle ground instead demonize the other side. It doesn't matter that Obama administration by and large has largely ruled similarly to Bush, he is always talked about as if he were the most liberal president ever and is leading us directly to communism. On the other side, the left seemingly feels Sarah Palin and some other conservatives are "the devil"; believing they want to govern by greed and allow corporations to rule the US.

While I would think that this current problem was caused by the politicians -- the game of demonizing the other side has slowly grown and become more vitriolic over the last few decades. And it seems that many (and maybe most) Republicans and Democrats have bought into the vitriol about "the other side."

It seems the only group of Americans wondering why we can't compromise is the independents, those neither to the left or the right. And I'm not sure those independents are a majority.

Maren, you're making a good point. And let me piggy-back off of it a little bit, if you don't mind.

Folks, let's hold the people we elected in Congress accountable to represent us, and let's not snipe at our fellow voters. Because once they've got us fighting with each other, they will get away with all kinds of "stuff." Just my two cents. Let's give our fellow voters the benefit of a doubt, and share information with each other (thank you Stamperben!), and not let these people in Congress (or Washington, for that matter) get away with any funny business.

lordbt · Dec 28, 2011

IzzyPop said:
What? Obama is moderate at best. Twenty years ago he would have been solidly conservative.

I dont think so. Twenty years ago, we had Bill Clinton and he was considered a liberal. Next to Obama, however, he now seems quite moderate.

DaisyDay said:
Only by bizarrely tilted standards. How would you classify Dennis Kucinich?

Personally I dont see much difference between the two. Perhaps you could point to areas where the two disagree. But Kucinich and Obama are hardly the only two liberals in town. Reid and Pelosi are liberals. Or are they moderates too? Ben Nelson, Joe Manchin, and the two republican broads from Maine are moderates. Obama isnt. He is a liberal. Why is that so hard for liberals to swallow?

Wolseley · Dec 28, 2011

I would classify Obama as a radical.....but that's just me.

stamperben · Dec 28, 2011

Wolseley said:
I would classify Obama as a radical.....but that's just me.

Now I'm really offended that you would lump him in with me...

Congress Is As Bad As You Think, Scholars Say

Citizen for Civil Public Discourse

It's an old family tradition

Citizen for Civil Public Discourse

It's an old family tradition

Citizen for Civil Public Discourse

It's an old family tradition

Citizen for Civil Public Discourse

It's an old family tradition

Citizen for Civil Public Discourse

It's an old family tradition

Citizen for Civil Public Discourse

Legend

Beaucoup-Diên-Cai-Dāu

Veteran

It's an old family tradition

Citizen for Civil Public Discourse

Citizen for Civil Public Discourse

$

Beaucoup-Diên-Cai-Dāu

It's an old family tradition

Similar threads