PDA

View Full Version : Enough With the Bipartisanship



Chris
05-29-2013, 01:02 PM
It's strange to hear cries for consensus when out government was designed for contention.


...Yet the bipartisan machine grinds on. The criticism most commonly leveled at Republicans over Obamacare is that they refused to find common ground with Democrats. Sen. Ted Cruz is called a monster for showing a scintilla of condescension when addressing Sen. Dianne Feinstein. The Tea Party is attacked for being inflexible.

It’s all based on the flawed premise that bipartisan is better. Imagine a line with two poles at the end, one labeled “liberal” and the other labeled “conservative.” Simply because a law occupies a median point on the line doesn’t mean that it’s somehow more virtuous—or even remotely effective.

It’s also misleading to measure conservative and liberal principles on this sort of linear scale. Liberals believe that the federal government should tinker with society to make people’s lives better. Conservatives generally don’t think Congress has any business solving such problems. It’s difficult to argue that a federal law draws from both liberal and conservative principles when conservatives oppose federal intervention in the first place.

“Don’t take refuge in the false security of consensus,” Christopher Hitchens once said. Today that false security rules Washington. Rather than succumb to it, Republicans should stand pat and swing away. It’s better for government to disagree and do nothing than to come together and pass anything.

So bring on the heckles and let the guffaws sound from the dispatch boxes. Our liberties are safest when politicians are beating each other with olive branches, not when they’re extending them.

@ Enough With the Bipartisanship (http://spectator.org/archives/2013/05/24/enough-with-the-bipartisanship)


...If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself. A dependence on the people is, no doubt, the primary control on the government; but experience has taught mankind the necessity of auxiliary precautions.

This policy of supplying, by opposite and rival interests, the defect of better motives, might be traced through the whole system of human affairs, private as well as public. We see it particularly displayed in all the subordinate distributions of power, where the constant aim is to divide and arrange the several offices in such a manner as that each may be a check on the other -- that the private interest of every individual may be a sentinel over the public rights. These inventions of prudence cannot be less requisite in the distribution of the supreme powers of the State....

@ Madison, "Federalist 51"

jillian
05-29-2013, 01:06 PM
It's strange to hear cries for consensus when out government was designed for contention.


@ Enough With the Bipartisanship (http://spectator.org/archives/2013/05/24/enough-with-the-bipartisanship)



@ Madison, "Federalist 51"

madison's words aren't law... and he was only one person.

disagreement is fine... stupidity and obstruction isn't. they never intended government not to work.

that is only for anarchists who hate the government under which they live.

unless, of course, you think the founders were really, really stupid and intended government not to operate.

Chris
05-29-2013, 01:13 PM
madison's words aren't law... and he was only one person.

disagreement is fine... stupidity and obstruction isn't. they never intended government not to work.

that is only for anarchists who hate the government under which they live.

unless, of course, you think the founders were really, really stupid and intended government not to operate.

Non Sequiturs, jillian.

Madison's ideas went into the Constitution, which is the Supreme Law of the Land.

How can the formation of a government be anarchy????

Stupid is a stupid word.

TheDictator
05-29-2013, 01:21 PM
madison's words aren't law... and he was only one person.

disagreement is fine... stupidity and obstruction isn't. they never intended government not to work.

that is only for anarchists who hate the government under which they live.

unless, of course, you think the founders were really, really stupid and intended government not to operate.

Just because you did not get your way, and have a bunch of liberal laws forced on us, does not mean that is anarchy.

jillian
05-29-2013, 01:23 PM
Non Sequiturs, jillian.

Madison's ideas went into the Constitution, which is the Supreme Law of the Land.

How can the formation of a government be anarchy????

Stupid is a stupid word.

not at all. government was not intended to be dysfunctional.

you seem to be missing the point, though. the only people who would want government not to operate and to be dysfunctional are anarchists who hate the governmental system under which they live.

wanting government to fail and be obstructed is stupid.

you can like that or not. i really don't care.

Chris
05-29-2013, 01:25 PM
not at all. government was not intended to be dysfunctional.

you seem to be missing the point, though. the only people who would want government not to operate and to be dysfunctional are anarchists who hate the governmental system under which they live.

wanting government to fail and be obstructed is stupid.

you can like that or not. i really don't care.

More non sequiturs.

No one argued government should be dysfunctional or should fail.

You're the one missing the point, go back to the OP and read.

bladimz
05-29-2013, 02:50 PM
Come on... Our government's not designed for conflict. Our legislative branch was designed to have elected representatives from districts all over the country to deliver the wishes of their constituents. Conflicts arise, and must be dealt with in a timely manner. Bipartisanship is just another word for "working together". And to take an issue that affects the people and play ideological games with it instead of attempting to make that issue work for the people is self-serving, time-and-money wasting, and childish.

It'd be pretty damn easy for anyone to serve as a legislator if all they had to do is say no. No debates, no concessions to a better point, no attempt to construct a product that produces the best possible results for the most people... just say "no" and go home.

Chris
05-29-2013, 02:56 PM
No. It's not designed for conflict. Our legislative branch was designed to have representatives from districts all over the country to deliver the wishes of their constituents. Conflicts arise, and must be dealt with. But to take an issue that affects the people and play ideological games with it instead of attempting to make that issue work for the people is self-serving, time-and-money wasting, and childish.

I would if i could. And as long as i was at it, there'd be a heluva lot more being done.


That's what checks and balances and debate in Congress is all about, to represent disparate interests.


play ideological games with it instead of attempting to make that issue work for the people is self-serving, time-and-money wasting, and childish.

For both parties.

But what to you do after you've done everything to divide the people? The people are divided on all the issues. You can't pick a side and say if you don't agree you're not playing fair. As you say you deal with the conflict, squarely, fairly, representing all the people.

And sometimes there is no solution. And that is the answer.

Adelaide
05-29-2013, 03:00 PM
If everyone agreed or negotiated on everything, there would be a problem - there does need to be a level of disagreement, because that's how decisions are come to, hopefully good ones. But the level of disagreement in Washington? That's just ridiculous. The partisanship is problematic in this case.

Chris
05-29-2013, 03:00 PM
Federalist 10 is another good read on how the government was designed as a republic to deal with factional conflict in such a way that as in a democracy no faction would dominate.

“Complaints are everywhere heard from our most considerate and virtuous citizens, equally the friends of public and private faith, and of public and personal liberty, that our governments are too unstable, that the public good is disregarded in the conflicts of rival parties, and that measures are too often decided, not according to the rules of justice and the rights of the minor party, but by the superior force of an interested and overbearing majority.”

Mainecoons
05-29-2013, 03:05 PM
Come on... Our government's not designed for conflict. Our legislative branch was designed to have elected representatives from districts all over the country to deliver the wishes of their constituents. Conflicts arise, and must be dealt with in a timely manner. Bipartisanship is just another word for "working together". And to take an issue that affects the people and play ideological games with it instead of attempting to make that issue work for the people is self-serving, time-and-money wasting, and childish.

It'd be pretty damn easy for anyone to serve as a legislator if all they had to do is say no. No debates, no concessions to a better point, no attempt to construct a product that produces the best possible results for the most people... just say "no" and go home.

You must have slept through history too. Our government was specifically designed for conflict so as to prevent any one branch becoming too strong. We see what happens when either of the two political parties gets control of both the executive and legislative, they pass bad legislation, get in wars, and attempt to pack the third branch, the judicial, with their followers.

Peter1469
05-29-2013, 04:10 PM
Come on... Our government's not designed for conflict. Our legislative branch was designed to have elected representatives from districts all over the country to deliver the wishes of their constituents. Conflicts arise, and must be dealt with in a timely manner. Bipartisanship is just another word for "working together". And to take an issue that affects the people and play ideological games with it instead of attempting to make that issue work for the people is self-serving, time-and-money wasting, and childish.

It'd be pretty damn easy for anyone to serve as a legislator if all they had to do is say no. No debates, no concessions to a better point, no attempt to construct a product that produces the best possible results for the most people... just say "no" and go home.

Most laws pass congress with no contention at all. But where there are real differences I applaud the contention.

Common
05-29-2013, 06:30 PM
All I can say is bipartisanship is both ways, obstructing and disrupting is also two ways the difference is one they do together the other they take turns doing. The far right has their turn coming. It not like its not going to happen eventually and the same guys that are cheering the far right doing it now will be whining when the other side does it.

Chris
05-29-2013, 06:38 PM
All I can say is bipartisanship is both ways, obstructing and disrupting is also two ways the difference is one they do together the other they take turns doing. The far right has their turn coming. It not like its not going to happen eventually and the same guys that are cheering the far right doing it now will be whining when the other side does it.

You're right, but I, personally, will be cheering it on. The more they contend the less they do. That government is best which governs least.

Common
05-29-2013, 06:46 PM
Ok thats fine everyone is entitled to their opinion, I just stated that the democrats will do it in kind when the time comes.
Right now the far right sounds no different that the far left did in the 60s during the nam war.

Chris
05-29-2013, 06:48 PM
Ok thats fine everyone is entitled to their opinion, I just stated that the democrats will do it in kind when the time comes.
Right now the far right sounds no different that the far left did in the 60s during the nam war.
I agreed except for the whining, when it turns around, as it will, again and again, and contention continues or worsens, I will be cheering it.

Common
05-29-2013, 07:28 PM
I wont cheer it then and I dont cheer it now. Nothing is being done to help the plight of americans that arent doing well. Cant get anything done with one side or the other stopping everything.
Chris we call go back and forth all day but the truth is the rich are doing better than ever in decades and the rest of america needs help, they need jobs and they need jobs that they can work at and make enough to buy lifes necessities. Please dont try to tell me its the govts fault theres no decent paying jobs. The rich sent the decent paying jobs to china so they could make them dirtcheap paying jobs so they could get richer.

Chris
05-29-2013, 07:36 PM
I wont cheer it then and I dont cheer it now. Nothing is being done to help the plight of americans that arent doing well. Cant get anything done with one side or the other stopping everything.
Chris we call go back and forth all day but the truth is the rich are doing better than ever in decades and the rest of america needs help, they need jobs and they need jobs that they can work at and make enough to buy lifes necessities. Please dont try to tell me its the govts fault theres no decent paying jobs. The rich sent the decent paying jobs to china so they could make them dirtcheap paying jobs so they could get richer.

All you say is predicated on the belief, unsubstantiated, that government doing something is good.

Common
05-29-2013, 07:46 PM
All you say is predicated on the belief, unsubstantiated, that government doing something is good.

I havent seen corporations do anything good or the private sector do anything good for americans except a few americans taking it ALL. Chris when are you going to admit that the rich have raped this country in the last 20 yrs all at the expense of the working class. Its not the GOVERNMENT its the CORPORATIONS and the rich.

Common
05-29-2013, 07:52 PM
This is one of my favorite private sector examples. Utilities, they are incorporated and have investors that want PROFIT. So they take a basic need something americans MUST have and charge a profit for it. There is no market competition. When they want to expand, they go to the regulators and tell them they need to charge their customers <us> x amount of a surcharge for x amt of years BEFORE THEY EXPAND and like in Florida Progressive Electric collected MILLIONS up millions up front for nuclear plant repairs, and they collected more millions in surcharges to fix what they screwedup, they never fixed it they merged with duke energy and duke isnt repairing the plant they are closing it. WAIT IT GETS BETTER, Duke Energy just went to the regulators and asked for millions and millions in surcharges to build a NEW nuclear plant in the Future. This is capitolism ? this is investment risk ? They did the same thing in Jersey with salem nuclear plant. This is bullshit this is the rich raping the little guy. This happens time and time again.

Peter1469
05-29-2013, 08:13 PM
This is one of my favorite private sector examples. Utilities, they are incorporated and have investors that want PROFIT. So they take a basic need something americans MUST have and charge a profit for it. There is no market competition. When they want to expand, they go to the regulators and tell them they need to charge their customers <us> x amount of a surcharge for x amt of years BEFORE THEY EXPAND and like in Florida Progressive Electric collected MILLIONS up millions up front for nuclear plant repairs, and they collected more millions in surcharges to fix what they screwedup, they never fixed it they merged with duke energy and duke isnt repairing the plant they are closing it. WAIT IT GETS BETTER, Duke Energy just went to the regulators and asked for millions and millions in surcharges to build a NEW nuclear plant in the Future. This is capitolism ? this is investment risk ? They did the same thing in Jersey with salem nuclear plant. This is bullshit this is the rich raping the little guy. This happens time and time again.

Utility companies are given monopolies so communities does have two, three or more separate power lines all over the place. And their don't operate as a free market- they negotiate their fees and profiles with the local government.

Common
05-29-2013, 08:34 PM
Utility companies are given monopolies so communities does have two, three or more separate power lines all over the place. And their don't operate as a free market- they negotiate their fees and profiles with the local government.

That does not explain how its conscionable to have dirt poor people that MUST have electricity for water and plumbing for wells and septics and to live giving a profit to rich investors that have absolutley NO RISK whatsoever.
Lets also address collecting millions upfront for things never done and the money pocketed. Its garbage and should not be.

Peter1469
05-29-2013, 08:37 PM
That does not explain how its conscionable to have dirt poor people that MUST have electricity for water and plumbing for wells and septics and to live giving a profit to rich investors that have absolutley NO RISK whatsoever.
Lets also address collecting millions upfront for things never done and the money pocketed. Its garbage and should not be.

What would you suggest?

Maybe the local government should crack down and get lower fees from the utilities.

Chris
05-29-2013, 08:42 PM
Most laws pass congress with no contention at all. But where there are real differences I applaud the contention.

Well, that's a major problem then. ;-)

Peter1469
05-29-2013, 08:49 PM
Well, that's a major problem then. ;-)

None that I see.

Common
05-29-2013, 08:57 PM
What would you suggest?

Maybe the local government should crack down and get lower fees from the utilities.

They should all be like my Electric Company a Non profit coop my service is SUPERB our service is restored in storms faster than any of the for profit companies. Every year we all get a thick book with all the financial disclosures. Keep in mind this isnt a really small neighborhood thing they have thousands and thousands of customers.
This is the strange part, when I moved to florida I had a choice of 3 electric companies. One was progressive now duke that are ripping everyones lungs out. The realtor told me get sumter or withlakochee they are large coops and much better. Since then good Ole rick scott under lobby pressure from Progressive had that changed where if you have progressive your stuck with them cant switch even if you buy the house. To protect the profits of a company that is NOT nearly as efficient or provides a service like the non profits.
Heres another point, If I have trees on my property that threaten my electric line my coop trims them for free. Progressive wont do it and tells the customers if our lines are damaged because of your trees you pay us for repairing them. Make them all coops and take the greed out of the equasion for a basic necessity

Peter1469
05-29-2013, 08:59 PM
They should all be like my Electric Company a Non profit coop my service is SUPERB our service is restored in storms faster than any of the for profit companies. Every year we all get a thick book with all the financial disclosures. Keep in mind this isnt a really small neighborhood thing they have thousands and thousands of customers.
This is the strange part, when I moved to florida I had a choice of 3 electric companies. One was progressive now duke that are ripping everyones lungs out. The realtor told me get sumter or withlakochee they are large coops and much better. Since then good Ole rick scott under lobby pressure from Progressive had that changed where if you have progressive your stuck with them cant switch even if you buy the house. To protect the profits of a company that is NOT nearly as efficient or provides a service like the non profits.
Heres another point, If I have trees on my property that threaten my electric line my coop trims them for free. Progressive wont do it and tells the customers if our lines are damaged because of your trees you pay us for repairing them. Make them all coops and take the greed out of the equasion for a basic necessity

I would think that all utilities are classified as non-profit. They negotiate their fees with the local community.

Common
05-29-2013, 09:11 PM
I would think that all utilities are classified as non-profit. They negotiate their fees with the local community.

Nope, progress is investor based for profit corporation now merged into Duke Energy one of the largest if not largest energy supply company that is in various markets.
Mine is totally non profit, they keep a rainy day surplus and if theres over that its reflected in our bills. Thats the way they should all be. I dont think coops have to go through the process to raise bills. I never seen anything on them going to the board for a raise. Im going to find out for sure.

Common
05-29-2013, 09:17 PM
Here you go peter this will answer all your questions and show you I was accurate.

Duke Energy's Profit More Than Doubles
Duke Energy (DUK (http://quote.foxbusiness.com/symbol/DUK/snapshot)) more than doubled its first-quarter profit and surpassed top-line Wall Street expectations on Friday, fueled by the integration of newly-acquired Progress Energy.
Charlotte, N.C.-based Duke closed on its $14 billion purchase of Progress last summer in what has created the largest U.S. power company. The acquisition helped nearly double Duke’s U.S. franchised electric and gas business income to $656 million from $344 million in 2012.


The profits off of a necessity is disgusting but this is the paragraph that PISS's me off the most. The revised customer rates were RATE RAISES and they used the peoples money to offset their loss's on the commercial side. Nothing corporate is on the level.

Duke also benefited from favorable weather and revised customer rates, partially offsetting softness in its commercial power and international energy segments.
The energy giant reported net income of $634 million, or 89 cents a share, compared with a year-earlier profit of $295 million, or 66 cents. Excluding one-time items, Duke said it earned $1.02 a share, missing average analyst estimates in a Thomson Reuters poll by two pennies.




http://www.foxbusiness.com/markets/2013/05/03/duke-energy-profit-more-than-doubles/