Really Good Analysis of Current Legislative Process

Legislative gridlock reminds me of my sex life. I always ask the wife for some, she usually says no. Not because she doesn't want to (well maybe), but because she wants to see what kind of bargain can be struck. She gives in, and I promise to do some menial task the next day. Congress is no different,, anything can be bargained for,, but nothing happens without some kind of reciprocal. Always been that way - bridge to nowhere

Way to bring some pork to the district Ras....   

Crazy thread

is this the horny 50yr old + thread? 

It is now.

what's up mayor pete. 

Too wonkish for me. What does it all mean?

Ras, maybe you are doing it wrong. Maybe its time to enroll in one of them new health classes where they teach all the good stuff, that conservatives hate. 

That one hit get you again BK?

<<<>>>In this example, congressional inaction for over a decade effectively has cut the minimum wage by over 15% and will continue to chip away until a new law is passed. Scholars call this process “policy drift” and argue it has been central to shrinking the functional size of the social safety net since the 1980s.

same team and people laugh. 

Probably read it tomorrow but Ras story/analogy kinda stole the show here. Good stuff.

> same team and people laugh.

Call me a racist, but English please?

mayor pete needs to pay better attention. 

come on man! 

I read the first few paragraphs, but that was after I smoked quite a few more than two hits. I did glean though that the article claims policy is the problem. Is this news?

it doesn't. 

i'm saying it's so obvious the contempt and out right hate both parties have for the working class.

If we can agree that legislative gridlock is a problem, and the article claims that it's actually policy that impedes progress, then the problem is shifted from the legislature to policy.

I was reading the article (not high) and it doesn't really mention some important points about how these policies can be talking points for politicians to hide behind or run their campaigns behind while having an idea of how these things with play out in reality while others are voting on conscience. Again, these policies a lot of times are just headlines while the senators remain in "gridlock".
 

When it comes to wall st, oil companies and global banking interests there is no gridlock or really many fights between parties. They just get what they want. When it comes to working people it's always some kind of battle for pennies. Doesn't look like it will change anytime soon but at the same time no one in congress is really pushing for that change. Bernie kinda tried for a little bottle but got burnt out now it's pretty much all but done. 

The U.S. is about to face what has to be one of the more nonsensical policy failures of the pandemic: Millions of Americans, already struggling financially, could be hit with a huge tax bill because they received unemployment insurance last year.

Perversely, because of the relative generosity of the benefits passed by Congress last spring ― $600 a week on top of state benefits ― tax bills might reach into the thousands of dollars, according to a report released by The Century Foundation last week, as well as conversations HuffPost had with unemployed workers.

Households could see tax bills between $1,000 and $2,000, said Brian Galle, a professor at Georgetown Law School and the report’s co-author. Some bills could reach as high as $3,000; others may not owe money but won’t get the refunds they’re expecting. 

Most of these people still don’t have jobs. “Asking people who are out of work to dig into their pockets and come up with another $3,000 when they’re already having trouble paying rent — this is just a bad combination of events,” Galle said.

For many, the bills will come as a surprise: Who would think that the government would tax the money it provided to help people avoid going broke? 

I understand, and I have come to accept that's just how the fed is designed to work. Slow. 

> I was reading the article (not high)

lol. That's on my to-do list this morning.

How much do you pay your employees

Do you provide healthcare benefits

Almost 250 yrs later... still slow as ever. Senators crying over 15$/hr in 2024. Fed min wage has decreased 17% against inflation since last raise in 2009. That means that even 15$/hr in 2024 would be a step backwards and it still unlikely to pass. Really incredible. I guess the system is working better than ever?

The founders clearly intended Legislative Supremacy.  Unfortunately, we've drifted dangerously far away from this basic underpinning of the Constitutional architecture.

Just came across this and thought about this thread, good discussion of why we are in grid lock when Republicans only want to complain about things but don't want to take any responsibility (see Texas)

Limbaugh was all about opinion without responsibility. Obviously. He was a radio host. He never had to write a bill or get a road fixed or negotiate with a foreign government or do any of the things that people in government need to do for the government to work. 

I think it was this that drew so many people to Limbaugh's show, and made him a role model for so many other people in conservative media and, eventually, people in conservative politics. These were people who liked expressing opinion, and disdained responsibility. 

I don't mean they disdained all responsibility -- say, for their own welfare, or that of their families and close friends. But Limbaugh attracted to his show people who resented civic virtue, the idea that they bore some responsibility for society or other people generally. 

Is it difficult at all to see the direct line between Limbaugh's audience and Trump's? Particularly after the last of the old Republican Party, the party of internationalism and free markets, had blown up with the George W. Bush administration, the disdain for responsibility... 

.....in which Limbaugh's audience had reveled during the 1990s became dominant in the Republican Party. A President who spent much of his tenure watching television and playing golf -- during a pandemic, as Americans died by the thousands every day -- came to be idolized. 

Trump's rallies were all about people -- nearly all white, mostly prosperous -- getting together and having a good time. The country might have problems; so might the world. But not their problems. They wanted no demands placed upon them by politics or politicians. 

They wanted entertainment, validation, fun. That's what Limbaugh had delivered to his radio audience, and what Trump delivered to the crowds at the campaign rallies he maintained, with stupefying consistency, throughout the four years he was President. 

I have seen this discussed in terms of Limbaugh's influence on Trump -- and of the influence both men had on Republican politicians, so many of whom act as if the two political entertainers were personal role models. Perhaps this is looking at the subject in the wrong way. 

Maybe what was significant about Limbaugh's career was his audience, its passions and (especially) its vices. If Limbaugh hadn't existed, someone very similar would have taken his place. Generally prosperous Americans, not all that interested in other people's problems and.... 

....resentful of the very idea they might bear some responsibility for solving them, would have demanded some other voice to keep them entertained, validate their petty grievances and idle prejudices, and reassure them that nothing was their fault. 

If Republican politicians shrink from engaging even on immediate crises, maybe this is why. We can say they're not being responsible -- but they got nominated and elected because of this, not in spite of it. They learned to give an audience what it wanted, as Rush Limbaugh did. 

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1362617080579784704.html

struggle for a nickle, scuffle for a dime...

Legislative supremacy>>>
 

Most likely that seems the intent. Ultimately, that leaves the power to the Republic but they likely didn't foresee industrialization in 1776. The industrial/commercial world has a clear dominance over the republic now and the next ten years could get far worse than imagined. A lot of people are fed up with it all. All the most powerful republics have ultimately perished at some point. It will happen in the USA as well.

Hoping it's not in my lifetime!

without editorializing>>>
 

phones still broken believe it or not

Wouldn't it be great if there was a law that said every time Congress votes to give itself a pay raise, the federal minimum has to also increase? They haven't given themselves a raise since 2009, so they're due.<<<<

Yep, and it'd give new meaning to the phrase "mandatory minimum"!

Legislative supremacy>>>
 

Most likely that seems the intent. Ultimately, that leaves the power to the Republic but they likely didn't foresee industrialization in 1776. The industrial/commercial world has a clear dominance over the republic now and the next ten years could get far worse than imagined. A lot of people are fed up with it all. All the most powerful republics have ultimately perished at some point. It will happen in the USA as well.

Hoping it's not in my lifetime!<<<<

I think you're right about not anticipating a lot of the changes we've witnessed for nearly 250 years, and the Constitution has essentially become antiquated; allowing special private interests to "game" it for their own myopic ends.  I suspect that if you compared the revision history of our Constitution with other industrialized nations, we're lagging sorely behind in terms of meaningful "version updates".  It's always taken major traumas to adopt amendments that aren't essentially just "housekeeping".  

The problem to tying the minimum wage to raises is that the average wealth of a US Senator is $14M and the average wealth of a rep is $6M. The vast majority of the people who "represent" us don't give a shit about their government salary, but raising the minimum wage will cost their friends who they hang with millions of dollars. 

I don't try and discourage anyone from voting or anything like that but in the end we still are left with elected officials in a republic that's dominated by industrialization. Some people are discouraged from voting because of that, I believe. I don't know the exact figures but what was there like 50% of the population that voted in the last election? That was with mail ins as well.

I'm really only a "pointer" to these situations as these kind of things are well out of my control but the supremecy of the republic has definitely discouraged citizens from taking part in the democracy. Often when we hear of "disenfranchised" these are the people who result from these "trickle down" techniques. Anyways, I'm off for the day but good discussion here