The Founders and Framers were not writing on a totally blank slate. The British example of a House of Lords (made ascendant in part by George III) and a House of Commons, as well as a strong executive, was something they had dealt with. Here, the individual states, whose legislatures elected Senators, was to be America's version of Lords. And the President, being elected by Electors (who could be presumably influenced by state legislators as well), was an additional brake on pure "democracy."

The problem with our system was that the three branches of Government (don't forget those pesky courts) turned into a really inefficient form of governing. and they still are.

The Republicans have played the "checks and balances" perfectly for many, many years. Whenever the Democrats have been in control of the legislative and executive branches they’ve been stymied by the third branch, including the Chief Justice and the Associates Justices of the United States Chamber of Commerce. Citizens United is just the latest example. But the Renchberg* Court was narrowly construing broad legislative enactments and striking down legislation before the smiling effective head of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce was appointed to the bench.

The Republicans are great at running elections, fooling poor white people to vote against their interests and obstructing the popular will. Running a country? Not so much.

---

* Google it.

I disagree on this. I think the inefficiency of the system is completely deliberate, although current circumstances render it even more inefficient than it should be.

The difficulty of changing things quickly, even when that would be preferable, is a conservative mechanism intended to slow change. It may have often blocked progress, such as the filibusters of the major civil rights legislation of the 20th Century. It has also stopped the Republicans from utterly destroying the New Deal even when they were in near total control of the government.

I have many problems with our government and what it does, but that it is not efficient enough is fairly middle of the pack in my long list of complaints.

The Kind of Deal Democrats Hate
Stephen explains the congressional debt negotiations and resulting budget deal with a "Billy Goats Gruff" metaphor even kids can understand.




Yep, that's what we should have done when the first teabagger showed up.

The Economist: The red and the black: Where federal taxes are raised and spent

Labor's Discontent With Obama Surfaces Yet Again



The rest is worth reading.

Rest: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/08/0 ... 15454.html

Furthermore:



More: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/08/0 ... 15423.html

President to speak at 12:15 p.m. ET.

The CNN daily (?) poll today asks: Which group came out on top in the debt-ceiling deal?



I think there's a LOT of confusion out there about what's in it, what it means, who benefits, etc.

Yep Opinions are all over the place, which means the deal was probably, shit as it was in a lot of ways, pithced perfectly in the center and as good as was going to be gotten.

Isn't it interesting -- in itself -- that the question wasn't...

Which group came out on top: Seniors. Poor. Business. Middle Class. Students. Ultra-wealthy. Working class. Civil servants. Etc.

(Probably "pundits".)

Not that the answers would be any less confused. Or even that there IS an answer. But how inured we have become to the language of this politically polarized climate, that we'd think it would mean ANYTHING to any American to be able to say "Dems won" (or whatever).

The fact that there was -- had to be -- a "deal" means we all lost.

First, we lost to extortion and the terrorism of the Tea Party. (And enabled it for future extortion.)

Second, we lost an opportunity to keep the fragile recovery going. We insured a lost generation and chronic unemployment for the next decade.

There were no winners. Only losers.

Corporations win bigtime. What is a "lost generation" to us is, to the corporations, an endless supply of desperate underemployed or unemployed workers, who will take any job, at any price, under any conditions. A plantation nation to exploit to death.

The Republicans kept saying that we have to bring certainty to the situation so the 'job creators' will stop sitting on their cash reserves and start hiring again. In the meantime, they have allowed the FAA authorization languish causing extensive losses to the Treasury and to many companies and individuals.

Does anyone see any certainty that will encourage these 'job creators' to start creating jobs in this country? Will they repatriate all the reserves that they are reserving offshore? Where's the incentive?

If this is the best deal that could be made, then we are in more trouble than anyone is willing to recognize other than a few economists like Krugman and Reich. Nobody's paying them any mind. Even worse, the situation is so murky that the voters will not be able to figure out who to blame. They will just fall back on their prejudices and government-hating ways.

Timothy Geithner was just on GMA trying to add more sugar on the 'sugar-coated Satan sandwich.' He kept emphasizing the long-term strength and resilience of the US economy. He said he did not expect a double-dip recession. It's too bad he hasn't looked at the curves in the various reports on the economy. We are already in another dip in many sectors. With no extension of benefits or government spending to help the unemployed and millions more without health benefits, no way to save for pensions or children's education, what is going to happen to the work force for the next few decades?

I agree with Stern. There are no winners. We are all losers is this bargain.

The "need" for a "deal" was an invention by Obama and the Congress. Timmy can suck my toe because I predict within 3 months Timmie will have bailed from the Treasury for a big, fat salary in the private sector. Obama should have dumped Geitner when he shed himself of Rahm.

Politics News Alert: Senate begins vote on debt deal
August 2, 2011 12:18:13 PM
----------------------------------------

Approval would send the measure to President Obama and immediately grant the Treasury $400 billion in additional borrowing authority, just hours before a midnight deadline.

http://link.email.washingtonpost.com/r/ ... 9G5RI/1G/h

For more information, visit PostPolitics.com.

Why on earth is Jake Tapper ABC News' White House Correspondent?

74-26 Done

Much of the President's remarks concerned tax reform, such as addressing tax rates that let billionaires pay lower rates than do nurses and teachers. The Republicans insist that raising taxes is not possible. It will take strength to enact tax reforms. I wonder where that strength will come from, given that it has not been evident over the past several weeks.

I was glad to hear him ask that Congress straighten out the FAA debacle before leaving town. They won't, but at least he put it out there.

Boxer is on the Senate floor right now trying to get a clean extension for the FAA. How much more of this hostage-taking can we take? This is not just the debt ceiling. Boxer just pointed out 5 other situations where they are holding up progress that would help the recovery.

http://www.c-span.org/Live-Video/C-SPAN2/

If that's the center, I'm the last freakin' Tsar of Russia!

Interestingly, now that the debt ceiling bill passed and there is certainty to it, Wall Street responded with a distinct slide and gold is up another $22 today. Well, so much for averting global financial disaster.

The trick is to get some of the moderates/independents to believe that it is necessary to raise taxes on the wealthy. If the voters lead, the leaders will follow. (But then, I'm a wide-eyed optimist.)

I think the onion put it best
http://www.theonion.com/articles/democr ... for,21052/

Democrats, Republicans Celebrate Pitiful Excuse For Common Ground