Non-political predictions please.

[killarney_sailor]

As some of you may have figured out, I am quite concerned that the US government is proving incredibly ineffective at a time when strong leadership and direction is needed. I want this discussion to be as non-partisan as possible (difficult I know) since there is lots of blame to go around - one of those 'a pox on both your houses' things.

I can see four potential directions that the government and country can go. Hope I haven't missed any! What do you think is most likely?

After choosing one of the options in the poll suggest how this will be achieved. NOTE: saying the Democrats (or the Republicans) have the best idea for fixing the mess is not what I am getting to, since that has been talked to death a dozen times over, with no one showing any willingness to be swayed to the other camp. Rather I am interested in your take on how the option you choose will actually happen.

[killarney_sailor]

I voted for Option 3, because I am an optimist by nature. I don't see either party sweeping the presidency and controlling both houses in Congress (including 60+ in the Senate) - the country is too polarized to swing either direction in the near or middle term. I think in the longer term (20 years), demographic changes favor the Democrats though.

[PorFin]

Call me a cynic, but I just don't see things getting any better anytime soon.

The development of American representational democracy has IMO gone off track. Today's body of elected representatives bear very little resemblance to the ones envisioned by the founding fathers, in that they have become professional politicians first and have turned politics into a permanent career path.

[PBzeer]

Incredibly ineffective at what exactly? Screwing things up more than they already are?

Personally, I'm hoping the American people wake up and realize that government isn't always the answer to their every little problem in life. And vote for people who agree. If the coming election comes close to the last one, then there's hope. If it's just the same old career politicians from both parties returned to power ... well, I'm glad I live on a boat. Because then, the best to hope for is permanent gridlock.

[killarney_sailor]

Originally Posted by PBzeer

Incredibly ineffective at what exactly? Screwing things up more than they already are?

I was inferring, you know of course, at governing. Could be policies to cut taxes, gut government spending, etc OR could be policies to do the reverse. My point is that basically nothing is being accomplished. Belgium did not have a government for something like a year and a half because no coalitions could be found. At least that was an honest admissision of a problem (although the country kept functioning). In the US there is the pretense of government, but the reality is quite different.

[PBzeer]

It's not just the politicians. Take this sentence from the Politico story on the Obama budget proposal: "But Obama would also go outside the box by creating new mandatory spending initiatives costing tens of billions of dollars and for the first time, openly tap war savings to fund his domestic agenda."

Why do I mention it? Because there are no "war savings". There's only less borrowing. But rather than point this out, so that people have accurate info, they spin the President's line. All through government, both R and D, they spin totally bogus numbers that the media accept as fact. Things like, increasing spending by 5% instead of 10% is a "cut". Things like saying if we do this and that, and that and this happen, then we will end up with whatever they're promoting. When they, and the media know dang well, that and this won't happen, even though this and that does.

It's all about maintaining the status quo and keeping one's place at the table. And the establishment from both parties and the mainstream media like it that way. That's why Romney is the favorite of the GOP establishment, he's a good 'ol boy, one of them.

The real gridlock in Washington is between the people and the politicians, not between the politicians.

[jrd22]

I don't have a clue at this point which party is going to have to deal with the debt mess we are in so have no predictions regarding the elections. What I do know is that like we are seeing in Greece, (and soon Portugal, Italy, Spain) our time to pay the piper is fast approaching. Extremely difficult choices will need to be made to avert a disaster and decade long depression (if not worse) in the next few years to avert a Greece-like meltdown no later than 2016. With Pres. Obama kicking the can down the road by proposing a 1.3 T deficit it's fairly obvious that he has no intention of confronting the reality of our debt crisis and if the recent consumer confidence numbers (plunging) are any indication of the electorates mood he is going to have a tough job getting re-elected. At least some in the Republican party seem to be aware of the train steadily approaching on our fiscal track, whether they will be successful in trying to slow it down largely depends on the outcome of the elections and who controls the two houses. The way I see it is we have two choices, either start making painful choices in the very near future or turn into Greece with our cities in flames in a few short years. Not too optimistic I know, I've been accused of being a realist.

[Sailormon6]

Your poll seems to assume that gridlock is a bad thing, or that it represents an unwillingness to compromise. Suppose you came to a stop sign while driving your car, and you looked to the left and to the right, but could see nothing but fog in both directions. Should you just drive through the intersection, trusting that there is no semi barrelling down the crossroad, or should you sit and wait for the fog to clear? That's gridlock, and gridlock can be a good thing. We don't elect members of Congress with the intention that they will agree readily. We elect them to exercise their best judgment in our behalf. That means sometimes they'll agree, and sometimes they won't. In either case, they're doing our (the voters') bidding. "Change" comes in two flavors -- good change and bad change. Gridlock prevents change until both sides can be convinced that it will likely be good change.

So far as I can tell, the necessary government functions are still being funded. There's no gridlock in that regard. The only gridlock is with regard to proposals that don't have the support of a majority of the Congress on both sides of the aisle. If you can't persuade a majority of Congress to support a proposal, despite all the techniques used to get their support, such as arm-twisting, threats, campaign contributions, earmarks, etc., then there must not be much merit in the proposal.

I voted for the third option, because there's enough compromising being done to keep the vital functions of government in operation, but there's enough gridlock to resist massive and reckless new spending unless and until enough "bugs" are worked out of the proposal to make it palatable and practicable.

[WouldaShoulda]

More of the stalemate that we currently have.

That's the best alternative to the "change" we got in 2008.

[gryff57]

Why do you think "the US government is proving incredibly ineffective at a time when strong leadership and direction is needed"? Leadership for what? What "direction" are we missing? Some examples, please.

I would agree that things aren't perfect, but they never have been in all of human history.

g