Real Change: Brought to you by Republicans

[Shady]

We're already seeing real change from the soon to be House Majority Leader.

For the first time in years, House lawmakers will soon have the chance to vote on a standalone measure to increase the federal debt limit next year under the new Republican majority — a vote that’s shaping up as the first early test of the GOP’s commitment to spending restraint.

The House Republican leader, Rep. John A. Boehner of Ohio, will give lawmakers a chance for a direct vote on raising the debt limit, spokesman Michael Steel told the Washington Times.

That would be a break with the recent tactic of burying the debt limit increase in parliamentary maneuvers — a way to shield vulnerable lawmakers from having to take the unpopular vote.

WT

After this is accomplished, there's much more we could see.

* Entire budget frozen at 2008 spending levels.

* A complete ban on earmarks.

* Rules enforcing the reading and posting of legislation several days before voted on.

[Bitsy]

We're already seeing real change from the soon to be House Majority Leader.

After this is accomplished, there's much more we could see.

* Entire budget frozen at 2008 spending levels.

* A complete ban on earmarks.

* Rules enforcing the reading and posting of legislation several days before voted on.

Sound like regurgitated pabulum to me. Talk is cheap, interesting to see what he tries to deliver, especially since the Republican’s Pledge to America made no mention of earmarks. Where is their plan to add jobs? Where is their plan to reduce the deficient?

[Shakeyhands]

We're already seeing real change from the soon to be House Majority Leader.

After this is accomplished, there's much more we could see.

* Entire budget frozen at 2008 spending levels.

* A complete ban on earmarks.

* Rules enforcing the reading and posting of legislation several days before voted on.

Didn't they have 8 years to do all this not too long ago?

[GostHacked]

So it's a good thing to increase the limit of debt the nation can take on because it will help control spending?

Are you out of your skull?

[Michael Hardner]

We're already seeing real change from the soon to be House Majority Leader.

After this is accomplished, there's much more we could see.

* Entire budget frozen at 2008 spending levels.

* A complete ban on earmarks.

* Rules enforcing the reading and posting of legislation several days before voted on.

That's good, but sometimes deficits are a good idea.

Debt as a percentage of GDP isn't even that bad right now. From this graph (lower graphic) it's about where it was for Gulf War I.

[Bitsy]

This is an excellent synopsis of the reality facing our country; Republicans have yet to offer any policy plans that support their campaign rhetoric of 'real change'.

http://www.philly.com/dailynews/opinion/106732398.html

[bloodyminded]

* Entire budget frozen at 2008 spending levels.

I have no idea if this is possible or not, but I don't think they'll be able to pull this off.

* A complete ban on earmarks.

Okay, sure. Time will tell. And I think I can guess what it will tell us.

Rules enforcing the reading and posting of legislation several days before voted on.

Now that's just a rational idea that everyone should support.

Edited November 8, 2010 by bloodyminded

[eyeball]

Didn't they have 8 years to do all this not too long ago?

They better get it done in the next two or I betchya there'll be real hell to pay at the ballot box.

Real change.....bwahahahahahahaha!

In all seriousness though, it is the voter's fault

[Michael Hardner]

In all seriousness though, it is the voter's fault

Hear, hear.

We pay through the nose for this stupid system. They drench themselves in graft, so they can afford advertising time to convince us that they aren't crooks.

And grassroots movements that come up in response either promise pie-in-the-sky or an endless volcano of anger.

Time for a new (and moderate) party. They just need to piggyback on some other movement or group...;

[GostHacked]

Hear, hear.

We pay through the nose for this stupid system. They drench themselves in graft, so they can afford advertising time to convince us that they aren't crooks.

And grassroots movements that come up in response either promise pie-in-the-sky or an endless volcano of anger.

Time for a new (and moderate) party. They just need to piggyback on some other movement or group...;

Dunno, can we even blame the voter when we hear the amount of voter fraud that has been happening the past few years?

[Sir Bandelot]

In all seriousness though, it is the voter's fault

The onlything that is the voters fault is their continued belief that voting for any major political party is going to do some actual good. A few more electrions like this and people will finally start to see the light. Then their next move will be to change the name of the party, to give a sense that there is a real alternative choice. But this game won't go on forever

[cviolatec]

let me show you what real CHANGE looks like...

[Moonlight Graham]

You want real change? Severely clamp down on the campaign finance system & lobbying that goes on in Washington.

[GostHacked]

You want real change? Severely clamp down on the campaign finance system & lobbying that goes on in Washington.

AAAAAhahahahahahahahahahahahahah.... yeah that'll happen.

[Michael Hardner]

Another idea: the parties only have to be better than each other. At 3 parties, there's not a lot to beat.

[eyeball]

Another idea: the parties only have to be better than each other. At 3 parties, there's not a lot to beat.

This doesn't change anything. It's the system we have now except that we say a party only has to be less worse than the others.

[Michael Hardner]

This doesn't change anything. It's the system we have now except that we say a party only has to be less worse than the others.

I know. It doesn't change anything - it's the system we have now I was describing. A new party would have to piggyback on some kind of national organization. I heard of a new political party in India that is building itself up based on professional membership (i.e. Engineering, Law, Medical, Project Management certification) and that is an example of what could work.

[eyeball]

I know. It doesn't change anything - it's the system we have now I was describing. A new party would have to piggyback on some kind of national organization. I heard of a new political party in India that is building itself up based on professional membership (i.e. Engineering, Law, Medical, Project Management certification) and that is an example of what could work.

Sounds better than the collection of used car salesmen and chiropractors we usually seem to be stuck with.

[Michael Hardner]

Sounds better than the collection of used car salesmen and chiropractors we usually seem to be stuck with.

It's something, at least. The problem is a heterogeneous group like that isn't going to necessarily have a vision or a philosophy. They will champion clarity of execution, efficiency, and integrity but what would they want ?

My take on our system is that philosophically, it is as fully evolved as it can be given our current social consciousness. Our government is basically a large corporate monopoly that doles out tax money to things we want fixed. As far as that goes, we're not talking about separating church & state, or instituting a social safety net - we've got that.

Maybe the time has come for an apolitical party to merely execute on what we have today ?

Just a thought.

[eyeball]

It's something, at least. The problem is a heterogeneous group like that isn't going to necessarily have a vision or a philosophy. They will champion clarity of execution, efficiency, and integrity but what would they want ?

My take on our system is that philosophically, it is as fully evolved as it can be given our current social consciousness. Our government is basically a large corporate monopoly that doles out tax money to things we want fixed. As far as that goes, we're not talking about separating church & state, or instituting a social safety net - we've got that.

Our social consciousness seems to have settled into a fairly stable orbit around a center of gravity if you will, that exists between conservatism and liberalism. As you've often pointed out yourself, most of the BIG issues the left and right have with one another have been settled. I think there is one that still needs dealing with though - how to deal with the issues the governed and governments have with one another like trust for example.

Maybe the time has come for an apolitical party to merely execute on what we have today ?

Just a thought.

How though? On the face of it technocracy seems to be the most obvious rational solution and on that note, while we may have separation of church and state in theory, as has been pointed out in polls on public attitudes, atheists still don't stand a snowball's chance in hell of being elected. There is still far too much room for a lot of supernatural and outright deluded thinking to find it's way into public policy.

Edited November 10, 2010 by eyeball

[Michael Hardner]

How though? On the face of it technocracy seems to be the most obvious rational solution and on that note, while we may have separation of church and state in theory, as has been pointed out in polls on public attitudes, atheists still don't stand a snowball's chance in hell of being elected. There is still far too much room for a lot of supernatural and outright deluded thinking to find it's way into public policy.

Technocracy came into consideration during a period where science started providing great advances to our way of life. It's an outdated idea. What we need today is public engagement, as we had when the system was designed.

How ? We just do it. They don't ask questions now because they're afraid of what people will say. They don't consult. It's "design and defend". They tell YOU how it will work. We only put up with it because we know nothing better than voting for the same old every few years.

Government, though, is now much more than a few far-reaching policy decisions. It's involved in our day-to-day lives and yet they don't act like other corporations that are similarly involved.

[eyeball]

Technocracy came into consideration during a period where science started providing great advances to our way of life. It's an outdated idea. What we need today is public engagement, as we had when the system was designed.

How ? We just do it. They don't ask questions now because they're afraid of what people will say. They don't consult. It's "design and defend". They tell YOU how it will work. We only put up with it because we know nothing better than voting for the same old every few years.

Government, though, is now much more than a few far-reaching policy decisions. It's involved in our day-to-day lives and yet they don't act like other corporations that are similarly involved.

I guess I have to say governments and corporations do seem to act alike in the sense that most of the really important decisions they make are directly related to their own self-interest. Where one acts in pursuit of money the other pursues power. Notice that when people engage their corporations they usually do so with their money and now that I mention it...

[Bonam]

We're already seeing real change from the soon to be House Majority Leader.

...

Err... what's so good about raising the debt limit, especially from a republican standpoint?

[Shady]

Sound like regurgitated pabulum to me. Talk is cheap, interesting to see what he tries to deliver, especially since the Republican’s Pledge to America made no mention of earmarks.

Now this is change you can believe in!

Senate Republicans back earmarks ban in voice vote

During a closed-door caucus meeting, Republicans passed by voice vote a two-year moratorium on earmarks, identical to one approved by the House GOP earlier this year. They also approved a resolution sponsored by Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky challenging their Democratic colleagues to enact an earmark ban of their own

Politico

Looks like the balls in the Democrats court. Republicans have banned earmarks. Will Democrats have the will power to keep their hands off the pork? I'm guessing not. Unless Republicans can shame them into doing so.

[pviolp2000]

Another idea: the parties only have to be better than each other. At 3 parties, there's not a lot to beat.

let me show you REAL CHANGE...