politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
I'm still flabbergasted that government shutdown is a thing in the US. Basically holding the whole country hostage, or at least the part that is most likely to vote against you (at least when Reps do the shutdown). Just like that.
There are two factors that make these shutdowns uniquely American:
First of all, the responsibility to run government agencies rests with the President, while the responsibility over the budget is held by Congress (subject to a Presidential veto). And those are separate branches, with separate governance, even when the same party controls them. In most other countries, the legislative and executive branches are run by the same people, and an inability to appropriate funds to executive agencies is seen as such an obvious failure that it can prompt a no-confidence vote in the government. Here, we see that as a negotiating tactic. Even when new departments and functions are created, they get to negotiate whether that new thing is "subject to yearly appropriations" or is funded automatically.
But the second factor is the anti-deficiency act, which speficially prevents Federal agencies from spending money that has not been appropriated. While that law has been on the books since 1884, it was last revised in the early 80s, and it was around that time where the Reagan administration decided that these agencies needed to shut down in the absence of appropriations. Before then, the agencies would keep functioning (and, more importantly, paying their employees), and run a deficit while the matter was sorted out.
Basically, Republicans who thought government was too big in the 80s specifically manufactured this process, putting up roadblocks in the way of spending government funds, because our system lets them do it. (No politician loses their job when it happens.) They can now pass budgets full of things they never intend to actually fund, and then hold up appropriations while still getting "credit" for passing the budget in the first place.
Reagan really fucked some shit up, hey?
I kinda wish we had a system where we could just declare the government a failure, and kick out the lot in favor of a new one. There are other things I dislike about parliamentary systems, but that's good.
Parliamentary system seems superior in every single way to what we have here.
Didn't Belgium go for almost 3 years without a government a while back? Meanwhile France is on their 5th prime minister in 2 years. I think the issue is that Democracy is entirely incompatible with capitalism.
I never said it was perfect, but it is better if only for the fact that it allows for more than two parties.
I really dislike voting for parties rather than individuals. I realize parties are inevitable, but I hate them. I want to elect an individual who I trust to fight hard for the things I want and to have the wisdom to make compromises—even painful ones—to achieve a greater good.
Like with Obama, I trust that he had to make some difficult choices and did the best he could, even when I vehemently disagreed with some of them. Literally the only President in my lifetime I feel that way about, and the party would never have made him President. Or PM, I suppose it would be.
I'm not saying the benefits of parliamentary systems wouldn't outweigh the harms, but they definitely aren't perfect.
At least parliamentary system allows for more than two parties.
Also, people do directly vote for their MPs in most systems.
I thought they elected a party and the party chooses who leads it? Have to be honest I don't follow foreign politics as well as I should. But the same thing applies at a local level. I want to vote for individual representatives and senators. At whatever level I don't want a bunch of out of touch rich folks deciding who best represents my individual interests.
You should refresh your memory on what a parliamentary system actually is...
You're right. I had some fundamental misunderstandings of the system. My apologies. I'll go rethink things. Thank you for bringing that to my attention.
No worries... No system is perfect, but I personally think there are a lot of benefits to it over what we currently have in the US.
Even though most countries (that I know of) have a similar personality cult, the head guy has never as much power as POTUS.
We are hostages even when the government is working. Unless you are born into a privileged family or enough of a cunt/psychopath to live the greedy American dream lifestyle. Crabs in a bucket they figuratively rape lives to get the American dream.
They feed us psychologically marketed lifestyles and escapism to keep people guided on a path they can keep control of. Most people barely know the full spectrum of what it actually means to be a living human being here. They are more like farm animals.