Politics

[connor_in]

I'm proud of you Leppy. You have finally admitted the obvious obstructionism that is taking place. Now we can work on getting you to understand that that is hurting the country and that legislating by tantrum is no way to move the country forward. Obama was elected into office and should have an opportunity to pursue the on which he was elected ... unless you believe that a minority of the country should be making the rules for everyone else.

Two items...

1) The people in the House and the Senate...how did they get there and what is their job?
2) What is your take on the following statem?ents:

"Ronald Reagan was elected into office and should have an opportunity to pursue the agenda on which he was elected ... unless you believe that a minority of the country should be making the rules for everyone else."

"George W. Bush was elected into office and should have an opportunity to pursue the agenda on which he was elected ... unless you believe that a minority of the country should be making the rules for everyone else."

 

[Black Irish]

It be interesting to see what sways people to be a R or D, because I believe most people are tuned into one or two issues and the rest is secondary.

Keep in mind that there is a big difference between being a Republican or Democrat and voting Republican or Democrat. I think the Democrats have more of the former ("proud to be a Democrat!") while the GOP has more of the latter ("I vote GOP because they are more in line with my politics"). Of course, all of us smart people in this thread can appreciate that subtle, but important, difference. When people say to me "you're a Republican" I always correct them by replying "No, I'm registered Republican, and only so I can vote in the state GOP primary." Voting in the primary is the only reason I'm registered Republican instead of Independent. I don't want another Christine O'Donnell fiasco where conservative voters shoot themselves in the foot in the primary and lose a sure thing Senate seat for the GOP because Mike Castle wasn't conservative enough. But to wizard's point from earlier, people just tend to hear "Republican" or "Democrat" and tune the rest out, assuming that all of them most be George Bush or Barack Obama fanboys, respectively.

 

[Black Irish]

I have an idea, why don't we see how much headway we can make on fixing the federal budget? We throw around plenty of stats, but what if we put forth a serious proposal to help alleviate our ballooning budget. It could be either a proposal of cuts, increased revenue, or both. And I mean serious proposals, not just saying "cut out corporate welfare" or "cut taxes." I'm talking about detailed proposals with logic and numbers to back it up. We could do it in this thread, but I don't want to hijack the organic, free-ranging discussion we have here. I'd be happy to start a new thread if enough people are in. Who's interested?

 

[GoIrish41]

Two items...

1) The people in the House and the Senate...how did they get there and what is their job?
2) What is your take on the following statem?ents:

"Ronald Reagan was elected into office and should have an opportunity to pursue the agenda on which he was elected ... unless you believe that a minority of the country should be making the rules for everyone else."

"George W. Bush was elected into office and should have an opportunity to pursue the agenda on which he was elected ... unless you believe that a minority of the country should be making the rules for everyone else."

Senators are at least elected through statewide elections, so I'll give them a little slack. While they don't have the nationwide mandate a US-wide election brings, they are at least not in the position because their district was re-drawn to absolutely ensure that they would win, like many House members (on both sides). So yes, they were elected, but not nationally. A representative duely elected by the dark red voters in Macon County Georgia, for example, does not get to trump the agenda of the president -- unless of course they have enough people similarly elected to obstruct the president's agenda. If you think that is OK, well, I don't know what to say. Their jobs are to legislate ... how has that been going the past few years? There is a reason why this has been dubbed the "do nothing" Congress.

Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush were both given an opportunity to pursue their agendas. Reagan fundamentally changed the tax structure of the nation, and W. tried to follow him down that path until he got distracted with the war he provoked with Iraq.

 

[GoIrish41]

I have an idea, why don't we see how much headway we can make on fixing the federal budget? We throw around plenty of stats, but what if we put forth a serious proposal to help alleviate our ballooning budget. It could be either a proposal of cuts, increased revenue, or both. And I mean serious proposals, not just saying "cut out corporate welfare" or "cut taxes." I'm talking about detailed proposals with logic and numbers to back it up. We could do it in this thread, but I don't want to hijack the organic, free-ranging discussion we have here. I'd be happy to start a new thread if enough people are in. Who's interested?

I'd be willing to give it a whirl.

 

[T Town Tommy]

Senators are at least elected through statewide elections, so I'll give them a little slack. While they don't have the nationwide mandate a US-wide election brings, they are at least not in the position because their district was re-drawn to absolutely ensure that they would win, like many House members (on both sides). So yes, they were elected, but not nationally. A representative duely elected by the dark red voters in Macon County Georgia, for example, does not get to trump the agenda of the president -- unless of course they have enough people similarly elected to obstruct the president's agenda. If you think that is OK, well, I don't know what to say.

Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush were both given an opportunity to pursue their agendas. Reagan fundamentally changed the tax structure of the nation, and W. tried to follow him down that path until he got distracted with the war he provoked with Iraq.

And Obama has been given his chance to pursue his agenda. He just doesn't know how to go about consensus building in order to achieve some of it however. Simply put, he has failed to lead because of his lack of ability to offer up compromises that bridge the gap between what he wants as part of his agenda and what Republicans want. This lack of leadership stops at his door. At this point in his administration, he can't even build consensus within his own party on the relevant issues. Guess he can claim the Democrats are obstructing him as well, huh?

 

[Ndaccountant]

I'm proud of you Leppy. You have finally admitted the obvious obstructionism that is taking place. Now we can work on getting you to understand that that is hurting the country and that legislating by tantrum is no way to move the country forward. Obama was elected into office and should have an opportunity to pursue the on which he was elected ... unless you believe that a minority of the country should be making the rules for everyone else.

Yes, Obama was elected. But so were the House members. They were sent there to execute their platforms too.

Additionally, I am not sure I would "move the country forward" with "radical change" based on the overwhelming support of the majority, considering 49% of the voting population voted against him. No denying that he won and he can set the agenda he wants to pursue. But I am not sure I agree 100% that 51% of the population has the rubber stamp of approval to steamroll the agenda thru either.

 

[GoIrish41]

Yes, Obama was elected. But so were the House members. They were sent there to execute their platforms too.

Additionally, I am not sure I would "move the country forward" with "radical change" based on the overwhelming support of the majority, considering 49% of the voting population voted against him. No denying that he won and he can set the agenda he wants to pursue. But I am not sure I agree 100% that 51% of the population has the rubber stamp of approval to steamroll the agenda thru either.

Nobody is talking about steamrolling anything through. Whatever he's for, the GOP (specifically a minority faction of the GOP) is against, and that keeps anyone from getting anything done. That is obstruction. They were sent to execute platforms, not to turn the government on its head and make sure it grinds to a halt if they don't get 100 percent of what they want every time. When they say compromise is a dirty word, this is the result of that contempt for the US system of government that has Congress at about a 9 or 10% approval rating.

 

[GoIrish41]

And Obama has been given his chance to pursue his agenda. He just doesn't know how to go about consensus building in order to achieve some of it however. Simply put, he has failed to lead because of his lack of ability to offer up compromises that bridge the gap between what he wants as part of his agenda and what Republicans want. This lack of leadership stops at his door. At this point in his administration, he can't even build consensus within his own party on the relevant issues. Guess he can claim the Democrats are obstructing him as well, huh?

Was he? The night of his innaguration, a group of GOP leaders met to plan his failure through obstruction. That is hardly a rational approach to government, but it is the path that the GOP has chosen. You can call it a lack of leadership on Obama's part if it makes you feel better, but facts demonstrate something else. The Democratic Party is doing just fine, as they will show when Hillary becomes the next president of a united party. Meanwhile, the GOP will continue to eat its own and push forward in utter disarray.

 

[T Town Tommy]

Nobody is talking about steamrolling anything through. Whatever he's for, the GOP (specifically a minority faction of the GOP) is against, and that keeps anyone from getting anything done. That is obstruction. They were sent to execute platforms, not to turn the government on its head and make sure it grinds to a halt if they don't get 100 percent of what they want every time. When they say compromise is a dirty word, this is the result of that contempt for the US system of government that has Congress at about a 9 or 10% approval rating.

Sounds a lot like what Nancy and Harry did when it came to Obamacare. What you describe is EXACTLY how politics works... or doesn't work. It's called leadership GoIrish41. And sadly, this President has none. Zero. Ziltch. He can't even get his OWN party to push his radical agenda for "fundamental transformation." And that's saying a lot, considering Harry and Nancy are as kooky as they come.

 

[T Town Tommy]

Was he? The night of his innaguration, a group of GOP leaders met to plan his failure through obstruction. That is hardly a rational approach to government, but it is the path that the GOP has chosen. You can call it a lack of leadership on Obama's part if it makes you feel better, but facts demonstrate something else. The Democratic Party is doing just fine, as they will show when Hillary becomes the next president of a united party. Meanwhile, the GOP will continue to eat its own and push forward in utter disarray.

That remains to be seen. But your posts clearly demonstrate the mindset of our current President which is "if you don't agree with me, you're the problem."

Why do you think the current Dems up for reelection this cycle are distancing themselves from Obama? It isn't Republican obstructionism.

 

[Ndaccountant]

Nobody is talking about steamrolling anything through. Whatever he's for, the GOP (specifically a minority faction of the GOP) is against, and that keeps anyone from getting anything done. That is obstruction. They were sent to execute platforms, not to turn the government on its head and make sure it grinds to a halt if they don't get 100 percent of what they want every time. When they say compromise is a dirty word, this is the result of that contempt for the US system of government that has Congress at about a 9 or 10% approval rating.

I know we disagree on this, but this is a result of how the ACA was passed. The general public did not like the overall package. I know there were pieces they supported, but when weighed together, they didn't approve. To the majority of Americans, it was forced fed. The way that was handled poisoned the well. I personally believe it was a calculated risk by the administration. But the emotions of the public were so strong and so deep, it helped foster the political environment we are in today. I am not saying it is right or wrong, but just how I believe we got where we are today.

Truth be told, I hope that we have a true consensus builder after the 2016 election. We need someone that has a history of compromise and leadership. I am personally hoping that whoever wins, R or D, comes from the Governor ranks.

 

[wizards8507]

Nobody is talking about steamrolling anything through. Whatever he's for, the GOP (specifically a minority faction of the GOP) is against, and that keeps anyone from getting anything done.

Do you have any clue how the legislative process works? There is literally nothing "a minority faction of the GOP" can do to obstruct anything. Congress doesn't work that way.

That is obstruction. They were sent to execute platforms, not to turn the government on its head and make sure it grinds to a halt if they don't get 100 percent of what they want every time.

1. Our system of government was specifically designed to "grind to a halt" because it protects the people from willy-nilly decisions from the legislature.

2. When has a conservative anything ever gotten "100% of what they want every time"? I'm starting to think you don't really believe this stuff and you're just a full-on troll.

When they say compromise is a dirty word, this is the result of that contempt for the US system of government that has Congress at about a 9 or 10% approval rating.

You keep saying "compromise" and then talk about Obama's platform, Obama's platform, Obama's platform. "Republicans doing what Obama wants" isn't "compromise."

 

[GoIrish41]

Sounds a lot like what Nancy and Harry did when it came to Obamacare. What you describe is EXACTLY how politics works... or doesn't work. It's called leadership GoIrish41. And sadly, this President has none. Zero. Ziltch. He can't even get his OWN party to push his radical agenda for "fundamental transformation." And that's saying a lot, considering Harry and Nancy are as kooky as they come.

Radical agenda? Expanding healthcare for the citizens of nation, ensuring people have enough to feed their children, making sure people who work are paid a wage on which they can live, raising taxes on billionairs to pay for a safety net for the people on whose backs they became billionairs. Yeah, he's a radical maniac. Is it also called leadership for John Boener to be yanked around by his shorthairs by tea baggers from gerrymandered districts? How many times has he changed he asked how high when the radical far right faction of his party screamed jump? For as much as conservatives talk about leadership, they sure don't have any in their party.

 

[ACamp1900]

You keep saying "compromise" and then talk about Obama's platform, Obama's platform, Obama's platform. "Republicans doing what Obama wants" isn't "compromise."

Honestly, I have long held that for Obama and his supporters, that's exactly what compromise is and what it always has been... you give more and more of your platform in favor of mine, little by little, and if you don't... then you aren't compromising.

 

[chicago51]

The framers didn't design the Senate so that everything needed 60 votes to pass.

Now I will say the House of Representitives as no obligation to pass anything they are not in favor.

My issue is that are democracy isn't truly representitive right now because of Wyoming as the same representation as California (and I realize that is how the framers designed it) and the House which was supposed to represent the people as opposed to the states does is not representative because of the way the district lines are drawn.

I think the issue could be helped although by breaking up larger states in smaller ones. This way the Senate still represents their states as intend but more states with no state having too many electoral votes for lack of a better term should give a better representation.

For example California has 2 Democrat Senators. If you broke into 3. Northern California would have 2 Republican Senators, the Bay Area would get 2 Democrat Senators, and Southern California would likely have 2 Democrat Senators. So the net gain of that is neutral for each party but gives a better representation.

You could probably break up Florida into Northern F including the panhandle, Central Florida (Orlando/Tampa) and south Florida (Miami).
You could split Ohio into North/South. I'd say New York City should be its own city/state. Chicago and the rest Cook county (possibly Lake county and Dupage) could break off with Illinois. Texas could break into 3s with west Texas, east including the Dallas / Fort Worth Area, and then southern Texas which have Houston.

I think it opens up all sorts of possibilities and would be able to give a more representative US Senate and it may help give us a more representative House of Representatives as I assume the gerrymandering for both red and blue states would be reduce if states had less space to play with to juggle things.

 

[GoIrish41]

Do you have any clue how the legislative process works? There is literally nothing "a minority faction of the GOP" can do to obstruct anything. Congress doesn't work that way.


1. Our system of government was specifically designed to "grind to a halt" because it protects the people from willy-nilly decisions from the legislature.

2. When has a conservative anything ever gotten "100% of what they want every time"? I'm starting to think you don't really believe this stuff and you're just a full-on troll.


You keep saying "compromise" and then talk about Obama's platform, Obama's platform, Obama's platform. "Republicans doing what Obama wants" isn't "compromise."

That is exactly how the legislative process has worked for the past few years. Tea baggers push the agenda to the right and are bent on getting everything they want no matter the cost., When establishment republicans don't go along, there is the threat of getting primaried, so instead of bucking the system, they go along with the radicals. So, instead of a tiny slice of the party, the entire party (fueled by billionaires pushing right-wing candidates) seems to move in a direction they are not all completely comfortable with.

Conservatives don't get 100 percent of what they want every time, but they certainly mouth off as if they will do anything to get their way. 98% is pretty damn close to 100 percent, and the boasting after that budget debate was not something I am willing to dismiss as politics as usual. Shut down the government, derail the economy to get what you want. That is radical to say the least. You support these ruthless SOBs but you think I'm a troll for not agreeing with your point of view. What does that make these guys you support who disagree with anything Obama wants just so they don't have the stink of compromise on their clothes?

Obama, for all his flaws, has made exceptional efforts to meet in the middle on many issues, only to be cast off by the GOP as a weak, liberal with a radical agenda -- all of this cloaked behind, wait for it ... a radical right wing agenda.

 

[T Town Tommy]

Radical agenda? Expanding healthcare for the citizens of nation, ensuring people have enough to feed their children, making sure people who work are paid a wage on which they can live, raising taxes on billionairs to pay for a safety net for the people on whose backs they became billionairs. Yeah, he's a radical maniac. Is it also called leadership for John Boener to be yanked around by his shorthairs by tea baggers from gerrymandered districts? How many times has he changed he asked how high when the radical far right faction of his party screamed jump? For as much as conservatives talk about leadership, they sure don't have any in their party.

And I have been fairly consistent in calling out both party's leadership in my posts. Can you say the same?

Everything you list is a typical liberal argument that has been played over and over and over. And because Obama - and Pelosi and Reed - pushed the first listed issue down everyone's throats, they set the stage for the Republicans not wanting to work with them.

Bottom line is this. If the Dems lose the Senate (which is still a long shot) Obama may as well go ahead and pack his bags. He won't be able to get anything passed his last two years. Not that it is really much different than his first five years in office.

People are tired of his BS. They are tired of Congress not getting along. I am tired of trying to argue with you about why this President will go down in history as the absolute worst President of the modern era. He can ride off into the sunset blaming everyone else for HIS failures. And the rest of the country will be better off. THEN... maybe this country will have a leader that knows how to lead. If it's a Democrat I don't care. Clinton couldn't keep his fly up, but he knew how to lead. This President is so stupid, I don't think he even knows where his fly is. And if he did, he would probably try to tax it. And Boener, Reed, and Pelosi can ride right on off with Obama.

 

[GoIrish41]

Honestly, I have long held that for Obama and his supporters, that's exactly what compromise is and what it always has been... you give more and more of your platform in favor of mine, little by little, and if you don't... then you aren't compromising.

That is almost exactly what compromise is, no? Each side gives something to come closer to agreement on a path forward. Obama has cut the safety net, brought private sector insurance companies into his "socialist" healthcare plan, thrown illegal immigrants out of the country at a higher rate than any republican in the past 3 decades ... what has the GOP caved on? A minimal tax to the rich? What else?

 

[Wild Bill]

Honestly, I have long held that for Obama and his supporters, that's exactly what compromise is and what it always has been... you give more and more of your platform in favor of mine, little by little, and if you don't... then you aren't compromising.

and you're a racist, homophobic, chauvinist.

 

[GoIrish41]

And I have been fairly consistent in calling out both party's leadership in my posts. Can you say the same?

Everything you list is a typical liberal argument that has been played over and over and over. And because Obama - and Pelosi and Reed - pushed the first listed issue down everyone's throats, they set the stage for the Republicans not wanting to work with them.

Bottom line is this. If the Dems lose the Senate (which is still a long shot) Obama may as well go ahead and pack his bags. He won't be able to get anything passed his last two years. Not that it is really much different than his first five years in office.

People are tired of his BS. They are tired of Congress not getting along. I am tired of trying to argue with you about why this President will go down in history as the absolute worst President of the modern era. He can ride off into the sunset blaming everyone else for HIS failures. And the rest of the country will be better off. THEN... maybe this country will have a leader that knows how to lead. If it's a Democrat I don't care. Clinton couldn't keep his fly up, but he knew how to lead. This President is so stupid, I don't think he even knows where his fly is. And if he did, he would probably try to tax it. And Boener, Reed, and Pelosi can ride right on off with Obama.

The stage was already set? C'mon man. How many Republicans met the night of Obama's innaguration to plan to obstruct him at every turn. It is convenient to blame the ACA, but it is not actually based in fact. They were planning his fate before he ever sat in the chair in the oval office.

 

[T Town Tommy]

The stage was already set? C'mon man. How many Republicans met the night of Obama's innaguration to plan to obstruct him at every turn. It is convenient to blame the ACA, but it is not actually based in fact. They were planning his fate before he ever sat in the chair in the oval office.

That's a convenient excuse. Oh, BTW, Boener just announced the House would vote on a clean debt limit bill. Good for him. The DEMS own the ACA mess. They may as well own the huge deficit as well.

History will not be kind to this President.

 

[Cackalacky]

That is almost exactly what compromise is, no? Each side gives something to come closer to agreement on a path forward. Obama has cut the safety net, brought private sector insurance companies into his "socialist" healthcare plan, thrown illegal immigrants out of the country at a higher rate than any republican in the past 3 decades ... what has the GOP caved on? A minimal tax to the rich? What else?

Don't forget he gives zero fucks about using a drone.

 

[Ndaccountant]

The stage was already set? C'mon man. How many Republicans met the night of Obama's innaguration to plan to obstruct him at every turn. It is convenient to blame the ACA, but it is not actually based in fact. They were planning his fate before he ever sat in the chair in the oval office.

So let me get this straight.

You mean to tell me, that the R's in 2008 were the first group to lose an election and to strategize on how they will win the next election?

Plus, at that point, the Dems controlled the house and had either 59 or 60 senate seats, depending on the time period you are looking at. The R's could object all they wanted to in the house, nothing would matter. In the senate, there was only one R needed. One.

So, you can blame everything on that one night they all met to plot revenge, but the fact of the matter is Obama really didn't need any of them. Instead, he used his political capital on the stimulus and health care. From then on, the voters reacted in the house and senate.

 

[chicago51]

Actually the ACA was a compromise bill as the public option was taken out to get Republican votes. Which they didn't get anway.

I think a public or MC buy in option alone would have been better reform than the ACA.

Personally I think that instead of doing the whole ACA Demcorats should have just passed laws on pre existing conditions, life time limits, and out of pocket cost.

Then they could have just passed a law allowing people under the Medicare eligibility age to buy to Medicare at premiums that reflect the actual cost. May they could have still passed the Medicare tax on high income capital gains and MC payroll increase on high income earners to subsidize the premiums of the very poor.

No big mandates and pages upon pages of rules.

It would hardly put private companies out of business either. Sure Medicare saves on cost through bargaining power, and way way cheaper administrative cost but Medicare has a lot of gaps so a lot of people that could afford private insurance would likely still choose it or at the very least buy supplemental insurance like most well off seniors do. It would give the poor something to go to that gave halfway decent coverage.

It would have been a lot less complicated and since Medicare is dealing with budget it could and still can be passed under resolution requiring only a majority in both chambers of Congress and not 60 votes in the Senate.

 

[T Town Tommy]

So let me get this straight.

You mean to tell me, that the R's in 2008 were the first group to lose an election and to strategize on how they will win the next election?

Plus, at that point, the Dems controlled the house and had either 59 or 60 senate seats, depending on the time period you are looking at. The R's could object all they wanted to in the house, nothing would matter. In the senate, there was only one R needed. One.

So, you can blame everything on that one night they all met to plot revenge, but the fact of the matter is Obama really didn't need any of them. Instead, he used his political capital on the stimulus and health care. From then on, the voters reacted in the house and senate.

Exactly right. Neither Obama or either house of Congress had any regard for Republicans when Obama took office. The first two measures they took up were stimulus and the ACA. The President, along with Reed and Pelosi, broke every rule of decorum in order to bring them to a vote. They had neither the time nor the inclination to compromise, debate, etc. They strongarmed legislation through, praised what they did, and went on their way.

As much as some want to blame others, it is a simple fact that this President and the Dems own both a failed stimulus package that cost taxpayers a fortune and the ACA, which will go down as one of the absolute worst things ever done. The true affect of it won't be felt until long after this President is out of office.

 

[chicago51]

Would anyone be for or against a bill that no longer allowed companies that were outsourcing to write off their moving expenses on their tax and gave companies that wanted move jobs back to US a tax break?

 

[ACamp1900]

The true affect of it won't be felt until long after this President is out of office.

At which point, it's failure will be placed on some Republican... watch.

 

[T Town Tommy]

At which point, it's failure will be placed on some Republican... watch.

Yep. No different than having to try and repair the damage this President has done in foreign policy. It will take several years to repair relationships with our allies across the globe.

 

[chicago51]

This has turned into a total clusterfuck of b*tch session.

I apologize for my part in it.

I would hope that we could steer the conversation back to what is the role of government which is really what this whole debate is about. Not Obama did this or the Republicans did that. It would nice offer specific solutions and discuss the pros and cons.