Some people have suggested a monarch. No real power, but an official figure who could take care of inconsequential decrees and public appearances, leaving our politicians free to, you know, govern.

I think that's a good idea Torg.

Rather than paying ANOTHER government salary, how about we just not waste time with inconsequential (excuse me, symbolic) measures.

The thing is, it seems these silly things are the only things a majority can agree on. When you have 50 members of one ideology, 49 members of the other (plus liebermann), that is a deadlock where nothing gets done.

Either people have to compromise (and endure being called flip floppers), or we have to accept that a extreme agenda produces extremely little results.

It's the exact same result! Passing only silly symbolic measures doesn't produce any more result than passing nothing at all.

I'll be the monarch. You may bow down now.

There might be more to it, IMO.

Recognizing soil as an essential natural resource probably protects soil from pollution and things like that. I have learned to never take legislation at face value, because the names can be very deceptive.

I do agree that we should get more done, but when the parties dig their heels in and won't compromise, it is to be expected. You can't expect a majority to agree on something when both sides want things 100% their way or the highway.

For example, there is the "Group of 10" Senators (half Republican, half Democrat) who have put forth energy legislation. It includes off-shore drilling, which Obama said he would agree in this case because it also includes funding for green energy. McCain has dug his heels in and opposed this legislation, because of the funding.

Obama compromised, and was called a flip-flopper, but ultimately, that is what needs to happen if we are to get something done.

What evidence do you have that McCain opposed the legislation put forth by the group of ten?

He has opposed parts of it and supported parts of it, from everything I've read.

And the parts he has opposed are not the parts about funding for green energy, but that parts about changing the way oil companies are taxed.

I think saying he opposed the legislation because of the funding is a pretty bold statement to make. I know you are very concerned about telling the truth, so I'm sure you must have some evidence to back it up, I am just puzzled because I have never once heard McCain say anything about opposition to the funding for green initiatives.

By the way, did you guys heard about Stephanie Tubbs Jones? It's very sad.

The funding comes from the tax on the oil companies.

(I am trying to locate the story I read the other day, but I didn't save it so it might take a moment!)

I didn't hear about Ms. Jones. What happened??

But it's incorrect to say he is opposed to funding these initiatives. It would be correct to say he is opposed to funding them through higher taxes. In my opinion, that's a huge difference.

So it's not the funding he opposes, it's the source of the funding? Saying it's the funding is putting a spin on it.

Hmm. I can't find the exact one I read yesterday, but I am seeing multiple articles that generically say that he doesn't endorse the legislation, don't support it, etc.

I just think the legislation needs to be considered as is. It has consessions for both Republicans and Democrats...that is part of compromise. There might be parts that both sides dislike, but to make progress we can't have things 100% our way.

I guess she died of a brain aneurysm. This might not be the most appropriate place to bring it up, but I was just shocked when I heard and I was on here, so I typed it without even thinking.

I'm with Jillness on this one. Oil companies don't pay high enough taxes, only the second highest corporate tax rate in the world.

It's a good thing the consumers don't pay those taxes eventually, with the poorest hit hardest.

It was not my intention to "spin". It was the part about the funding of green energy that he was in opposition to. I did not say he opposes all green energy or anything like that. He opposed the funding initiatives in this piece of legislation.

So by making July 28th the day of the American Cowboy, could that also mean that the American Cowboy was put on the endangered species list?

These seem silly (and they are) but I wonder how much time is really wasted passing these sorts of laws? I don't think they require any real brain power.

Of course they're an easy target to bring up to try to show that a particular group of people have accomplished nothing but fluff. But my understanding is that these kinds of laws aren't unique to a democratic congress.

As for me, I'm so sick of all these National Something We Want To Promote Weeks.

To be honest, considering all the partisan bickering and the complexities (and all the tactical and political considerations the politicians take into account) of any measure that comes up for a vote before Congress, I'm surprised anything at all gets done, really.

Good thing they are making historical profits then, huh, Organic?

If you INVEST in green energy, it will enable development of commerical scale renewable energy, IMO.

I think that this is one difference between the candidates, and I think that people will agree with one or the other (no one has the lock on being "right").

It is my understanding that McCain is for tax credits for renewable energy, and Obama wants to fund renewable energy. The difference being which will enable young start up companies the most? Getting funds up front, or having to wait for the tax credit the next year.

I just think that the Group of 10 legislation really is a compromise of both party's goals, and if we want to make progress this is a good place to start. Neither party gets exactly what they want, but Green energy gets the jump start the American people need.

Jill, start up companies might benefit more from funding, but already existing companies, which already have a lot of the complicated infrastructure in place that is needed to start new projects, would benefit more from tax credits.

I think you guys are right when it comes to the fact that only symbolic measures are passed because it is the only thing the politicians agree on.
Something struck me that President Bush said in 2004 after her won the election, that he had been giving a mandate by the American People for his policies. That mentality, the same one in the Democrat run House and Senate, of because you won with 51% everyone has to do things your way. Well, 49% still disagree with you. Their is no longer any compromise.
Politicians are so scared of losing their bases (Religous Conservatives and Fundamentalists for Republicans and Ant-War for the Democrats) that they pass peremptory legislation. Leaving moderates behind.
I miss the political compromise that brought about the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.

I miss it too, Shadowcat. (I like your avtar, btw!)

You don't think already existing companies would benefit from funding for green initiatives?

When did I say that?

And, just to be clear, McCain's plan actually includes funding and tax cuts.

Anyway, I've got a ton to finish in the next hour and a half. Have a great day, all!

They've done some important things but I'll agree because of the partisan ship on both sides important matters have not been resolved. I also hat the way that the majority (who ever it happens to be) gets the blame for a bill not passing. It takes two to do the partisan tango. Both the GOP and the DNC need to drop the partisanship hysterics.

Thanks Jillness for the comment!
Why can we all not run the country? We see the obvious faults and failings.
I think it has a lot to do with having to play to each party. Both McCain and Obama have been accused by their parties' of abandoning their principles because they have moved to the center, which happens to be where majority of America is at. But the only way they could win their parties' nomination was to play to the base, talk the religious rhetoric and anti-war thumping. We seem to create these inept politicions and then get angry with them.
Sorry I was rambling a bit.

"I also hate the way that the majority (who ever it happens to be) gets the blame for a bill not passing. It takes two to do the partisan tango. Both the GOP and the DNC need to drop the partisanship hysterics."

I agree!

Lilkimbo, I think you are a very credible source, but according to FactCheck, McCain's energy plan "doesn't specify any new federal spending for renewable energy, and says only that he would "rationalize" existing tax credits to provide incentives. In the past, however, he's opposed extending such tax credits when paid by tax increases elsewhere." (it should be noted that they do not appear to include "clean coal" and nuclear energy as "renewable energy" source).

I can't go to McCain's site right now, but if anyone has a counter to that I am open to hearing it! Facts are always welcome.

Oh, and just to clarify, Obama is also for tax credits.

i'm so over the system as a whole. i think that politicians pass symbolic bills because they hope that they can get voters on their side - or they hope that in the future, these junior reps will be on their side - yet i don't know if there's anything that's going to change in the near future.

with all the red tape in place to keep things from going through - it's a wonder that our country is running at all - and to be honest, with the way that things are going - i wouldn't be surprised if it stopped running.

It seems to be an easy way for members of congress to play both sides, to say they support parts of legislation and not other parts.

Hey I'm for tax credits too, give me some.

As for Pelosi I thought she would get a lot more credit than she has received from GOP for not jumping on the impeachment band wagon. Thank God they didn't take it that far or next year the roll call in the House of Rep. would be 90/10 Republicans.

Oops I mean 425/10 Republicans, I had Senate on the brain.

I thought you were talking in terms of percentages.

Jillness, I'm not very good at math either.