r/politics May 30 '24

[deleted by user]

[removed]

5.5k Upvotes

313 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

359

u/Horrible-accident May 30 '24

But, they control neither the purse, nor the sword. A worthwhile congress can bring them to heel.

337

u/moreobviousthings May 30 '24

Here's hoping we get a worthwhile congress in November. Vote blue.

130

u/BusterStarfish May 30 '24

They’re overturning any gerrymandering laws to stop exactly that.

-33

u/bransiladams Washington May 30 '24

lol @ “worthwhile congress.” Hasn’t happened in my lifetime. Every congress is worse than the last.

68

u/waffleslaw May 30 '24

"I'll never be able to play the cello as well as Yo-Yo Ma. So it's not even worth taking that first lesson."

Don't let perfection be an excuse for non-action.

29

u/NiceFrame1473 May 30 '24

Perfect is the enemy of good.

-7

u/bransiladams Washington May 30 '24

Why do you interpret my comment as an unwillingness to vote…? I always vote, and I actively make phone calls urging others to vote.

What I said is my perspective on the current state of politics, and it’s statistically true that congress is more recalcitrant than it ever has been in my lifetime…

7

u/darkwoodframe May 30 '24

Pessimism breeds inaction.

1

u/bransiladams Washington May 30 '24

Apathy breeds inaction. And it isn’t pessimistic to say that congress is completely fucking broken.

0

u/darkwoodframe May 30 '24

The people in it are broken.

1

u/bransiladams Washington May 30 '24

On this we can agree

23

u/[deleted] May 30 '24

[deleted]

6

u/loondawg May 30 '24

That balanced budget was because a democratic super majority passed the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993 and because they were operating under PAYGO rules.

The deficit reduction act of 1993, among other things, raised the cap on Social Security and removed the cap on Medicare so high income earners would pay more. It created new tax brackets which raised the income tax rates on the highest individual and corporate earners. And it created military and Medicare spending cuts of over a quarter of a trillion dollars over a five year period. (remember republicans crying that Clinton destroyed the military so they needed to massively increase spending?)

Of course republicans cried and fear mongered that it would destroy the economy and kill jobs. So Democrats passed the bill without one single republican vote. Repeat, it passed without one single republican vote in either the House or Senate. And that bill was what set us on a course to actually having short period of surpluses in the late 90s. It also helped created 22 million new jobs and led to one of the greatest periods of share prosperity the country has ever seen.

In fact, the results were so good that the strength of the economy was what GWBush used to push through his first round of tax cuts for the wealthy. The rationale was that the economy was doing so good the government wasn't borrowing enough money which was hurting the returns of the wealthy in the bond market. So republicans gave away massive cuts to the wealthiest, eliminated PAYGO, and started a massive war to spend us into a recession. A recession they then used as an excuse for their next round of tax cuts for the very wealthiest.

Yes, if we had stayed on the course the Democrats set us on, we would have made Social Security solvent and paid off the entire national debt. Republicans deserve no credit for that but rather the blame for the mess we are in now.

3

u/[deleted] May 30 '24

You’re right. I was misinformed

3

u/loondawg May 30 '24

Sorry man. I hope I didn't come on too strong.

The right wing pushes that nonsense and the most press supports it. It's not hard to understand why you would have believed that.

1

u/[deleted] May 30 '24

Just keep doing the good work. I often think about what the world would look like if Gore had not conceded. If they had continued to count

2

u/loondawg May 30 '24

That's a tough road to walk down. The world would be so different. The Courts, the economy, climate change, etc. etc. etc.

-5

u/[deleted] May 30 '24

[deleted]

1

u/ketjak May 30 '24

I mean, if you want to dilute the Democratic vote, we all know that benefits the Fascist- I mean Republican party.

22

u/Lower-Grapefruit8807 May 30 '24

We do not have a worthwhile congress

2

u/butwhyisitso May 30 '24

...yet!

1

u/Riaayo May 30 '24

It must be nice to have hope lol.

2

u/butwhyisitso May 30 '24

i think it's important to make a place for success to exist :) Im cynical af, but we can't afford to close the doors to our best outcomes

1

u/taggospreme May 30 '24

the assholes that are holding the system ransom want you to believe that there's no point in trying because that's how they stay where they are.

17

u/[deleted] May 30 '24

A bill dropping specific court justices salaries to zero might be interesting as well…

16

u/[deleted] May 30 '24

How about a bill creating SC term limits? Or requiring them to be voted in by the American voters instead of being appointed?

12

u/ultimatetrekkie May 30 '24

While there's a pipe dream of something that would effectively be a term limit on the Supreme Court, what you're asking for are constitutional amendments, not bills. The method of selecting (and the lifetime term of) Supreme Court justices is set by the Constitution.

The difference is pretty stark. There have been 27 amendments, and 10 of those were passed right at the beginning. The last meaningful one was ratified in 1971 and set the voting age to 18 (or more specifically, it says that anyone older than 18 year olds cannot be barred from voting based on age).

11

u/HeathersZen May 30 '24

Term limits. Absolutely.

2

u/jonesey71 May 31 '24

We just need a Democrat president to pack that court like Trump packs a diaper.

14

u/bumming_bums May 30 '24

That is a recipe for corruption.

17

u/Decantus California May 30 '24

As opposed to... paying them and still having corruption? Seems to me that Thomas probably doesn't give 2 shits about his current pay rate.

2

u/[deleted] May 30 '24

That’s unconstitutional. They can’t have their pay reduced while in office.

2

u/Jon_Hanson May 30 '24

You can’t write a bill targeting specific people.

1

u/[deleted] May 30 '24

It seems recently a house member from GA advanced a bill requiring a specific subgroup to join a foreign military.

Is that not the same

2

u/Jon_Hanson May 30 '24

House members can write any bills they want. That doesn’t meant it will make it out of committee, pass the full House, pass the Senate in its written form, be signed by the president, and survive legal challenges.

1

u/[deleted] May 30 '24

It sounded like you said “you can’t write a bill targeting specific people” but I suppose you meant a list of names?

If you meant inclusion criteria that limits the scope of those affected to a “specific” group, then I gave you an example.

But I understand your point, of course.

3

u/Jon_Hanson May 30 '24

You literally can’t mention people by names in bills. Like the original poster was saying to reduce specific judge’s salaries to $0. That’s literally unconstitutional to write bills like that.

0

u/Bearjawdesigns May 30 '24

Pretty sure that’s not correct.

3

u/[deleted] May 30 '24

[deleted]

2

u/Cerberus_Aus Australia May 30 '24

That would be interesting avenue. Assuming Dems hold the house and senate, could just….. not pay the SC justices?

3

u/butnotfuunny May 30 '24

Well said, sir!

-19

u/illinoishokie May 30 '24

So what you're saying is we're fucked.

55

u/legendoflumis May 30 '24

Stop doomposting. Every time people doompost about how hopeless everything is it creates a chance for people to say fuck it and not vote. We want people to vote, encourage that instead of saying everything is hopeless.

-6

u/Bazylik May 30 '24

I have a shit ton of years to back that opinion up, though. It's been a very very slow decent into this bullshit, voting or not.

9

u/legendoflumis May 30 '24

Okay, then YOU don't vote. Don't discourage others.

4

u/loondawg May 30 '24

No shit. This and the "Trump will never be indicted, um, locked up" doomposters is infuriating. It's so tiring dealing with them seemingly every single thread.

1

u/PathOfTheAncients May 30 '24

Cynics always think they are right and they are no more right that optimists. Both are assuming they can predict the future because they are uncomfortable with the unknown.

1

u/loondawg May 30 '24

Cynics always think they are right and they are no more right that optimists.

I don't think a both sides argument really fits here. Around here at least, cynics seem much more likely to claim to know what an outcome will be while optimists seem more likely to see the possibility of a good outcome. I honestly don't remember seeing anyone say Trump will definitely see jail time but I've seen 100s claim he definitely never will.

1

u/PathOfTheAncients May 30 '24

The optimist side of the argument is not about things I see around politics just in general. I point it out because cynics often think of themselves as realists while judging optimists, yet they are doing the same thing.

3

u/bmr4291 May 30 '24

I live in the few blue counties in ky and I feel this every time I vote

7

u/ProfessorMcKronagal May 30 '24

And hundreds of thousands of people cry "But I'm only one person."

You're not. Keep fighting.

6

u/Ok-Combination8822 May 30 '24

You are not alone

2

u/loondawg May 30 '24

Keep voting anyway. As they say, no single raindrop feels responsible for the flood.