Is a dysfunctional government the status quo in Washington, DC?

bit.ly/djutlL Asked by rhine44 16 months ago Similar questions: dysfunctional government status quo Washington DC Politics & Law > Politics.

Similar questions: dysfunctional government status quo Washington DC.

CONGRATULATIONS, BY THE WAY, ON YOUR RETURN TO ASK SUCH QUESTIONS. Sorry for the caps (large fingers)! That's my excuse and I'm stickin to er.

Possibly, after a traumatic crash, in your porsche, you lay in a coma for the entire bush "administration" and were blissfully unaware of the severe damage gross incompetence can do to a country? So...NOW...you ask about dysfunction? Surely you are not one of those unpatriotic Repugnants who say our duly elected president's name: Barak Hussein Obama Stupid is as Stupid does.

Sources: rednecksputter; fill-oss-a-fur, inadequate education, reads some, been a few places .

1 To a large degree, that's deliberate. Having to pass two different chambers, constructed according to different lines, helps ensure that a bill has to hit high marks. A tyranny of a simple majority is a bad thing.

I'm actually all in favor of requiring a supermajority in the Senate on a lot of bills. For the big issues that they've passed this year, health care and finance reform, these have the potential for enormous effects, and to have it pass by a "simple up or down vote" would probably be a disservice. Similarly, a Supreme Court justice serves for decades and has vast power; it's perfectly reasonable to set the bar for that at 60% rather than 51%.

The fact that it ends up being implemented via a procedural trick rather than as a matter of procedure is only slightly disconcerting. What makes it problematic is that they're not playing a single game, but a meta-game. Each vote isn't just about this issue, but about all issues.

Each party makes a deal among its members: regardless of how you feel about this bill, you'll vote with the majority of the group, and they'll do the same for you. That gives a few defectors a lot of power. Ironically, those defectors define the "middle" of the political spectrum, not tied to their party, but although people claim to seek the center, those political defectors are always reviled.

To a large degree, that's deliberate. Having to pass two different chambers, constructed according to different lines, helps ensure that a bill has to hit high marks. A tyranny of a simple majority is a bad thing.

I'm actually all in favor of requiring a supermajority in the Senate on a lot of bills. For the big issues that they've passed this year, health care and finance reform, these have the potential for enormous effects, and to have it pass by a "simple up or down vote" would probably be a disservice. Similarly, a Supreme Court justice serves for decades and has vast power; it's perfectly reasonable to set the bar for that at 60% rather than 51%.

The fact that it ends up being implemented via a procedural trick rather than as a matter of procedure is only slightly disconcerting. What makes it problematic is that they're not playing a single game, but a meta-game. Each vote isn't just about this issue, but about all issues.

Each party makes a deal among its members: regardless of how you feel about this bill, you'll vote with the majority of the group, and they'll do the same for you. That gives a few defectors a lot of power. Ironically, those defectors define the "middle" of the political spectrum, not tied to their party, but although people claim to seek the center, those political defectors are always reviled.

Should we consider ourselves fortunate that Washington D.C. Is snowed under and the Government will leave us alone for a.

I cant really gove you an answer,but what I can give you is a way to a solution, that is you have to find the anglde that you relate to or peaks your interest. A good paper is one that people get drawn into because it reaches them ln some way.As for me WW11 to me, I think of the holocaust and the effect it had on the survivors, their families and those who stood by and did nothing until it was too late.