Has anybody considered the possiibility that this is what the powers that be want?

[MadHound]

They want an ineffective, do nothing Congress. After all, it isn't like Reid didn't have the chance to change the filibuster rules this year, but he didn't. Why? Why continue a policy that only encourages gridlock, that only insures that nothing meaningful can get done?

[limpyhobbler]

1. ya if the system wasn't ineffective they would try to make it ineffective. nt

[darkangel218]

2. I agree.

It's what it looks like more and more.

[LiberalEsto]

3. Congress exists to serve its corporate masters nt

[Lizzie Poppet]

12. That's it in a nutshell.

We live in a plutocracy dressed up in a few flimsy (and increasingly transparent) trappings of democracy.

[City Lights]

14. Infuriating, but true. nt

[raouldukelives]

63. As do far too many today. The lines between American values & Wall St's have been blurred.

Thanks to the efforts of those who have morals attached to a sliding scale.

[4Q2u2]

4. Nipsy Russell

"To Progress is to move forward. Then what does Congress mean?"

[reformist2]

5. The system is very frustrating, very resistant to change, but we're almost there.

[Arugula Latte]

26. How are we almost there?

I need a glimmer of hope.

[reformist2]

29. 'Almost there' in the cultural sense - this is a BIG country, we have to take the long view.

[TBF]

45. Almost WHERE? To the point where the top 100 families

own 100% of the wealth?

Talk to me about income inequality. Explain to me how one family, the Waltons, control over 40% of the wealth in this country and how that is ok.

Tell me how capitalism, a giant Ponzi scheme, is helping MOST of us at all ...

No worries, these are all rhetorical points as I already know the answers. But you really should think about it.

[Locrian]

6. yes

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism

Inverted totalitarianism reverses things. It is all politics all of the time but a politics largely untempered by the political. Party squabbles are occasionally on public display, and there is a frantic and continuous politics among factions of the party, interest groups, competing corporate powers, and rival media concerns. And there is, of course, the culminating moment of national elections when the attention of the nation is required to make a choice of personalities rather than a choice between alternatives. What is absent is the political, the commitment to finding where the common good lies amidst the welter of well-financed, highly organized, single-minded interests rabidly seeking governmental favors and overwhelming the practices of representative government and public administration by a sea of cash.

[Triana]

15. Exactly. n/t

[Locrian]

61. I got this from you - thanks! n/t

[Fantastic Anarchist]

17. Wish I could recommend your post.

[AsahinaKimi]

7. The Party of "NO" is still

saying "No". People thought the election would change this, and apparently it hasn't.

[lark]

33. People?

So Harry Reid has been upgraded?


He & Dianne Feinstein are the only two freaks in the world who thought Repugs wouldn't play dirty all the time every single day the Senate is in session. Reid, the best tool the Repugs have in their obstruction schemes. Makes me sick.

[AsahinaKimi]

37. Its DiFI (Your so called Freak)

who is pushing the Assault Gun ban as well as the high capacity magazines. You may not remember, but her first coming into politics was over the death of Harvey Milk and Mayor Moscone who were gun down in San Francisco by Dan White. She got her fingers bloody while checking for their wounds. She soon became Mayor of San Francisco and ran the city very well during that time period.

She has a reason to hate firearms, as she has seen too much blood shed in her life time.

[lark]

39. I know

Totally don't understand why she was so vocal in stopping filibuster change when she should have known this would be the end result.

[AsahinaKimi]

41. Though I have mixed emotions when

it comes to DIFI. She was often in league with Joe Lieberman who as it turned out wasn't much good as a Democrat. Yet, during her early years, she was a fantastic mayor and handled the 1989 San Francisco Earthquake quite well. She kept everyone informed, and she told us what she planned to do, and got them done. Especially with the expedient rebuilding of the collapsed section of the San Francisco Oakland Bay Bridge. She was a really great Mayor...

But a luke-warm Senator. I don't see much change in the future for her. I respect her, but she has sided too many times with the Republicans for my taste.

[lark]

43. I moved from CA in 1989, one week before the quake.

DifI has been a very mixed bag as a Senator, but do think she was a great mayor in SF.

[AsahinaKimi]

44. You were lucky..

I was right in the middle of that disaster.

[Skraxx]

8. You Mean The Illuminati? Or The Lizard People? The Molemen? Oh, You Must Mean The Greys

They sorta control everything, don't they?

Or maybe it's the Apostles of Eris, they're always fucking things up.

Then again, could be the Bilderbergers....Hmm, I'll have to think about this some more.

[MadHound]

9. Instead of being outlandish,

Try thinking about the rich and elite, you know, the ones who purchase Congress folk every day of the week.

[Skraxx]

10. Nah, My Way Is Much More Fun! Join In!

Who's your favorite "power that be's"? I'm leaning towards the Astral Plain Entities. No one can fuck with them.

[Wind Dancer]

70. Sounds like you can't answer a simple question.

I don't recall the OP accusing ridiculous conspiracy to the real problems facing the American people. Your post is an attempt to ridicule and make fun.

[Skraxx]

74. What Question is That?

[Bobbie Jo]

23. I thought it was the Masons.

[Skraxx]

24. They're Really Just A Subgroup

of the Illuminati, didn't you know that?

[Bobbie Jo]

31. Noted.

Trying to keep my secret societies straight.

So they're a bit further down on the pyramid thingy?

Gotta admit, that all seeing eye creeps me out.

[zeemike]

49. Good job...

Mix in all the outlandish things yo can think of to dilute and distract from the truth.
If you believe one you must believe it all...that dichotomy always works on the fools.

[Skraxx]

50. Is that "The Truth" the "Truth" the "truth" or "da twoof"?

[zeemike]

52. Then proceed to ridicule.

It always follows the same pattern...and works every time on those who don't have self esteem.

[Skraxx]

53. My! Such A Sourpuss!

Cheer up! You know "The Truth"! That should count for something!

[zeemike]

55. And continue the ridicule as long as anyone will listen to it.

Ratchet it up if necessary...
Like I said...there is a pattern to it...and it always follows the pattern.

[Skraxx]

56. Ridicule?

You're ridiculing me?

[zeemike]

57. Pretend not to understand.

That is what you do when the ridicule don't work...
Seriously you may have some problems here trying to intimidate and shut down conversations with that kind of crap...too many people here are not that easily fooled.

[Skraxx]

58. LOL! I'm Trying To Intimidate and Shut Down Conversation?

Boy, I must sure suck at it then.

You're so funny, you take yourself so seriously! How cute!

[zeemike]

59. Then what are you doing here?

You have not contributed one single thing here ether pro or con on the subject.
And I only take things seriously that are serious...like this topic....which you attempted to blow off with a bunch of ridicule.
It is not that you suck at it, it is that it did not work....you did fine...followed the well worn formula.

[Skraxx]

60. You're Gonna Get All Ontological On Me?

I think, therefore something exists.

[Vincardog]

11. The only things that get done are; Corporate sponsored, people harmful I.E. Monsanto enabling

[Triana]

13. So they have something to hide behind when the do the bidding of greedy corprats

They can hide behind "senate rules". Of course they can change them if they want. They don't. Because they're too useful.

[snooper2]

16. I don't know about "the powers that be" (Is that a club?), but in general

businesses do like gridlock/split Congress


Less changes to the law provide more certainty to business in future business plans and endeavors. This is pretty much a known but not sure if for example folks I work with in our regulatory department are considered "The Powers That Be!" LOL




Or are you talking about these guys (I'm a little nervous posting this)

[geek tragedy]

18. The Constitution is drafted to encourage gridlock and dysfunction.

The constitution was drafted by the aristocracy as a democracy-lite body that prevented real change from being legislated.

[Ikonoklast]

35. The Constitution insures that change proceeds at a glacial pace.

And that true representative Democracy can be stifled by those with power (money) behind them.

[GeorgeGist]

19. When the Dems threatened to filibuster under Bush...

Bill Fritz et al talked of the nuclear option
and the dems caved.
DUers even had avatars
featuring dems in pink tutus.

[kenny blankenship]

20. "The Frozen Republic"

"They" have always wanted that, that's why our government was designed the way it was; and it mostly retains its original undemocratic character.

The Frozen Republic
Daniel Lazare
http://www.amazon.com/Frozen-Republic-Constitution-Paralyzing-Democracy/dp/0156004941

[stillwaiting]

22. TPTB want mass chaos and division amongst the little people.

Any sane legislation that might actually provide some peace of mind or stability (of any kind) to our society will be opposed every single time.

[LuvNewcastle]

25. That's exactly what they want.

People (including my father) have told me that they want things to be this way. In the beliefs of radical conservative ideology, a government that is ineffective, for most purposes, is the ideal government. It's almost a form of anarchism.

You see, in their minds, all government is evil. Therefore, if you have any government at all, you must make it incapable of doing all but the most basic functions. The system we have is already designed with many checks and balances in place, so all it takes to make our government non-functional is to keep an equilibrium of opposing parties. That's why the two-party system is ideal for them. TPTB spend a great deal of money to make sure nothing happens in our government and others throughout the world.

[Taverner]

27. I actually think that part was written into the constitution...

[treestar]

28. Republicans do

Because they want less government, the gridlock is not a problem for them.

The filibuster is a long term thing, and long term Congresspeople will remember when they were out of power. You make it sound simple, but it may not be that easy to change.

No, I do not think that Democrats "want" these problems.

We elect these officials, so claiming to be victims of them is not credible.

[sorefeet]

30. So everyone knows the problem

and they know their vote don't mean shit, but they sit around every two years to vote thinking something might change. Almost the definition of that insanity thingy that Einstein talked about.

[Cleita]

32. I've considered it a lot because I've seen it happen in other countries

particularly in South America. If the government is weak and can't get anything done, then the "warlords" can take over. In this case the warlords are big industry, like oil, banking and insurance. However, since it is somewhat tin foil hat territory, I don't say much about it.

[Moostache]

34. The failure of the Senate as a functional body is 100% on Reid at this point.

I cannot believe his luck in remaining in office - had the Rethugs managed a single coherent thought in their sun-addled minds out there, they would have run ANYONE but that nutcase Sharon Angle against him and Harry Reid would have been relegated to the dustbin of history already.

He is horrific and the decision to back off of filibuster reform was pure political cowardice. He did not want to move too far away because he fears losing control and wants the toys of the right wing obstructionists for himself in the near future. Little did he realize that the bold step would have solidified his support and that of his party...just typical. I'd also like a serious, in-depth look into his finances and ties to that cult out in Utah that he pledges fealty to...I believe his true constituency is whatever the Mormons tell him it is.

[dothemath]

36. 60/40?

The Founding Fathers thought 51 to 49 was a majority. Dumbesillehs! I wonder if Americans have ever been polled to see if they think 60 votes for is required for a majority? Even corporations (they are people, too, my friend) operate on the principle of one vote more than half constitutes a majority. We need a "Grover Norquist' type - never thought I would say that - to gather pledges from political candidates that they will operate under the same constraints as we do. I urge every voter to email/write/call his/her senatecritter and ask where they stand on this silliest of all rules and explain their position if it is not 51 to 49. It is a reasonable question, so don't expect much in return.

[valerief]

38. Of course. If they wanted to help us, they could. And they don't. So they won't. nt

[RevStPatrick]

40. OF COURSE that's what the powers that be want!

Hasn't that been obvious for the last 30 years?
Sheeesh!!!

[Spitfire of ATJ]

42. Because he'd rather dance with them than fight them.

[apnu]

46. Absolutely. The Conservative powers at least.

Conservatives, today, abhor change of any kind. They like the game they have and they like the rules as they are because they know how to manipulate the rules (regulations, oversight, government in general -- take your pick) in their favor. So on top of having an instinctual resistance to change, they have no personal or professional motivation to allow or accept change. Thus, they will resist any and all change and progress with every single dime at their disposal.

The sad fact is, on the Liberal side there's enough idiots who are also hooked into the game and don't want to see it change much either.

In short, the broken system we have is profitable for those in power and they'll want it to stay that way so they can continue profiting off us. By keeping us fighting left vs. right like some nasty trench war, we're preoccupied and never notice the out right theft that's happening behind the lines.

[awoke_in_2003]

47. This is what they want...

while we scamper around and argue, they continue to screw us.

[Zorra]

48. Actually, MH, I know for a fact that this is what they want.

The only solution is world revolution.

[zeemike]

51. Well it sure has been working.

They know how to keep us busy with things they don't care about while they work on things they do care about...like destroying SS and other safety net programs...
So they look for things that will divide us....like gay rights and guns, and God....and pound away on that

There is going to be a hearing on how to cut SS in the house soon...we will be distracted so we will not know what the plan is, but you can bet it will further the destruction of the safety net.

[ljm2002]

54. Yes many of us have considered it...

Last edited Thu Apr 18, 2013, 07:42 PM - Edit history (1)

...and have come to the same conclusion: they play good cop / bad cop, but in the end they serve the monied interests.

That is not to say that Republicans are not worse -- they clearly are. Certainly the Democrats are miles ahead on the social issues. But when it comes to economic issues, and bedrock Democratic principles (unions, Social Security, public education... etc.) -- well, suffice it to say, one cannot be paying attention and believe they are looking out for the best interests of the 99%.

Of course politics has always been a dirty business, and big business has always had its claws firmly embedded in the government. But nowadays with gigantic multinationals and banks directly competing with and taking over countries (e.g., Greece and Italy, where so-called "technocrats" -- really, bankers -- are at the head of their governments), well, the worldwide corporate dystopia envisioned in so many sci-fi stories is at hand.

[Savannahmann]

62. Actually, I think it is also to get us to the polls.

Every election, Abortion becomes an issue. I've been voting since 1988. In every election, the future of Abortion rides on our votes. Yet, even when we lose, Bush and Junior, nothing happens. Even when the Rethugs had both houses of congress, and the White House, nothing happened. They want Abortion to get Rethug voters to the booths too. Think about it, how many emails have you gotten asking for donations to stop Rethug efforts to outlaw Abortion. The Rethugs hold one chamber, the House. They couldn't do anything if they tried.

Cigarettes. Why haven't we banned them? It isn't because people want them, a vast majority do not. Yet we don't ban them. It is because we want the campaign contributions, and we want the taxes from them. We need people to smoke, or at least buy tobacco so we can have the money.

We are told to use less gas, then we are told that by using less gas we are stripping the money from the gas tax revenues, which makes repairing roads and bridges impossible. So we start hearing about new taxes that are needed to make up the shortfall in revenue because people are using less gas.

Lottery is a tax on the poor, yet we keep coming up with new excuses to keep them. We wrap it in the blanket of money for education.

Then we are supposed to donate money to this political action committee or that candidate to help make sure that our children get educated, which today means more lottery sales. We have equated donations to taking action. We are no longer called on to boycott, or contact congress. We are told that the only action we can take that really matters is donate.

The system is rigged from top to bottom. While we aren't as bad as the Rethugs, we aren't clean either. That's all I'm trying to say.

[ljm2002]

69. Yes, as you say...

..."The system is rigged from top to bottom."

The population is less engaged than ever, except for the True Believers who tend to be fanatical. We have a large portion of the population who think politics is a dirty business and who don't have either the time or the inclination to delve into the details and inform themselves. Why should they? They work hard, they're not getting ahead, and they don't want to spend their spare time on something that is clearly corrupt.

Then when they get mad about some unfairness they have experienced or have heard about, they want to know who to blame. And right wing radio and Fox News are there to tell them exactly who's to blame. It works because the propagandists put their fingers on problems that are real, then twist them to suit their agenda.

But the larger agenda is to divide us, and both sides do that, although the right wingers do it better. The Republicans have tapped in to the anger that people feel. The Democrats try to be soothing and make us think it will all work out, and that they are on our side. But they have long since abandoned the bedrock economic principles that made us rally behind them. They are reduced to saying "There, there, it's not as bad as you think. You need to understand, globalization will actually INCREASE jobs here at home, you'll see!" Then what we see is that the good jobs in manufacturing and IT etc. get exported, and the only increase in jobs is in low paying service jobs in our new "service economy".

And we wonder why liberals are so easily demonized? Just as we can see very clearly when the Republicans talk out of both sides of their mouths, they can see very clearly when the Democrats do the same -- which they do every single time they promote farces like NAFTA and the newer Pacific Trade Agreement (I forget the official name of it).

The oligarchs are running the show. The Democrats are less worse than the Republicans, but both parties are working towards the same ends in the economic arena, and both continue to support a bloated military and an imperial view of our place in the world. Oh sure, we can tell ourselves that we are benign imperialists, whose only goal is to bring democracy to the world. Tell that to the Chileans, to the Nicaraguans, to the Iraqis, the Iranians, ... it just isn't so.

The remaining question is what to do about it. I don't know. I wish I had an answer or even some good suggestions.

[Bucky]

64. Presuming intelligent design in the power struggles in Washington seems naive

[MadHound]

65. Why?

I think there is plenty of evidence for exactly that.

[Bucky]

66. If you posted your "plenty of evidence" instead of asking loaded rhetorical questions...

we'd at least have a basis for a discussion. As is, you haven't and we don't.

[MadHound]

67. Actually I was asking you a serious question,

But apparently you don't want any sort of discussion, just trying to insult your way through. Have a nice day.

[Savannahmann]

68. Take one of my examples.

Take Abortion. Every election, we have to rush to the polls to protect a womans right to do with her body as she pleases. Every week, I get emails telling me if I don't donate, we will lose this precious right that we have. Every week I get those emails.

Yet, when Rethugs are elected, nothing happens. When they held the House and Senate and White House, we didn't lose that right. Oh sure, they talk about Supreme Court nominee's. But even the Conservatives say that Abortion isn't going to be changed at the court. We've had the right too long to really lose it now.

They may reduce funding, but they aren't getting at the rights of the woman. But, every single week, I get emails telling me that is exactly what the Rethugs are up to, and I have to donate, I have to to take action to stop the Rethugs.

On the flip side, you know the Rethugs are getting the exact same email telling them that if they don't donate, they will never stop Abortions. Tens of millions of dollars are raised this way every year, and nothing changes. Is it because our side is donating as much as their side? No, it's because both sides are using it to raise money, to scare us to the polls.

The claim that Obama is socialist and going to shred the Constitution is laughable. He is using the same laws that Bush used, and those same laws we protested when Bush was in power.

As I said above, and will repeat now. Our side is not nearly as outrageous as their side, and I agree with the issues our side is pushing. But at the same time, I know our side is using fear mongering, not as much as their side, but using it just the same. Do you really expect me to believe that Abortion hinges on me making a donation this week? If I don't make it, the world will shift, and women will lose their right to choose?

Both sides use the issue, one they have no intention of ever settling one way or the other with any finality. They use it because they need the issue to scare us to the polls.

For the sake of argument, lets say that the Supreme Court rules that there is a Constitutional Right to Gay Marriage. I don't know how they will rule. But if they rule in our favor, do you think that Gay Marriage will become a settled matter? No, we'll still get emails every week outlining this weeks Rethug who will take away this right if we don't donate money right now.

Bucky, take a look at where we are, and why nothing ever gets fixed. The reason is not because of gridlock, or the filibuster rule. It's because if things get fixed, there is no cudgel to get us to donate or get us to the polls with.

We had a majority of both houses, we had the Presidency. We had momentum. We didn't fix anything, because the Politicians would have nothing to promote as reasons for you to get out and vote, and donate, if it was fixed.

[Bucky]

73. I don't doubt both sides use the issue for fund raising. That's not the same...

not the same at all as planning out a fake controversy solely for the purpose of keeping the public drained of its spare cash and distracted by a fake controversy.

Now, do let me thank you for your thoughtful post. Yes, a good deal of fear mongering goes on, along with a resort to hysterics to keep the two opinion groups revved up on the issue. Having a democracy practically ensures that a good number of pandering and emotionalized floor whipping will go on with many issues.

What's happening is that the two sides have fought to a stalemate overall; this is why there's no lasting progress on limiting abortions nor no real lasting security for women wishing to protect this right. Unless you can demonstrate actual collusion, it's hard to buy into it on the force of logic alone. After all, those same effects (gridlock) are produced by having a Democratic president and an intransigent Republican House and a Senate with a filibuster rule. It's not a new situation. This was the case from 1995-2001 and from 2011-present and something similar was in place for about three of Bush's 8 years. If gridlock seems too commonplace, it makes more logical sense (and less cooperation among ideological adversaries) to just blame the voters and the power of lobbyists.

I do think, however, when you take the long view, some progress has been made on some issues. You mention gay marriage, but I see that as an issue where lasting and irreducible progress has been made. On other issues, like tax fairness, Democrats are losing and Republicans show no sign of losing ground. So it goes. I can only recommend revisting Hanlon's Law

[MrSlayer]

71. Well yeah, you heard that asshole Norquist.

"If we can't be in power we'll make it impossible for a Democrat to govern as a Democrat."

A close enough paraphrase.

It also helps when Democrats don't want to do Democratic things.

[L0oniX]

72. Congress = useful idiots.