5 ms·

then they might actually get something done

cglace 14y ago
Which is often worse than them not getting something done.
Karunamon 14y ago
You could easily make the argument that's the reason Congress is set up as it is.. when one party controls the senate, and another the house, and another the presidency, you know damn sure nothing is going to get done unless there is broad consensus. Having one party control everything leads to shenanigans. Trust me, you do not want an agile and fast government.
- flyinRyan 14y ago
  >Trust me, you do not want an agile and fast government. You do not want an agile and fast incompetent government, that's for sure.
  - aidenn0 14y ago
    No, I'd much rather have an agile and fast incompetent government than an agile and fast competent government after looking at who funds the majority of the reelection warchests.
    - enraged_camel 14y ago
      Look guys, none of these have to be mutually exclusive. Agility, speed and competence all exist on a spectrum. Is Congress deliberating on a piece of legislation for an entire year OK? No. Does that mean they should pass it after a day's worth of talks? No. It has to be reasonably quick while still allowing for enough room to iron out the kinks.
      - aidenn0 14y ago
        I'm not sure what we said that made you think we believe differently. In fact we were arguing over whether or not it is better to have fast & agile combined with competence or incompetence, so we clearly know they aren't mutually exclusive.
      - saraid216 14y ago
        > Is Congress deliberating on a piece of legislation for an entire year OK? No. I'm perfectly okay with Congress deliberating on a piece of legislation for an entire year. Some issues are hard.
    - flyinRyan 14y ago
      I was actually considering the current funding situation a part of the incompetence since it goes against the point of having elected representatives. But yes, with the current system it is both the incompetence and sluggishness that is saving us right now.
- lotharbot 14y ago
  > "You could easily make the argument that's the reason Congress is set up as it is" It was a fairly explicit design goal. By setting up Congress so that one house mirrored population and the other mirrored number of states, they basically guaranteed that there would be no substantial legislation passed on the issue of slavery, at least not until a major shift in culture. In a broader sense, remember that "fast and agile" is another way of saying "changes rapidly". Since government writes the rules you have to operate by, both in your personal and economic life, it's important that those rules not change quickly if the changes are at all controversial.
- AutoCorrect 14y ago
  "government governs best which governs least" attributed to Thomas Jefferson.
  - saraid216 14y ago
    "And by these standards we have set up a fabulous government in Iraq." Attributed to Stephen Colbert.
tomjen3 14y ago
Sure. But the founders weren't fools, they didn't set up an efficient government; they set up a government with a ton of checks and balances -- exactly because an efficient government is a terrible thing.

Which is often worse than them not getting something done.

You could easily make the argument that's the reason Congress is set up as it is.. when one party controls the senate, and another the house, and another the presidency, you know damn sure nothing is going to get done unless there is broad consensus. Having one party control everything leads to shenanigans. Trust me, you do not want an agile and fast government.

flyinRyan 14y ago
>Trust me, you do not want an agile and fast government. You do not want an agile and fast incompetent government, that's for sure.
- aidenn0 14y ago
  No, I'd much rather have an agile and fast incompetent government than an agile and fast competent government after looking at who funds the majority of the reelection warchests.
  - enraged_camel 14y ago
    Look guys, none of these have to be mutually exclusive. Agility, speed and competence all exist on a spectrum. Is Congress deliberating on a piece of legislation for an entire year OK? No. Does that mean they should pass it after a day's worth of talks? No. It has to be reasonably quick while still allowing for enough room to iron out the kinks.
    - aidenn0 14y ago
      I'm not sure what we said that made you think we believe differently. In fact we were arguing over whether or not it is better to have fast & agile combined with competence or incompetence, so we clearly know they aren't mutually exclusive.
    - saraid216 14y ago
      > Is Congress deliberating on a piece of legislation for an entire year OK? No. I'm perfectly okay with Congress deliberating on a piece of legislation for an entire year. Some issues are hard.
  - flyinRyan 14y ago
    I was actually considering the current funding situation a part of the incompetence since it goes against the point of having elected representatives. But yes, with the current system it is both the incompetence and sluggishness that is saving us right now.
lotharbot 14y ago
> "You could easily make the argument that's the reason Congress is set up as it is" It was a fairly explicit design goal. By setting up Congress so that one house mirrored population and the other mirrored number of states, they basically guaranteed that there would be no substantial legislation passed on the issue of slavery, at least not until a major shift in culture. In a broader sense, remember that "fast and agile" is another way of saying "changes rapidly". Since government writes the rules you have to operate by, both in your personal and economic life, it's important that those rules not change quickly if the changes are at all controversial.
AutoCorrect 14y ago
"government governs best which governs least" attributed to Thomas Jefferson.
- saraid216 14y ago
  "And by these standards we have set up a fabulous government in Iraq." Attributed to Stephen Colbert.

tomjen3 14y ago

Sure. But the founders weren't fools, they didn't set up an efficient government; they set up a government with a ton of checks and balances -- exactly because an efficient government is a terrible thing.