Government Policy and Budget Discussion Thread (no politics)

[Cincydawg]

Of course, they all claim not to be partisan.  But on partisan issues, the votes of 7 of the Justices are completely predictable (usually).

A lot of issues they decide have no partisan issue involved, most in fact.  We rarely hear of them.

And there is of course a philosophical difference in opinion here, some are Originalists and some think their judgment should reflect what is needed today.

I used to read some of the decisions on patent law, interesting stuff (not really) and entirely not partisan.  They often ruled 9-0.

[CWSooner]

George Carlin had a great bit about this. Now I’m going on YouTube to find it lol. Thanks for reminding me about it haha.

And also- I’d like to add- both those parties have very little differences and both are bought and owned by corporate America.

George Carlin was funny.
But if he were still alive, he would have been among those 2 months ago telling us that we should lick doorknobs to give our antibodies a workout.

[Cincydawg]

The parties have changed since say 1968.  We used to have conservatives and liberals in both parties.  There were Democrats like Sam Nunn in the Senate who were widely respected and were pretty conservative on most issues.  There were some fairly liberal northeastern Republicans as well.  It was more interesting.

[OrangeAfroMan]

George Carlin was funny.
But if he were still alive, he would have been among those 2 months ago telling us that we should lick doorknobs to give our antibodies a workout.

Carlin: "You know when I wash my hand in the bathroom?  When I get shit on it!"

[CWSooner]

The issue isn't NPVIC vs electoral college.

The issue is that so much of our national decision-making is done in Washington, and it's difficult to create a one-size-fits-all policy that adequately addresses the needs of New York City and Syracuse at the same time, or Los Angeles and Shasta at the same time, or Chicago and Mattoon at the same time.

The reason the low-population states are so wedded to the electoral college isn't out of some sense of Constitutionalism, it's because they realize that if we create national policy based on what the major urban centers need, that they're going to get screwed in the process.

We used to have federalism. We used to have a system where Wyoming and California would have different policies, because not everything was decided in Washington. But now that federalism is dead, you can't blame people in Wyoming for being scared of their rights being run over roughshod by bureaucrats in DC.

How right you are, Bwarb!
Federalism is a big part of the solution.  Let California make its laws and Texas make its laws, with neither of them having the ability to impose their own ideas on the other.
If you want to know where we got away from federalism, look no further than the Progressive Era, where so much went wrong.

[CWSooner]

I get what the arguments are against the NPVIC. My reasons for supporting it are independent of my political views.

As it is, essentially the only people whose vote matters are those living in swing states. I think that's ridiculous. I also think it's ridiculous that low population states (regardless of their political leanings, from North Dakota to Hawaii) have disproportionate votes in the election compared to California and Texas.

The NPVIC really shouldn't be a politicized idea. If/when Texas becomes a swing state and eventually a blue one, maybe Republicans will start supporting it....

But that very sentence demonstrates that it is a politicized--better, partisan--idea.

[CWSooner]

you have hit the nail on the head. The popular election of the Senate has help destroy federalism. I would love to repeal the 17th amendment.

The 17th Amendment is always presented in U.S. History textbooks as a great achievement for "democracy."  I always tell my students that if I could blink my eyes and make one change to the Constitution, it would be to repeal the 17th Amendment.
Not only did it help destroy federalism, it has not resulted in any visible improvement in the quality of U.S. Senators.  We don't see any Daniel Websters, Henry Clays, John C. Calhouns (much as I abhor his support for slavery) in the U.S. Senate today.
And something like 19 of the 20 longest Senate tenures have been since 1913.

[CWSooner]

The States are charged with how Electors are to be chosen of course, so there is that argument.

Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.

Under National Popular Vote, the voters in every state that didn't go the way the popular vote went would be disenfranchised, if we're using "disenfranchise" to mean what it usually means in these discussions.
So it wouldn't be unconstitutional on the face of it, but it would be grossly unconstitutional in spirit.  The founders never envisioned that Connecticut, for example, would be forced to choose its electors based on how Virginia and New York voted.

[CWSooner]

Here's another massive thing that bothers me:  why are there partisan judges at all?!???
Being a partisan judge should be what eliminates you from even being a candidate to the Supreme Court.  It's obscene.  Those 9 judges should be like swing states - we absolutely should not be able to predict what 8 of them are going to do.

They're not partisan.  "Partisan" refers to parties.  They don't wear party labels.  They have different interpretations of the Constitution.  Just like Jefferson and Hamilton did, even before parties existed in the USA.

[847badgerfan]

Very likely yes. And that’s a problem. This my team vs your team has got to stop.

Yes. Screw Ohio State though.

[CWSooner]

Very likely yes. And that’s a problem. This my team vs your team has got to stop.

There's another way to look at it.  If the party is strong enough to enforce party discipline, then you are able to clearly identify the good party (from your perspective) and bad the bad party.
When parties have been stronger, we have had more responsible, accountable national government.  When parties are weaker, we have gotten what we've got now and what we had in the 1850s, in the run-up to the Civil War.

Stronger parties tend to nominate more moderate candidates, because the candidate has to have a reasonably broad coalition of support within the party rather than be at the party's extreme edge.
Look at all the candidates who have effectively hijacked their parties, from Donald Trump to that Judge-turned-Senator in Alabama.  For better or worse, a stronger GOP would have prevented both of those happenings.  A stronger Democratic Party might have prevented Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez from gaining the nomination.
I'd take all of that.

[CWSooner]

Carlin: "You know when I wash my hand in the bathroom?  When I get shit on it!"

Yep.  I just saw that routine on YouTube a couple of weeks ago.

[MichiFan87]

There's another way to look at it.  If the party is strong enough to enforce party discipline, then you are able to clearly identify the good party (from your perspective) and bad the bad party.
When parties have been stronger, we have had more responsible, accountable national government.  When parties are weaker, we have gotten what we've got now and what we had in the 1850s, in the run-up to the Civil War.

Stronger parties tend to nominate more moderate candidates, because the candidate has to have a reasonably broad coalition of support within the party rather than be at the party's extreme edge.
Look at all the candidates who have effectively hijacked their parties, from Donald Trump to that Judge-turned-Senator in Alabama.  For better or worse, a stronger GOP would have prevented both of those happenings.  A stronger Democratic Party might have prevented Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez from gaining the nomination.
I'd take all of that.

Maybe I'm misunderstanding what you mean by "strong" vs "weak", but I think it has a lot more to do with how society is changing.

Our country is more educated and racially diverse than ever. Meanwhile, income inequality is the highest it has been in a long time. Of course that's (among other reasons) going to change the type of people who get elected.

[betarhoalphadelta]

Very likely yes. And that’s a problem. This my team vs your team has got to stop.

Have you ever voted for an Auburn fan?