MP Parliamentary Moment If you don't know, Eric is a big fan of the parliamentary type governments. His rationale is that the "in charge" government has more power to implement "the will of the people". Whereas I am a big fan of the US system where things move slowly and all of the States have power to slow change to some degree.
Of course Liberals are excited by the idea of absolute control and the GOP says they also want this. Whereas it makes me nervous when either side has "the power"... They both seem to want to act like tyrants, totally forgetting that ~ half the population voted against them... No wonder that pendulum just keeps moving back and forth... :-)
"Eric, Since I am a fan of the gridlock you usually are critical of, be careful what you ask for... You may get it... Even I will likely be wishing again for that gridlock soon. Both parties seem to let the power go to their head whenever they get control..." G2A
"Indeed, split government seems to cause less harm,...though accomplishing less as well." Steve
"I always wonder what people want government to "accomplish"?
We live in one of the best countries in the world, and yet the far right and far left folks seem to always want "big changes".
I have a simple goal for government and public employees: provide all the services you do today with better results while reducing the money you need to take out of the US GDP to do it. This is what we have been asking from the Private Sector for years as the Global Competition increased.
And yes the wealthy will need to continue paying most of the bills of our country because they have the money to do so. The rest of us can also help the country by reducing the costs.
- have only children you can afford
- get married and stay married
- be responsible in raising your children
- learn, work, save, invest, etc
Doing otherwise and sending the bill to the tax payers is not fair either." G2A
41 comments:
Possibly governments should accomplish more. But we have decided that government shouldn't accomplish more, and there is really no turning back from that.
--Hiram
Please go a bit deeper, what else "should they accomplish"?
Please remember "that one can bring a horse to water but can not make them drink".
My point is that at some point there are diminishing returns to most activities and expenditures.
Obama has just justified the election by saying "we zig and we zag," but what he misses is that our two-party system is the best way to AVOID that sort of thing. The reason being that the party that includes the "center" will always win.
I don't think so. I think the voter distribution is Bi-modal and voter turnout is critical.
Pendulum
Please go a bit deeper, what else "should they accomplish"?
I could, but what would be the point? Thinking about what an active government should do is about as relevant as studying the anatomy of the dodo bird. The rejection of an activist government is definitive and permanent. That's one of the things we decided when we chose a thug for president.
--Hiram
Pendulum
One of the things I have learned about pendulums over the years, is that there is a day which inevitably comes when they stop swinging.
--Hiram
Bi-modal, yes, but evenly distributed about some "center," wherever it is. Therefore one cannot win only with those left or right of center, you have to INCLUDE in your voters those 50.1% nearest your side. Yes, turnout matters, but only because elections have become beauty contests (or perhaps more correctly in the current environment, ugly contests to vote against the candidate with the highest negatives) rather than the expressed policy preferences of the (now largely uninformed) electorate.
‘Prediction professor’ who called Trump’s big win also made another forecast: Trump will be impeached
Definitely possible given the animosity surrounding him. Too bad since he is sounding more moderate every day.
The dems may be his best allies soon. Just imagine President Pence with GOP control...
Now that should really scare liberals.
Pendulums only stop when there is not energy added to overcome the forces that resist motion.
I think we have plenty of energy in this system.
I think our government is plenty activist.
I think you are just afraid to commit as is often the case.
I think our government is plenty activist.
It's certainly active. But our decision to turn the presidency over to a thief and hoodlum will pretty much put a stop to that.
--Hiram
Yes, but the election of Trump put an end to that, and prevented its recurrence.
It is what I have been saying. There is no going back. Ever.
--Hiram
Can Republicans Contain Trump?
A Fresh Start?
Hiram, "ever" is a long time...
Laurie, Are all liberals such drama queens. I recommend Mr Drum take xanax.
Jerry,
The GOP is just as guilty of trying to use government to manipulate our society for their benefit. No white hats there.
Do you really and truly and honestly believe my taking Xanax will make Trump less of thug?
--Hiram
I like different terms:
Self confident
Creative
Persistent
Determined
Now the question is can he use those powers for good moderate solutions. Can we help him fight the right and left.
Do you even read my links? The views I shared are those of David Frum not Drum.
I am too mad at this election and your idiotic viewpoint to take time to type my own views. Posting links that are interesting and that I agree with takes me under 1 minute, but if you don't bother to read them I will just stop reading your blog, which I may stop doing anyway if Sean quits making comments.
Frum's comments on Drum's page... And yes I read them both...
They are focused on the past, I am more interested in the future. Trump won and will be the President. If Hillary had won and Jerry spent weeks whining about her past and linking to her email scandal, would you find that useful and/or healthy?
It is ironic that the Liberals are obsessed right now on how to be "obstructionist" after years of complaining the the GOP was doing so... Where is that desire to have a "functioning " government now?
Hiram,
The Liberals are working themselves into a frenzy over nothing. Trump will be President, he won fair and square and he has done NOTHING yet to protest about. He isn't even taking office for ~70 days apparently.
I simply think they should do as Clinton and Obama said. Give him a chance...
Probably more important that the Republicans give him a chance and pay attention, because the media will do everything possible to undermine him, no matter how sensible.
"The GOP is just as guilty of trying to use government to manipulate our society for their benefit. No white hats there." Really? Have you ever done an objective analysis? For example, how many times have Republicans tried to balance the budget without raising taxes, compared with how many times Democrats have done so?
"It is ironic that the Liberals are obsessed right now on how to be "obstructionist" after years of complaining the the GOP was doing so... Where is that desire to have a "functioning " government now?"
If Trump wants to reach out and work with Democrats on issues like infrastructure, he'll find plenty of folks willing to work with him. Which stands in direct contrast to how the GOP approached Obama.
Jerry,
Unfortunately the GOP tends to lower the taxes and rack up debt. They haven't seemed too interested in balancing the budget. And as Sean reminds us, Trump's sales pitch is going to lead to bigger problems than both Reagan and the Bushes combined... So I hope he backs out of some of those promises ASAP.
Especially since he has also promised big infrastructure spending and to secure SS and medicare... On the good side it seems he is moderating his view regarding ACA. Of course it will be hard to cut costs, maintain pre-existing coverage and coverage until 26 years old with no mandatory insurance requirement...
On the upside he can eliminate the mandatory birth control inclusion reqts.
Then of course we have the GOP's long standing war on LGBT folks. And their deep desire to get between patients and their doctors when it comes to abortion and physician assisted suicide. All of these are "activist government" in action...
Sean,
How about regarding promoting public employee and bureaucracy efficiency and effectiveness improvements?
Or regarding deporting illegal aliens and pressuring people to move from welfare into the job openings that become available... Hopefully the compensation for these positions will improve a bit when the illegal aliens are removed from the American work force.
That is if the legal low skill / low academic workers will be willing to take those jobs...
Sean,
My point being that of course a Democrat is willing to work with anyone who wants to tax and spend... Just as a Republican is willing to work with anyone who wants to cut taxes...
Real collaboration begins when everything is on the table and people focus on what is good for America, not just what is good for themselves and their constituents.
I realize that true collaborative government is unlikely, but it is my dream to keep even so. :-)
Wow, John. I'm just not seeing the same objective reality.
"Unfortunately the GOP tends to lower the taxes and rack up debt." You forget that when taxes are lowered, government revenue increases. That spending increases faster is the result of Democrat spending, not the tax cuts. We do not have a revenue problem in this country, we have a spending problem. And when Republicans try to cut spending, well, they are "killing women and children."
"They haven't seemed too interested in balancing the budget." Except for that crazy Balanced Budget Amendment they keep proposing, or the "1% plan" that never goes anywhere thanks to Democrat opposition.
"And as Sean reminds us, Trump's sales pitch is going to lead to bigger problems than both Reagan and the Bushes combined... So I hope he backs out of some of those promises ASAP." You mean like "Make America Great Again"? Still not seeing the problem with that idea.
"Especially since he has also promised big infrastructure spending and to secure SS and medicare..." All of those things can be easily done without increasing total spending, and even while cutting taxes.
"On the good side it seems he is moderating his view regarding ACA. Of course it will be hard to cut costs, maintain pre-existing coverage and coverage until 26 years old with no mandatory insurance requirement." Once again, easily done WITHOUT a mandatory insurance requirement and AFTER complete repeal of the O'care law. And despite breathless news reports to the contrary, I expect that's the way Trump intends it.
"Then of course we have the GOP's long standing war on LGBT folks." Seems like a pretty one-sided war. The LGBT activists (whose name, by the way, belies their own argument) want to FORCE everyone, by law, to accept their chosen "lifestyle."
"And their deep desire to get between patients and their doctors when it comes to abortion and physician assisted suicide. All of these are "activist government" in action..." Hmmmm... So, government has no business passing laws against murder?
Jerry,
I need some of that weed you are smoking... Maybe then I can ignore the history of Reagan and the Bushes.
As for activism.
Democrats feel that no healthcare, no food, no homes, etc are different forms of "murder"... And yet the GOP is indifferent to these issues. Activism is activism. And government mandating morality is government mandating morality.
Neither the Left or Right seem to understand that.
What history are you confused about, because obviously you are confused.
As for activism, yes, the Left seems to care a great deal about the "less fortunate" and believes that government has to look after those unfortunate enough to not be so "good" as them. The GOP isn't indifferent, we just think we should be giving these fellow human beings the freedom and opportunity the rest of us have had. The left would rather penalize some so that /they/ can claim moral superiority while making others dependent.
Same link as above.
So says the Conservative on the Right...
I am not saying one side is better or worse. I am just saying that both sides want to use intrusive government to influence society to their viewpoint. And to limit the freedoms of individuals based on their moral compass.
Another example:
Conservatives want to force people to use certain bathrooms.
Liberals want to force people to accept different people in their bathrooms.
Both sides love government as long as it forces individuals to comply with their beliefs.
That is why the Donkey and the Elephant are below the line in this Nolan Diagram
Some libertarian drew that diagram. You are trying to posit a world in which there is no objective morality, where "freedom" = "license" in all things. Conservatives don't want to "force" anybody into a bathroom. There is a bathroom where they belong, and one where a rare few individuals do not. Liberals believe that these few have the "freedom" or even "right" to trample over everybody else. Now who is using the force of government to impose their (supposed) morality on the greatest number?
And when did it become necessary for government to write laws to try to micromanage individual and societal morality? Seems to me the society was, is, and ought to be allowed to manage those things for itself.
I agree, then ...
- we don't need bathroom laws
- we don't need laws banning LGBT marriage
- we don't need laws preventing a doctor and woman from deciding if abortion is the best option in a given situation
- we don't need government preventing a doctor and a patient from deciding that physician assisted suicide is the right course of action for a patient
- we don't need voter ID laws, because the polling place should be responsible for their duties
- we don't need anti-pot laws
The reality is that both sides make "big government" laws to control people. Thankfully in our society we can resolve these issue peacefully.
"Just as a Republican is willing to work with anyone who wants to cut taxes..."
They didn't work on the stimulus with Obama, despite it containing over $200B in tax cuts. (And before you start in on the "but they didn't like the spending", consider that every single Republican President since WW2 had engaged at one point in their Presidency in increasing federal spending as economic stimulus.)
By that time they had already spent a fortune on stimulus, the national debt was going vertical and the economy was headed in the right direction.
Thank heaven some slowed the expenditures.
No, the $200B+ in tax cuts was in the original stimulus.
No, you are not grasping the fundamentals.
-- We only need bathroom laws because the Left wants the laws to ignore biology and hundreds of years of society's norms.
-- We don't need laws banning LGBT marriage because they were never necessary until the Left began pushing against 1000 years of tradition and denying biological reality.
-- We don't need laws against medically necessary abortion because we never needed them. Laws against "choice" abortions were perfectly fine until the Left decided that killing babies in the womb (or even after) was a "choice not a child." Oh, and murder has always been a legitimate law. That it conforms to the morality of most religions has almost nothing to do with it.
-- We DO need laws against "assisted" suicide because "First do no harm" is rather contradicted if the doctor deliberately kills you. Apparently we now have that in CA, where those in mental health facilities can be INvoluntarily "assisted" off the planet.
-- We need voter ID laws for the same reason we have laws against fraud, misrepresentation, and theft, because the "polling place" must have the ability and authority to prevent election cheating. Right now they do not, in many places, MN among them.
-- On pot, you may be right, but then what do you do about heroin, cocaine, opiods, and meth? We do a poor job of helping/curbing those who abuse alcohol, so will that be our model for those that abuse pot? Not good, IMHO. It seems like those who want to legalize it are looking at government revenue as the "best" reason. So tell me what the "freedom" argument is, again?
OK, "both sides" make laws to "control people." Now, is there some basis for deciding which of those "sides" best seeks to limit our harm to one another, without unnecessarily restricting the rest of us? If you just say "both sides" pass laws you are not being very discriminating.
Post a Comment