Obama to double down if Brown wins.

[MadImmortalMan]

Yes but the majority required in the US legislature is 60% which is unusual.

It's a simple majority for the budget though.

[Admiral Yi]

Yes but the majority required in the US legislature is 60% which is unusual.  And I think this effectively makes reform of anything impossible.  At least in continental Europe with parties and coalitions and consensus you can build a majority to change something.  In the UK we accept that our elected dictatorship will only, at best, have the support of around 40% of the people but they'll have 50%+1 seats, which is all they need.  How does the US practically reform anything, especially anything popular?

To give an example, in the UK all major parties have agreed that the pension age has to rise, because we can't afford it otherwise - so they're all committed to raising it to 68 and there's talk of 70.  The only disagreement is the speed and even then it's a practical difference of 4-5 years.  I believe in other continental European countries there's been a similar consensus reached.  Our pension plans aren't sustainable so they have to go up.  Though it may be unpopular that'll pass (not least because people my age expect that we'll work until 70 before we get a state pension, if we get one at all).  How will the US reform social security?

Your proposal sounds to me like Congress should spend enormous times doing very little except what's more or less popular - regardless of cost - except for occassional periods of crisis when it might have to make some changes.

You don't need 60% in the House.  Why should we ever spend a dime of pork in that chamber?

I agree there are a handful of long term systematic issues who's solution will involve short term pain and therefore be unpopular.  I could grudgingly accept buying off one or two swing votes to get those kinds of things addressed.  What percentage of bills that get passed do you think fall into that category?

Otherwise do it the old fashioned way, build public consensus.  9 years ago when Bubba signed Kyoto no one in the US had even heard of global warming.  Now there's broad consensus that we need to do something about it, though exactly what is undetermined.

[citizen k]

9 years ago when Bubba signed Kyoto no one in the US had even heard of global warming. 

It was a topic in class and on Earth Day earlier, it just wasn't on the radar of most politicians.

[Hansmeister]

Yes but the majority required in the US legislature is 60% which is unusual.  And I think this effectively makes reform of anything impossible.  At least in continental Europe with parties and coalitions and consensus you can build a majority to change something.  In the UK we accept that our elected dictatorship will only, at best, have the support of around 40% of the people but they'll have 50%+1 seats, which is all they need.  How does the US practically reform anything, especially anything popular?

To give an example, in the UK all major parties have agreed that the pension age has to rise, because we can't afford it otherwise - so they're all committed to raising it to 68 and there's talk of 70.  The only disagreement is the speed and even then it's a practical difference of 4-5 years.  I believe in other continental European countries there's been a similar consensus reached.  Our pension plans aren't sustainable so they have to go up.  Though it may be unpopular that'll pass (not least because people my age expect that we'll work until 70 before we get a state pension, if we get one at all).  How will the US reform social security?

Your proposal sounds to me like Congress should spend enormous times doing very little except what's more or less popular - regardless of cost - except for occassional periods of crisis when it might have to make some changes.

You don't need 60% in the House.  Why should we ever spend a dime of pork in that chamber?

I agree there are a handful of long term systematic issues who's solution will involve short term pain and therefore be unpopular.  I could grudgingly accept buying off one or two swing votes to get those kinds of things addressed.  What percentage of bills that get passed do you think fall into that category?

Otherwise do it the old fashioned way, build public consensus.  9 years ago when Bubba signed Kyoto no one in the US had even heard of global warming.  Now there's broad consensus that we need to do something about it, though exactly what is undetermined.

Not anymore, that consensus evaporated within the last year along with the credibility of the "scientists" that were pushing the hoax.

[Razgovory]

So you really believe there is a world wide conspiracy of Scientists plotting to bring down American industry?

[Fate]

So you really believe there is a world wide conspiracy of Scientists plotting to bring down American industry?

Global warming fear mongers like Berkut and McCain are allied with Al'Qaeda. Didn't you hear their latest message?

[Hansmeister]

So you really believe there is a world wide conspiracy of Scientists plotting to bring down American industry?

The emails proved that there was a conspiracy.

[citizen k]

So you really believe there is a world wide conspiracy of Scientists plotting to bring down American industry?

The emails proved that there was a conspiracy.

It's not so much a conspiracy as it is ideologues who will do anything to advance their agenda.

[Eddie Teach]

The emails proved that there was a conspiracy.

Al Gore is an evil, evil man.

[Queequeg]

So you really believe there is a world wide conspiracy of Scientists plotting to bring down American industry?

The emails proved that there was a conspiracy.

Thanks, Hans.  Best laugh I've had all week.

[Sheilbh]

I agree there are a handful of long term systematic issues who's solution will involve short term pain and therefore be unpopular.  I could grudgingly accept buying off one or two swing votes to get those kinds of things addressed.  What percentage of bills that get passed do you think fall into that category?

Not so many.

Otherwise do it the old fashioned way, build public consensus.  9 years ago when Bubba signed Kyoto no one in the US had even heard of global warming.  Now there's broad consensus that we need to do something about it, though exactly what is undetermined.

Wonderful. 9 years of consensus building and 51% of Americans believe global warming is happening and is man-made.  I'm not convinced it's the old-fashioned way either, except in a rose-tinted glasses view of the past.

[Admiral Yi]

WWI, WWII, NATO, Marshall Plan, Civil Rights.

[Sheilbh]

WWI, WWII, NATO, Marshall Plan, Civil Rights.

Wars are surprisingly easy to rally support for, especially when you're attacked.

The Marshall Plan was almost half the size Europeans asked for and roughly 50% less than what Truman wanted and was vociferously attacked by both left and right (the far-left didn't like that the US had failed to reach a deal with the USSR and the right just didn't like it).  The start of the Marshall Plan was to some extent done via the executive alone - Truman sending money to support the Greeks and the Turks and restrict Soviet influence - and that was sent a year before Congress finished with it.  What really made the Marshall Plan pass wasn't 'old fashioned consensus building' it was the coup in Czechoslovakia that made it clear that the US needed to counter Soviet influence in Europe.  After protracted negotiations over the size of the plan and the way it would work it only took a month after the coup in Prague to get the first installment improved.  However I believe that spending money on Europe was, with the recession and the Korean war, something the Republicans used against the Democrats in the 1950 mid-terms.

Civil Rights I'll give you.  But if that's how long it takes to build an old fashioned consensus then assuming Social Security has financial issues in twenty years or so you should be able to solve it by about 2150.

Edit:  Incidentally the first vote on the Marshall Plan, before the Czech coup, was short of 60 votes though only by 4.

[Sheilbh]

You could have a line item veto.

I thought about this and I dislike the idea.  It seems to give far too much power to the President in my opinion.  What's the point of a legislature if the President then has the power to cherry-pick every law that's passed and act as a sort-of sole legislator?