Health Care Fight For Sole Purpose of 'Spurring Debate"

[tigersofjustice]

trolling? lol, just trying to get the boy to have some sort of an intelligent conversation, after all, is his first post here and he goes down in flames

Ha, I went down in flames? When did that happen? You just seem to have all the information that nobody else has.

 

[redandguilty]

http://www.cnn.com/2012/07/10/politics/house-health-care/index.html?hpt=hp_t1

I rarely like to post about politics but....

this is coming from a party which has championed efficient use of money/resources for a while now. Yet they are mounting an attack on the health care bill not to get it overturned but to draw a debate into the public in before an election.

So they basically just admitted to wasting everybody's time and wasting the money they are being paid and will use up mounting this attack to promote their own political party.

Wow. I rarely get infuriated/surprised by anything that happens in our government anymore, but this sent my blood boiling.

I think this is most of what's left of our political system. Partisanship before all else. These people are useless.

 

[tsmith7559]

25x? You have the actual figures?

sure.....
$1,500/minute for AF One
takes around 2hrs 45min to fly from DC to Iowa, round trip 5hrs 30min= $495,000, not including secret service, etc.

$174,000/yr for a congressman(435)
one hour vote= $8,640

$495,000/$8640=57+, ya I was off a little, make it 60 times

 

[tigersofjustice]

I think this is most of what's left of our political system. Partisanship before all else. These people are useless.

Question is how do we get out of it?

My personal preference would be to no longer have a two party system, but how does that even happen now? Everybody there is self interested in preserving the two party system as a member of one or the other party. It stands to reason that both parties would staunchly oppose any attempt to disrupt that. Specifically, I think the Citizens United decision went a long way in furthering said two party system. However are we ever going to be able to add an amendment to overrule the decision when everybody in congress is self interested?

 

[redandguilty]

Question is how do we get out of it?

My personal preference would be to no longer have a two party system, but how does that even happen now? Everybody there is self interested in preserving the two party system as a member of one or the other party. It stands to reason that both parties would staunchly oppose any attempt to disrupt that. Specifically, I think the Citizens United decision went a long way in furthering said two party system. However are we ever going to be able to add an amendment to overrule the decision when everybody in congress is self interested?

I haven't seen any data, but I've read and I'm inclined to believe that partisanship and wealth inequality have historically gone hand-in-hand. Last time things were this bad, WWII reset the situation...so I don't have a clue how we get out of it this time. Things were just as extreme back then with the same magnitude of political "nuclear options" being pursued (e.g., FDR was trying to expand the Supreme Court so he could appoint enough justices to ensure the New Deal wouldn't be struck down.)

 

[tigersofjustice]

I haven't seen any data, but I've read and I'm inclined to believe that partisanship and wealth inequality have historically gone hand-in-hand. Last time things were this bad, WWII reset the situation...so I don't have a clue how we get out of it this time. Things were just as extreme back then with the same magnitude of political "nuclear options" being pursued (e.g., FDR was trying to expand the Supreme Court so he could appoint enough justices to ensure the New Deal wouldn't be struck down.)

Re: wealth inequality. I have not seen the data on that, but intuitively it seems likely to be true.