Can someone give me a clue on this? I get that in the mid-terms the Republicans regained the majority in the lower house, but (and I'm coming from UK politics here) surely only a Government can repeal laws/parts of laws?

As far as I understand things, they can pretty much knock back any new proposals the government makes, but don't they have to wait until they're in power before they have the power to repeal existing legislature?

Republicans/Democrats/etc are the government

It's unlikely that it'll actually happen. They'll spend the next few years either trying to totally screw everything Obama wants to do... or they'll be forced to cooperate with him. I don't see the latter happening, though. You can pretty much look forward to things grinding to a complete halt in DC.

Maybe that's the difference. Here, we have the Government (the ruling party - in our case a coalition of two parties) and the Opposition (the party that formed our last government who were ousted at the last election).

Yeah, that might just be a good thing.

Yes, they have to wait until the end of January or so to even start changing things. They however can plan while they're waiting.

Same here, only we have a total of about 10 parties.

The US doesn't have a government and an opposition? I always assumed they did. How does that work?

Well the republicans took the house but they don't have the senate and they don't have the numbers to overide a presidential veto.... So they won't be doing much of anything. Except hopefully keeping the democrats in check.



You know the burden is not entirely on the republicans here. Any time the administration wants they can be big boys and reach across that ole isle and work with republicans on something BOTH side want to get done! But yes, as far as obamas "agenda" goes that probably not going anywhere till democrats win back a majority in both houses and Obama gets amsecond term(not that either are particularly likely as it is now)

In the U.S., the executive branch (pretty much the American analogue for "government") doesn't initiate legislation. Each house of Congress can write its own bills and then vote on them. So yes, the Republicans in the House could draft a bill that, if passed, would repeal the healthcare reform. But since that bill would also need to pass the Democrat-controlled Senate and get enough votes in both houses to override a veto by Obama. It's completely impossible that this will happen.

THE REPUBLICANS WILL NOT COOPERATE WITH THE DEMOCRATS BECAUSE THE REPUBLICANS WANT YOU TO BELIEVE THE DEMOCRATS ARE INCAPABLE OF ACCOMPLISHING EVERYTHING. EVEN IF THE DEMOCRATS OFFERED TO DRAFT, VOTE AND SIGN A BILL THAT WAS ENTIRELY IN FAVOR OF THE REPUBLICAN PLATFORM, THE REPUBLICANS WOULD VOTE AGAINST IT.

YOUR SYSTEM IS COMPLETELY BROKEN.

GET A CLUE.

Finally, something we can agree on! Haha.

As far as I know, right now the only way the health care reform is likely to be affected by republicans is by the inevitable supreme court decision that will result from Oklahoma's opt-out we just voted on, and then only if they uphold it.

Martyn and other foreignsassians:


In the US, we have three government branches: legislative, executive, and judicial.
The legislative branch writes up laws, which are voted upon by House of Representatives (commonly referred to as Congress) and the Senate. The Reps (congressmen) and senators are voted upon by the masses. We recently held elections to vote for a portion of each house. There are 100 senators (two for each state) and a ton of congressman (based on population).

Once a proposed federal law (called a bill) has been approved by both sides, it goes to the executive branch (President) to be signed into law. He can veto a bill, but a two-thirds majority from both the House and Senate can override the veto. The judicial branch interprets the law, applying it to various legal cases (in effect, they decide what the law means).

The Democrats and Republicans are the two primary political parties. Without positions in the House, Senate, or Presidency, they're useless. When news outlets say "Republicans are going to do this" or "Democrats are voting for that," they really mean "Democrat congressman are going to..." or "Republican senators are going to..." Republican and Democrat are just labels proclaiming which party one affiliates with. Each party has certain philosophies and agendas that they subscribe to, though it can vary by individual. Anymore, it doesn't mean much, as the goal of most politicians is to stay politicians, so it's really a bunch of horse ****.

Democrats and Republicans don't get along, so it's difficult to get anything done when the majority is split, as it has recently become. The Democrats have a Senate majority but the Republicans have a House majority. Basically, each side will shoot the other down, so nothing gets done.

minor correction. there are 100 senate seats, 2 for each state.

Sorry, you're right. I knew that. I don't know where my brain is today. That was pretty

All Obama has done is try to reach across the aisle. He'd give a reacharound across the aisle just to have one Republican listen to him. His problem isn't that he's too partisan, it's that he's not partisan enough. He needs to stop pandering to the corrupt right wing and their moronic voter base. (especially the "moderate/independent/undeclared" voters) The Democrats need to stop being pussies and fight fire with fire. Lie, cheat, steal, use moral outrage. If the party of values can do it, why not the Democrats? They're not going to win any votes acting like pussies and the Republicans/Tea Party are never going to work with the left anyway.

Of course if you actually had a working brain and not just a receiver for whatever inane punditry you use to fill your gourd, you'd realize all this. The only agenda Obama has is to do what the Republicans want, but only if it's okay with you guys.

this...

career politicians are only in it for the bribes and the opportunity to make the most hilariously stupid ads every few years

That's fairly silly. It is true that it is most advantageous to Republicans to be able to continue to campaign against the Obama agenda, which is what will make it interesting to see if Obama faces any serious primary challenges, but it's preposterous to think that the Republican House would vote down legislation sent to it from the Senate that is entirely Republican based. Of course, that's not going to happen. What's going to happen is anything the House sends to the Senate is going to get hacked apart, watered down, and sent back to the House, if it isn't filibustered, where it will be dead on arrival like most anything else the Senate is likely to send them. Unless, of course, Senate Democrats up for reelection in '12 actually want to keep their jobs. Then they might side with Republicans.



As far as I can tell the results of this recent election demonstrate that it isn't broken. Yet.

Yeah, sorry, no.

Yes, the "moronic voter base" of the right. Must be nothing similar to a voter on the left who is convinced by something like this:



Most of our voter base is moronic. That's why we have moronic government

That's a very poor point. There are plenty of equally terrible and smear fliers against democrats.

Yeah, there are idiots everywhere. But they are concentrated on the right. Look no further than the 40% of Americans that think the Earth is 6000 years old. I doubt you'll find many democrats in there.

Most humans are idiots, so of course both parties are going to be full of stupid. You can't deny, however, that there's recently been a trend of prominent, outspoken anti-intellectualism coming from the right. Listening only to right wing rhetoric would lead you to believe that intelligence and education are characteristics to be avoided in our elected officials.

Lewis Black once said the Republican party is a party of no ideas, and the Democratic party is a party of bad ideas.

I agree with his assertion.

No, he made a good point, you just missed it entirely.

Oh do tell then.

Yeah this argument could go on forever. This is what I heard in line to vote. A young voter recognized a teacher from a few years ago "Mrs. Kimber how do I know if I am democrat or republican?" Kimber responds, "If you believe everyone should be equal and have equal opportunities in life then you're a democrat. If you feel the rich can get richer and the poor can get poorer then you are a republican." I asked the teacher if that is what she teaches in school. She would not talk to me

Ok, so back on topic!

What you're saying is that anyone in the Lower house (and indeed senate) can propose a law? I think that pretty much explains it

I agree, but it's not a Republican problem.

Anti-intellectualism is pervasive throughout modern American culture and the media. It's a major social and economic problem. Over the past 50 years all major attempts to improve American middle/secondary curricula have failed mainly because parents aren't comfortable with their children learning material that they do not understand, basically dooming the United States to a death spiral of illiteracy and economic irrelevance.

The Republicans play stupid and folksy because it's popular right now. If Americans celebrated science as much as they did in the 20s, the Republicans would be right up front demanding that we keep creationism out of schools and shouting for pollution reform.

Kill all humans and start again
???
Profit

if(getThingFlags(source) & 0x8){
  do her}
elseif(getThingFlags(source) & 0x4){
  do other babe}
else{
  do a dude}

BOTH SIDES ARE FULL OF INCOMPETANT GOONS WHO ARE ONLY INTERESTED IN GETTING AND KEEPING POWER. WITH THE ATTITUDE THAT DEMOCRATS DISPLAYED WHEN OBAMA WAS ELECTED I DONT BLAME THE REPUBLICANS FOR BEING THE "party of no" THE DEMS WOULD HAVE PROBABLY DONE THE SAME THING IF ROLES WERE REVERSED AND I WOULDNT BLAME THEM EITHER.

MOST SYSTEMS ARE COMPLETELY BROKEN

I HAVE A CLUE.



...what are you... how... are you DAFT? obamas idea of reaching across the isle is pulling people back over to his side! he wants to work with republicans in the sense that they already "had their turn" now they need to shut up and step in line. both sides are open to the ideas of the other, but only as long "you agree with what i want"

So they're trying to create legislation to retard scientific progress and public education because... it's a trend? I agree that the fear or mistrust of science is a huge problem that isn't partisan in nature, but all the anti-intellectuals seem to congregate on the right.

Or are you suggesting that the lack of celebrating science has lead to this problem?

That's what I took it to mean.

I've always liked a few quotes from G. K. Chesterton in regards to this particular line of debate. I don't know much about the guy, except that he was English, but that context hardly matters for these quotes.

"The whole modern world has divided itself into Conservatives and Progressives. The business of Progressives is to go on making mistakes. The business of the Conservatives is to prevent the mistakes from being corrected." - ILN, 4/19/24

"It is a good sign in a nation when things are done badly. It shows that all the people are doing them. And it is bad sign in a nation when such things are done very well, for it shows that only a few experts and eccentrics are doing them, and that the nation is merely looking on." - "Patriotism and Sport," All Things Considered

"It is the mark of our whole modern history that the masses are kept quiet with a fight. They are kept quiet by the fight because it is a sham-fight; thus most of us know by this time that the Party System has been popular only in the sense that a football match is popular." - A Short History of England. 156

You know, in the 27 years that I've been alive, I started to notice a trend.

-Party comes into power
-Party starts passing and enacting laws that piss people off
-Opposing party starts to promise if they are elected in the next elections, they'll fix things
-Opposing party is elected into power
-Opposing party starts passing and enacting laws that piss people off
-Original party starts to promise if they are elected in the next elections, they'll fix things

Repeat infinitely.

To simplify it, yes, anyone can write a bill, a congressperson (a house representative or senator) submits it to his house, where it goes to a relevant committee who debates on it and may propose amendments, and then they decide whether to submit it to the entire house. There, the house (or senate) votes on the bill and the proposed amendments. If it passes there in some form, then it is passed to the OTHER house which goes through a similar process. If the other house approves it with different amendments, then they have to go to a conference committee to resolve the changes until both houses can vote on an identical bill. If it passes this stage, it's sent to the president, who can sign it into law or veto it. If he vetoes it, it's sent back to Congress, who can override the veto with a 2/3 majority vote.

So, yeah, a bill can come from any single person in the house or the senate, BUT it has to pass through some smaller committees before it is voted on by everyone, so these committees have a lot of power. Also, both the senate and the house have to pass identical bills, AND the president has to sign it, or else it doesn't become a law.

The main problem with the system as I see it is that they do way too much ****, and while I mean this in a "dey terk are liberttties!" way also, what I'm talking about here is organizational. There are just a hell of a lot of people in the US.




More like
-Party comes into power
-Party passes legislation that pisses all over a large portion of Americans
-Opposing party promises to fix everything
-Opposing party is elected into power
-Opposing party fails to repeal laws which piss all over the large portion of america, but succeeds in revenge-legislation that ****s all over the opposing portion of Americans
-Party (original) promises to fight back with even stronger laws that **** all over the first half of Americans as punishment for revenge-legislation

Repeat until government is bloated, inefficient, ineffective, and overpowerful.
And the people cheer. "We won!"

No you don't.

Yeah, that's why the two-party system is a sham. It's like if you only owned two pairs of pants, and instead of washing them you just always wore whichever pair is the cleanest.

Lol, glad we cleared that up. Would you mind elaborating?

How dare you question the Jonc

The two-party system is the natural and predictable result of a first-past-the-post voting system.

Australia does it better, though their voting system still suffers from a tragic flaw.

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Condorcet_method

Also, all of you: Way to fit the angry-liberal stereotype. You are gross.