British Democracy "In Terminal Decline"

[TimothyC]

This seems false based on a cursory look at Wikipedia: Something something.

Ah, it seems when I retyped the post, I dropped a rather important word from my phrasing: 'resolution'

When they stopped passing budget resolutions after 2009.

The last budget that was passed by the Democratic controlled Senate was in 2009. The last budget resolution proposal that the Democratic Leadership in the Senate made was in 2009.

Now, that budget they passed was for FY09. Neither the House nor the Senate passed anything for FY10 (in either calendar year 2009 which is when FY10 starts or in 2010).

As an added note - Budget resolutions can not be filibustered and pass with simple majorities.

This means that the Democrats in the Senate have not even started to negotiate with the Republicans in the House at all for a compromise (wrong word, but I can't think of the correct one - conference and committee are not right either, but it's what happens when those passed by the House and the Senate are unified into a single budget) budget resolution.

One final note, President Obama's proposed FY12 budget was voted on in the Senate back in 2011. The final vote tally was 0-97.

To that end, I provide this Politifact article.

[Blayne]

But, according to that same article several were passed by the Democrats since 2009.

1st Continuing Resolution, funding from October 1, 2010 through December 3, 2010, passed on September 29, 2010. (Pub.L. 111-242)
2nd Continuing Resolution, funding through December 18, 2010, passed on December 2, 2010. (Pub.L. 111-290)[15]
3rd Continuing Resolution, funding through December 21, 2010, passed on December 17, 2010. (Pub.L. 111-317)
4th Continuing Resolution, funding through March 4, 2011, passed on December 21, 2010. (Pub.L. 111-322)[16]
5th Continuing Resolution, funding through March 18, 2011, passed on March 2, 2011. (Pub.L. 112-4) This resolution cut $4 billion from 2010 spending levels.[17]
6th Continuing Resolution, funding through April 8, 2011, passed on March 16, 2011. (Pub.L. 112-6) This resolution cut an additional $6 billion from 2010 spending levels.[18]
7th Continuing Resolution, funding through April 15, 2011, passed on April 9, 2011. (Pub.L. 112-8) This continuing resolution followed a deal on the full annual budget which was made with just hours remaining before a government shutdown.[11] It itself contains an additional $2 billion in cuts.[12] Democrats had previously rejected a Republican-backed resolution passed by the House before the deal, which would have funded the government for another week and cut an additional $12 billion from 2010 levels.

You're going to have to go a lot further than this to show it as being some evidence of systemic intractability from the Democrats than simply failing to propose something for the Republicans to shoot down.

[Elfdart]

The mechanisms they describe appear to have progressed much further along in the US, where corporations are almost openly buying elections and people are surprisingly blasé about it. Rather than demanding reform, they just heap contempt upon the system and don't bother to vote (or they vote for "protest candidates", which is effectively the same thing as not voting). Even when people do protest, they have become so disengaged from the democratic system that they don't ask for any particular reform; they just protest the state of how things are, ie- the "Occupy" movement which protested the wealth concentration in America but did not ask for any particular government reform. The only non-corporate forces in the US who seem able to organize and pressure politicians with specific requests are to be found in the religious lobby, which is just as bad.

Other democratic countries should really take the US as a warning sign of where unchecked corporatism can lead to. This rot is spreading across the entire developed world.

Corporations have been able to corrupt the system because they started buying up members of both parties and all factions within the parties. For example, it used to be the oil companies or military contractors would buy up and support right-wing politicians in right-wing districts and states, and back right-wing candidates against liberals and environmentalists. Then they came up with the clever idea of buying up liberals (which turned out to be surprisingly cheap), and keeping their access when those candidates won. Not only did this allow them to keep their access, it also let them pretend to be even-handed.

So when that small percentage of voters that actually pays attention to who is paying for whom looks at their ballots and realizes that no matter who gets elected, the same companies will still get what they want while the voter gets Jack Shit.

[TimothyC]

But, according to that same article several were passed by the Democrats since 2009.

<Snip>

You're going to have to go a lot further than this to show it as being some evidence of systemic intractability from the Democrats than simply failing to propose something for the Republicans to shoot down.

And here we see that Blayne doesn't know the difference between a 'Budget Resolution' and a 'Continuing Resolution' that funds the government.

And yes, there is a functional difference. It's the difference between a real plan and 'let's slightly modify what we've been doing' action.

[Simon_Jester]

Would it be a practical and useful use of the Senate's time to pass a budget in the political atmosphere after the 2010 elections?

[madd0ct0r]

what does any of ths thread have to do with the UK?

[Dartzap]

what does any of ths thread have to do with the UK?

Indeed. its a fairly common occurrence. Despite many peoples thinking otherwise, this is not the 51st state.

[Elfdart]

what does any of ths thread have to do with the UK?

Indeed. its a fairly common occurrence. Despite many peoples thinking otherwise, this is not the 51st state.

It's the 53rd, after Israel and Canada!