www.ditl.org

Seeing as I'm not an American, I have to rely on what I see in the media or discussions with RL friends who live there but I want to toss this out for discussion; is the US Government functionally broken? As in it can still run the trains, etc but can't seem to accomplish much beyond that.

Take the debate over UHC, apparently the overwhelming majority of the populace is in favour of it but Congress and the Senate are dicking around with a mandatory private system.

Don't Ask, Don't Tell: the US has been shooting itself in the foot with this for over a decade now and individual States are legalizing gay marriage at a steady rate. Yet it is still on the books and receiving wide spread opposition to being repealed.

Those are the two most obvious ones that come to mind, feel free to throw in more. I'm curious as to how my neighbours to the South view their own government.

Cpl Kendall wrote:Take the debate over UHC, apparently the overwhelming majority of the populace is in favour of it but Congress and the Senate are dicking around with a mandatory private system.

Don't Ask, Don't Tell: the US has been shooting itself in the foot with this for over a decade now and individual States are legalizing gay marriage at a steady rate. Yet it is still on the books and receiving wide spread opposition to being repealed.

Two cases where the politicians are really out of step with public opinion. People are overwhelmingly in favor of the so-called public option (i.e. a federal health insurance plan to compete with private insurers) and repealing DADT. (Furthermore, it looks like a majority of people under 40 support gay marriage, so hopefully that will become the predominant view in the future.) I voted "no", although I still have a teeny bit of optimism. If the Democrats can't get things done now, with the presidency, a strong majority in the House and 60 votes in the Senate, then they're a failure as a party.

The Dem's are actually one of the most puzzling things about US politics, they have control of what matters but they. just. keep. folding.

both parties really and truly suck. Here is another good point for DADT, Most of the active duty military would like to see it done away with. THAT should tell you something.

Cpl Kendall wrote:The Dem's are actually one of the most puzzling things about US politics, they have control of what matters but they. just. keep. folding.

It seems like the Senate is the main obstacle to progress right now - there's a lot of frustratingly conservative and conciliatory Democrats there, and they're all subject to a huge amount of corporate lobbying and patronage. I wish we could have a real no-nonsense arm-twister for a Majority Leader, like LBJ back in the day, but apparently they decided that they would pick their most spineless and unintimidating member, Harry Reid.

With the confirmation of Franken, at least the Dems will be able to overcome a filibuster.

But here's an example from just this afternoon: the gub'mint has been kicking around a "cash for clunkers" policy to get dirty-burning cars off the road and jump-start the auto industry. If you buy a new car that gets a certain mpg rating greater than the old one (within other restrictions,) you get a credit of either $3500 or $4500 in place of the trade value if the trade value is less than that amount. The dealer must junk the car, ensure it is scrapped, etc. Well, dealers have to register to be a part of the program, and there are lots of questions: do we get reimbursed the cost of crushing the cars? How do we get paid for the issued credits? How do we resolve discrepancies arising from the stated mileage of trade vehicles? How much do we have to pay to register? Etc., etc.?

Well, the policy supposedly went into effect today. The government's stand on when details will be announced to answer the questions above and more: "around" July 23rd.

Cpl Kendall wrote: Take the debate over UHC, apparently the overwhelming majority of the populace is in favour of it but Congress and the Senate are dicking around with a mandatory private system.

That's seemed off to me. So I googled a bit. Finding

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/living/U ... _poll.html

So while Americans indicate support for the idea:

"That support, however, is conditional: It falls to fewer than four in 10 if it means a limited choice of doctors, or waiting lists for non-emergency treatments."

I.e. Most Americans do NOT want Canada's health care system. Actually I've heard up there you have waiting lists for treatments like heart surgery and tumor removal. I bet support drops much further if offered that.

I think part of the problem, from many sides, not just socialists, is that people tend to feel others are like them. Selecitvely reading publications, polls, etc. Than they get upset when the government isn't doing what they'd wish it would. But on the whole I find it generally follows the votes pretty well, for good or bad.

Cpl Kendall wrote: but can't seem to accomplish much beyond that.

Like him or not, Obama is jamming through a lot of legislation. Faster than it can be read actually. If I was a senator I'd be tempted to toss stuff in there just for giggles.

From what I can see of it, it seems well and truly broken to me.

The Republicans have turned into a pure opposition party. They exist purely to oppose everything the Democrats do. On the other side, you'd be hard pressed to find even a shard of backbone amongst the majority of Democrats. The fact that the government seems riddled with people who openly support the religious right doesn't help either, and the prevelance of the two-party system ensures there can never be any real change, as both parties are locked in a state of suck with no incentive to change.

It seems like our entire history has been making the conservative side of our country happy. From not abolishing Slavery in 1789 to moving the capital to a 'southern' (though its not really considered that anymore) part of the nation to modern day. We finally have the capability to show the super conservatives how much better moderate liberialism can be and now our government is too timid to do it.

That said I said it was working satisfactory. While I don't agree with a lot of the things the government does I think its not 'barely' working as the other choice for working said :p

Oh and I think the idea of 'Don't ask don't tell' is a good one. The government shouldn't know or care about your sexuality. Unfortunately that's not the case. Hell did you know the only form of sex legal in the military is missionary? I shit you not. But as our UCMJ Jag told us during boring Red Phase in basic- he doubted anyone would ever get in trouble for a crime he himself does.

Monroe wrote: Oh and I think the idea of 'Don't ask don't tell' is a good one. The government shouldn't know or care about your sexuality. Unfortunately that's not the case. Hell did you know the only form of sex legal in the military is missionary? I s**t you not. But as our UCMJ Jag told us during boring Red Phase in basic- he doubted anyone would ever get in trouble for a crime he himself does.

I've heard that one before.

That's seemed off to me. So I googled a bit. Finding

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/living/U ... _poll.html

So while Americans indicate support for the idea:

"That support, however, is conditional: It falls to fewer than four in 10 if it means a limited choice of doctors, or waiting lists for non-emergency treatments."

I.e. Most Americans do NOT want Canada's health care system. Actually I've heard up there you have waiting lists for treatments like heart surgery and tumor removal. I bet support drops much further if offered that.

I think part of the problem, from many sides, not just socialists, is that people tend to feel others are like them. Selecitvely reading publications, polls, etc. Than they get upset when the government isn't doing what they'd wish it would. But on the whole I find it generally follows the votes pretty well, for good or bad.

Don't be foolish, there is no "limited choice of doctors", our choice of doctors is the same as yours. You can get who you want provided the doc is accepting new patients.

As for the rest, triage is practised here. The ones with the most need go first. From personal experience, I have never waited for more then a month for anything elective and I have to go through the VA system and then the public one.

The problem with the public perception of socialised healthcare in the US is that it's a heavily propagandised version of it. No, you're not going to be waiting hours to get heart surgery. No, there isn't a limit to how much healthcare you can get. No, there isn't some sort of appointed doctor for different people. Etc, etc, etc.

To a degree our government isn't supposed to work efficiently. You're not supposed to be able to blast through major legislation on a whim. It's set up to slow things down specifically so that you're not run by the mercurial urges of the crowd. I like that it's set up to be slightly disfunctional. In particular I do not like that the Democrats are now filibuster proof in the Senate, I wouldn't be wild about it with the Republicans either. One side should never be able to completely ignore the other in government.

All that said I think the government has reached a point where the disfunctionalism has reached the point where it's stopped being useful and started being dangerous. In large part simply because of its size.

Rochey wrote: The fact that the government seems riddled with people who openly support the religious right doesn't help either

It's a Democracy. They still have majorities in some states. That's how it works.

Monroe wrote:It seems like our entire history has been making the conservative side of our country happy. From not abolishing Slavery in 1789 to moving the capital to a 'southern' (though its not really considered that anymore) part of the nation to modern day. We finally have the capability to show the super conservatives how much better moderate liberialism can be and now our government is too timid to do it.

Since our country has been more or less been becoming continually more Liberal since its inception I have to disagree with that first point outright.

And remember the "super conservatives" aren't just a clone of you who hasn't seen the light yet. Politically speaking, you seek to take a giant crap on them, taking their guns, raising their taxes, and a fair bit of telling them what they have to do from light bulbs to how they run their business to cars to pills they have to give out at the pharmacy even if they find it morally reprehensive etc. Well, I suppose I don't know your exact political views, maybe you support gun rights but want to tax churches, but you get the drift.

Now maybe you think such people deserve it, and should do things your way.

Just don't expect the political equivalent of 2 girls 1 cup.

sunnyside wrote:It's a Democracy. They still have majorities in some states. That's how it works.

And Saudi Arabia has a majority of theocratical Muslims. Doesn't mean it's a good thing.

Rochey wrote: Doesn't mean it's a good thing.

But it does mean it's a working Democracy. (I mean America not the House of Saud) I'm not asking you to agree with them. I'm just saying to quit blaming the goverment for not being some kinda dictatorship that does whatever you wish they did.

If you want things to change in a democracy you have to change the minds of the people, and the government will change itself. Which is what we have seen when popular opinion has changed. Both in policies and the parties themselves as conservatives have gone from trying to deny women the vote to nominating a woman as a vice presidential candidate.