How US politics works » Forum Post by Mumblefratz

Certainly not the best and brightest.

This makes me laugh. What the US has are the best whores in the world. The best whore doctors, the best whore CEO's, the best whore engineers, etc. etc. etc.

What the US is best at is selling ourselves for money. Best and brightest. Hardly.

[edit] Almost forgot. The best whore politicians as well. Can't name every occupation under the sun but can't forget the politicians.

This really ties back to the title of this thread, "How US politics works", which is how everything works in the US. Just follow the money. Big money wins everytime. There are no Republicans or even Democrats. They are all merely Corporatists that try to fool you by wearing different hats. At least the Republicans make no apology about whose bidding they do. It's the Blue Dog Democrats that pretend to work for the benefit of the common man while sucking at the hind tit of Big Money that are the biggest problem.

Here's a really good example of how politics works in the US. The following is excerpt from http://www.huffingtonpost.com/cenk-uygur/desperately-seeking-snowe_b_298008.html.

There is a great misunderstanding as to why the Democrats are desperately seeking out Olympia Snowe to make a deal with on health care. It's not that they believe that if they get one Republican vote they can call the bill bipartisan. No one believes that's credible. And they actually don't need her vote to get the bill passed, because if they had the will to do it, they have 60 senators in their caucus to defeat a Republican filibuster and take an up and down vote on the bill.

No, they're desperate to get her on board so that they can pretend they had to compromise with her. She's their cover. Or their beard, if you like. You see, the corporatist Democrats (Max Baucus, Kent Conrad, Mike Ross, Rahm Emanuel) have always wanted to get in bed with the health care industry. They want to keep the lobbyist money squarely in the Democratic corner. If Snowe blows their cover and they have no Republican votes - they have no discernible reason to "compromise" away important parts of reform like the public option. Who are they compromising with? The jig is up. They're out of excuses. There would be no reason not to do a strong version of reform.

That is also why the Republicans would be furious with Snowe if she does the deal. Because what do they care if the Democrats get one Republican vote? You think they'd let the Democrats get away with calling that bipartisan? And the Republicans have said a million times that the Democrats have enough votes to get this bill passed on their own, if they had the stones to do it. They're practically goading them into it. Why? Because they want to tell industry that the Democrats screwed them and can't be trusted. There's only one place where their money is safe.

While we've all been having an earnest debate about what should go in the bill and how it should get done, the real fight in Washington has been over who's going to get the corporate money. Who is better positioned through this bill to get more access to lobbyist largess? That's what all of this positioning has been about. That's why there are reports out now that the White House is feverishly pursuing Olympia Snowe as we speak, perhaps even accepting her ridiculous trigger clause.

And now it looks like they might get her. Why? Because her numbers in Maine just slipped down to 54%. The art of American politics is figuring out how to deceive the electorate into thinking you're working for them for as long as possible while you funnel as much money as possible into your campaign coffers from corporate lobbyists. It's a virtuous circle for the politicians because the more money they have the more people they can trick into voting for them. If you get too close to the flame though, you can get burned. So Snowe will run back to the middle, and she'll get corporate money anyway for putting together the "compromise" (i.e. the corporate written reform bill that makes private health care companies even more money than they were making before through such things as "mandates" with no public option).

And the guys left out in the cold will be the Republican Party because they were useless to the lobbyists (the Democrats are the party in power and they play ball just as well as the Republicans). More money goes to the Democratic Party, they build on their majorities, Rahm Emanuel goes home with a big, fat smile on his face.

Oh wait, I feel like I'm leaving someone out of this? Oh right, there is someone else who gets screwed here - you.

This is how politics works in the US. Pretending to work for your constituents as much as humanly possible while selling them down the river to whoever has the most ready cash to support your reelection campaign.

Anyway this is why I will support any and all healthcare reform if and only if it contains a *strong* public option. If the final legislation does not contain a public option but intstead relies on the pretense of "triggers" or "co-ops" then I will be against it as much or more than any so called Republican, or should I say Corporatist?

Mumblefratz

reply 26

Almost forgot. The best whore politicians as well.

I would be remiss to not mention the whore media.

You would indeed. What ever happened to actually reporting anything?!

I would be remiss to not mention the whore media.

I have to agree with this as well.

The thing is that the media is universally criticized from both the right *and* the left. It's not just as matter of the left hating Fox News and the right hating PBS and MSNBC. It's more than that.

From a left perspective Fox is easy to take. They have an obvious right wing bias and therefore pretty much everything they report can be discounted. I presume that the right views the MSM (Main Street Media) in a similar manner. However it isn't quite as simple as this.

I think what has become more true is that media has a more corporate bias which is intrinsically more right wing but their idea of trying to be unbiased is to try and make an equivalent point for each side of the conversation even if it is totally obvious that one side or the other is being a total ass.

I'm mean if someone is walking down the street with a sign that says "We came unarmed ... this time" then it makes perfect sense to report the obvious which is that this represents the lunatic fringe which is being intentionally riled up by the likes of Glenn Beck to hopefully inspire some deluded fool to try and assassinate Obama. Of course when it happens they'll say "Oh no, I never promoted actual violence. No, not me."

I'm sure our right wing friends could point to similar issues from their viewpoint. The point is that "fairness" in the media today is to make sure that every point is made 50/50 even when that requires everyone to ignore the elephant in the room.

[edit] I think the BBC still takes the job of being a journalist seriously and simply reports the news allowing the listener to draw their own conclusions, but I don't believe that there are any US news outlets left that are without a bias one way or the other. Also I personally believe that there is far more right wing bias these days than left wing bias even in the MSM and even though I'm sure the right will disagree. [/edit]

Scoutdog

reply 29

... What ever happened to actually reporting anything?!

It costs too much money to do serious investigative reporting, plus they risk boring their audiences with dreary things like facts.

Less snarkily put, the problem stems from the steady decline of news reporting as a money-losing form of corporate responsibility to news as a profit center. Through the last half of the 20th, this happened in all forms of US news media. The rise of so-called infotainment simply made matters muddier, leading to these sorry times when our brainless talking-head 'anchors' are bouncing around in sets that look more like they belong to a game show than like a place for serious discussions.

Back 'on topic,' it looks like Mumble and I think even more alike than I'd suspected. I'm one of those Democrats who had to be talked out of voting for Nader (not in 2008, he lost my vote on his own that time). I would dearly, dearly love to see our country somehow develop a real party system where you could expect consistent work towards explicitly defined policy goals, vote people out when they failed to carry water to the right fires, and leave your party when leadership changed the platform to something you couldn't accept.

But I'd probably settle for seeing Buckley v. Valeo overturned. Until that happens, we will not be able to escape the 'virtuous circle' crap that the Huffypost writer Mumble quoted mentioned. With the status quo (likely to soon be strengthened by the Supreme Court overturning McCain-Feingold), we are living in a plutocracy, not a democracy. At least it's still sort of a republic...

[edit] I think the BBC still takes the job of being a journalist seriously and simply reports the news allowing the listener to draw their own conclusions, but I don't believe that there are any US news outlets left that are without a bias one way or the other. Also I personally believe that there is far more right wing bias these days than left wing bias even in the MSM and even though I'm sure the right will disagree. [/edit]

And you'd be right about that. Most media leans so far left it's amazing they don't fall over. Fox News is funny just because they attempt to overcompensate for the rest of the industry and just make laughingstocks of themselves. And no, I don't watch Fox News or follow Glenn Beck or any of the other blowhards. Apparently people with basic cable don't need news, so I mostly make do with PBS. BBC America used to be my favorite, but the channel that carried it got dropped from my cable. It was refreshing to watch news about the US that had a non-US viewpoint.

I'm mean if someone is walking down the street with a sign that says "We came unarmed ... this time" then it makes perfect sense to report the obvious which is that this represents the lunatic fringe which is being intentionally riled up by the likes of Glenn Beck to hopefully inspire some deluded fool to try and assassinate Obama. Of course when it happens they'll say "Oh no, I never promoted actual violence. No, not me."

And the left fringe is praying for a credible threat or near miss, so they can label the whole right wing as racist xenophobes to further marginalize them. Oh wait, that's already being done.

But I'd probably settle for seeing Buckley v. Valeo overturned. Until that happens, we will not be able to escape the 'virtuous circle' crap that the Huffypost writer Mumble quoted mentioned. With the status quo (likely to soon be strengthened by the Supreme Court overturning McCain-Feingold), we are living in a plutocracy, not a democracy. At least it's still sort of a republic...

The sad thing is, I agree with that. Campaign contributions need to be done in such a way the candidate cannot find out who donated the money. And if they somehow do, they have to give the money back. The anonymity of the system would be self-supporting, as both sides would be actively trying to sabotage the other's income.

Yeah, funny when you call a lier a lier.

Mumblefratz

reply 30

I'm mean if someone is walking down the street with a sign that says "We came unarmed ... this time" then it makes perfect sense to report the obvious which is that this represents the lunatic fringe......

Where were you when a book was written about asasinating G. W. Bush? Being a liberatarian, I would like them all to go to Hell, but I am just wondering? Cuz' the left was pretty vehement about killing Busch. Do you only care about death threats to leftists and not rightists?

Stanley Tarrant

reply 35

... Where were you when a book was written about asasinating G. W. Bush? Being a liberatarian, I would like them all to go to Hell, but I am just wondering? Cuz' the left was pretty vehement about killing Busch. Do you only care about death threats to leftists and not rightists?

Can you give a title &/or some links about that Bush-whacking book? I try to keep an ear out for all crazies regardless of their goals, and that's one I missed.

Also, there is no real left in the US and certainly nothing coherent enough to call "the left" and "the right" even if you put aside how useless those terms are these days. I call myself 'leftist' now and then, but it's mostly rhetoric (i.e. deliberate imprecision in the name of fun and/or persuasive language) and aimed mainly at authoritarian corporatists regardless of party.

Re your question to Mumble, I'd bet money the answer is, "No." The whole point of small-d democratic government, like we in the US claim to have, is that we handle transfers of political power without heads rolling, corpses on gallows, firing squads, etc.

Where were you when a book was written about asasinating G. W. Bush?

There's a book about how to assassinate Bush? Never heard of it. Must not have sold very well.

Cuz' the left was pretty vehement about killing Busch. Do you only care about death threats to leftists and not rightists?

I want to say "define 'the left'", but it's probably a futile exercise..... I agree that the tree-hugging technophobes are certifiably nuts, but nearly everyone (including the rest of the left, btw) ignores them.

And finally, while any public figure is going to get kooks angry at them, death threats against Obama have quadrupled compared to those against Bush. And this is just his first six months! I would certainly consider that something to care about...

Mumblefratz

reply 26

What the US is best at is selling ourselves for money. Best and brightest. Hardly.

Considering foreign investors actually own much of the relative US debt(s), i'd claim some of these credit ratings are somehow exaggerated. Not that a worldwide economy driven through any form of global market capitalism isn't a "Natural" American edge over its usual trendy ways of shoveling financial troubles ahead rather than now.

Refunding trillions (eventually) is kinda tricky.

In the meantime, if anything to create an illusion; Bailouts away all you want -- future would certainly become a shock in rationalized spendings. What growth couldn't (or won't, btw) compensate for, restrictions on most standards of living might.

Cuz' the left was pretty vehement about killing Busch.

Anheuser-Busch?

No, I wasn't aware of any such plan, perhaps I missed that meeting.

In fact I was as offended as anyone that someone threw a goddamn *shoe* at Bush. BTW where were the secret service and how could someone have been allowed to not only throw one shoe but have the time to take off and throw the *other* shoe as well? I have trouble believing that the secret service is *that* incompetent at their job.

likely to soon be strengthened by the Supreme Court overturning McCain-Feingold

This is something that's particularly troubling to me. I suppose Plutocracy is basically correct but I still think Corporatist is a bit more accurate here.

Even more troubling is the idea that the case was being argued on the specifics of the case itself until SCOTUS itself directed the plaintiffs to essentially argue against McCain-Feingold and the 100 years of precedent behind the limitations of union and corporation campaign contributions and scheduled an unprecedented special session to hear the arguments.

Talk about legislating from the bench which is a favorite right wing topic but I suppose only if it’s not right wing legislation favoring corporations.

The problem is that it's not really right versus left, it's the haves versus the have-nots and what truly amazes me is how the haves can delude huge numbers of the have-nots to vote against their own interests simply because the haves pay lip service to certain "values". What's even funnier is that what the haves really worship is not represented by the church they so ostentatiously attend on Sunday mornings but by the bank they scurry off to every Monday morning.

Compared to most folks here I'm a "have" but I'm not deluded by the few hundreds of thousands of dollars that I've managed to amass over my lifetime. I'm as much of a peasant as any 17th century serf and I vote accordingly.

Mumblefratz

reply 39

... Compared to most folks here I'm a "have" but I'm not deluded by the few hundreds of thousands of dollars that I've managed to amass over my lifetime. I'm as much of a peasant as any 17th century serf and I vote accordingly.

Rich peasant, I'll give you, but not serf. Serfdom is a form of bondage, not as bad as chattel slavery, but not at all as good as being a free peasant.

Of course, that whole "free" thing is sometimes a bit of rhetorical vaporware. In the real world, there is no such thing as a decision made without regard to a constraining material and social context. Is it really "freedom" when you are faced with a choice between becoming homeless in the community where your family has lived for generations or moving to the other side of a continent in hopes of finding employment before you are forced to declare bankruptcy? In the philosophical senses related to open borders and the absence of bondage to masters or land, yes, it's a "free choice." But it probably doesn't feel all that free to people who are forced to tear up their roots and hope they can grow new ones before their lives fall completely apart.

That's basically another of the not-so-good things about how US politics work. We have a long tradition of high-minded talk that can be used to cover all manner of sins against local communities and individual families in the name of "liberty" and "free markets." (I'm using "sin" there in a sloppy secularist attempt at invoking Rousseau's civil religion. Beg pardon.)

Serfdom is a form of bondage

If you can't quit your job tomorrow and support yourself for the rest of your life on your savings then you are just a wage slave. Perhaps the few hundreds of thousands that I have saved puts me closer to financial freedom than some others but if I were to quit my job tomorrow I would be destitute in less than a handful of years. Or viewed another way, I’m only one serious illness from losing every penny that I’ve ever earned.

Some people seem to think that a persons station in life is something that is totally under their own control. Usually the people that think that way are successful and look at all the work that they've put in to being successful and say that if they could do it then anyone willing to put in the effort could do it as well.

But in my opinion that thinking is extremely flawed. I'm not denying that hard work is essential to becoming a success, I simply maintain that there is *always* a large measure of luck involved, be that luck simply a matter of some particular combination of intelligence and drive that you're born with or be that the luck of simply being born into the right family. There's also just the luck of deciding to turn left versus right at the critical moment.

I feel that I have been reasonably blessed with both ability and willingness to put in hard work and have been reasonably successful and baring some dramatic disaster I feel pretty confident that I will be able to achieve financial independence, but I look around at many people that haven't been as lucky and have to admit that there but for the grace of god go I.

My own personal philosophy has always involved trying to put myself in the other guys shoes and I can easily envision situations in which all the intelligence and hard work in the world turns out for naught due to the simple flip of a coin.

Mumblefratz

reply 41

... If you can't quit your job tomorrow and support yourself for the rest of your life on your savings then you are just a wage slave. Perhaps the few hundreds of thousands that I have saved puts me closer to financial freedom than some others but if I were to quit my job tomorrow I would be destitute in less than a handful of years. Or viewed another way, I’m only one serious illness from losing every penny that I’ve ever earned.

Maybe I'm too fond of irony. I thought I more or less made the same point in my last post, and just opened with a friendly poke at your choice of words.

I realize that we are in essence making the same point, but we definitely have a much different way of expressing it.

For example, when you say the following.

Of course, that whole "free" thing is sometimes a bit of rhetorical vaporware. In the real world, there is no such thing as a decision made without regard to a constraining material and social context.

OK, I buy that. But what does it really mean?

At heart I'm really a very simple guy and my engineering background probably shows in everything I write. A + B = C. Simple, direct, causal.

In any case my last few posts have basically underlined my lack of understanding as to how the "haves" can convince so many "have-nots" to vote against their own best interests and support things that only benefit folks that couldn't care less about them.

One reason is that the "haves" prey upon the religious and moral values of a certain segment of the population and by pretending to support these values trick folks into voting with them. Certainly another motivation is holding out the hope to the "have-nots" that if they only work hard enough they too can become a "have".

The point that I'm trying to make is that there seems to be a whole lot of folks that would be far better served if they realized the truth that they are no better off than peasants themselves. Or in other words, "You ain't tall, midget, you just clever."

If you can't quit your job tomorrow and support yourself for the rest of your life on your savings then you are just a wage slave. Perhaps the few hundreds of thousands that I have saved puts me closer to financial freedom than some others but if I were to quit my job tomorrow I would be destitute in less than a handful of years. Or viewed another way, I’m only one serious illness from losing every penny that I’ve ever earned.

If it's all the same to you, I'd prefer a system that doesn't allow people to just say "screw this, I'm going on the dole". Sure, some things are unavoidable; an illness, an injury, death of a spouse, etc. - but barring catastrophe people should not be encouraged to quit the workforce simply because they don't feel like working any more.

And to answer your question, the best way to convince the "have-nots" to vote the way you want is to give them the hope (realistic, improbable, or even entirely ficticious) that they will some day be one of the "haves" that keep getting the breaks. There's no sense of solidarity in the unwashed rabble and they'll happily screw each other over for the hope of getting themselves out of their current situation.

I say this knowing full well I make about a tenth as much as you, Mumble. American politics resembles nothing so much as a sow with two more offspring than teats. The biggest get their fill while the smaller fight amongst themselves too much to dislodge those taking more than their share.

If it's all the same to you, I'd prefer a system that doesn't allow people to just say "screw this, I'm going on the dole"

I never asked for any such system. I never said that I expect to say screw this at a whim and get off the merry go round but I do think the system should be such that when someone has worked hard for their entire life they should not be semi-automatically screwed by the system and forced to eke out the rest of their existence on a diet of dog food.

Like I said I'm pretty sure I'll make out fine for myself and my family. But also like I said I think I've had advantages that many other intelligent and hard working people haven't had and I'm unwilling to tell others to just go fuck off because I've got mine and if they don't have theirs it's just because they are lazy or stupid.

And to answer your question, the best way to convince the "have-nots" to vote the way you want is to give them the hope (realistic, improbable, or even entirely ficticious) that they will some day be one of the "haves" that keep getting the breaks.

Tell that to the 52.2% of young Americans that are unemployed whose best hope for a job is "do you want fries with that" or "welcome to walmart."

There's no sense of solidarity in the unwashed rabble and they'll happily screw each other over for the hope of getting themselves out of their current situation.

I consider myself to be part of that unwashed rabble and I feel far more solidarity and concern for their future than I do for the corporatists. It's always those that are the best off that cry poor mouth the most. I don't feel sorry for the rich. The rich make out, they always do.

I say this knowing full well I make about a tenth as much as you, Mumble.

Not sure where you live, in some countries a tenth of what I make is not all that bad given some form of UHC and Social Security. Certainly even in the US there are places where making half of what I make is actually far better off than I am. The point is that I don't believe that my making ten times what you make makes me any more valuable in any real sense than you nor does someone making ten times what I make, make them any more valuable than me. I thought I read somewhere about all men being created equal.

American politics resembles nothing so much as a sow with two more offspring than teats.

Not so sure I agree with this analogy. I'd say that there are probably enough teats for all of the offspring it's just that some offspring take far more than they need leaving others to go without.

The biggest get their fill while the smaller fight amongst themselves too much to dislodge those taking more than their share.

And you're OK with this?

Michael Moore's Message to Barack Obama and Blue Dog Democrats

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VwlsDN-Ilkc

"This is such a cruel system we have. No other western democracy does this to their people."

"1.4 million dollars a day is being spent right now by the health care lobby."

Funny thing, that. Apparently the Glenn Beck-equivalent of the left doesn't read current polls if they mess with his world view.

Public support for universal health insurance is declining, according the latest New York Times/CBS News Poll. About half, 51 percent, say the federal government should guarantee health insurance for all Americans, down slightly from 55 percent in July and 64 percent in June.

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/09/28/poll-support-for-government-health-insurance-declines-a-bit/

Funny thing that, but as of 4 days ago 65% of Americans favor the public option versus 26% that oppose it.

http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2009/09/25/us/politics/25pollgrx.html

And the difference in the numbers reflects how many people think the public option would be nice as an option, but should not be a right guarranteed or mandated by the government.