As an outsider your political system appears to make it nigh on impossible for a US President to get anything truly constructive or radical achieved whilst in power. Within two years of being elected you have the Congressional elections? From what I've seen they usually end up giving the opposition the majority, and due to the two parties being so fundamentally different, it becomes nigh on impossible to get anything passed. On top of that they then need to be looking to the election that is coming up in two years time. Given the size of the US is this really the most practical way to govern?
Wolfstan wrote: As an outsider your political system appears to make it nigh on impossible for a US President to get anything truly constructive or radical achieved whilst in power. Within two years of being elected you have the Congressional elections? From what I've seen they usually end up giving the opposition the majority, and due to the two parties being so fundamentally different, it becomes nigh on impossible to get anything passed. On top of that they then need to be looking to the election that is coming up in two years time. Given the size of the US is this really the most practical way to govern?
Yes.
It protects us from fools and dreamers. Its only when one party gets a hold of both the executive and legislative functions, that some really bad stuff can happen.
Your perspective is skewed somewhat since bipartisanship is so low right now. As Frazz said, a certain amount of gridlock actually keeps the country on a course somewhere in the middle. It may seem a crazy way to do things, but it kinda works.
Problems may arise when the gridlock prevents big issues from being addressed. We just have to hope that the men and women in office are good enough to get something done when it's absolutely required. Usually they do.
Also note that the POTUS isn't supposed to be a king. The rest of our government isn't there to make his agenda happen.
FWIW, I think the 2-year term for Representatives is an issue. They have to spend about half their time in office trying to get re-elected, which IMO isn't a positive for the people.
Testify wrote: FDR managed to get radical things done, and so has Obama. Just not as much as he'd like.
Just like to remind non-British posters that the OP comes from a country thats upper house is completely unelected
It likewise bears pointing out that the House of Lords has, particularly during the reigns of large-majority governments (Thatcher's in the mid-80s, Blair's in the late-90s), been regarded in political circles as more effectively filling the role of the opposition than the second party in the Commons, since its members are appointed for life, and thus free from the obligation to bow either to the party line or popular sentiment.
Testify wrote: FDR managed to get radical things done, and so has Obama. Just not as much as he'd like.
Just like to remind non-British posters that the OP comes from a country thats upper house is completely unelected
It likewise bears pointing out that the House of Lords has, particularly during the reigns of large-majority governments (Thatcher's in the mid-80s, Blair's in the late-90s), been regarded in political circles as more effectively filling the role of the opposition than the second party in the Commons, since its members are appointed for life, and thus free from the obligation to bow either to the party line or popular sentiment.
And there is legislation that allows the Commons to bypass the Lords anyway, so it really is more of a place to raise issues than anything else. It can't act as a block to Commons legislation if the Commons doesn't wish it to.
Testify wrote: FDR managed to get radical things done, and so has Obama. Just not as much as he'd like.
Just like to remind non-British posters that the OP comes from a country thats upper house is completely unelected
... but it does work As English Assassin pointed out, as much as people moan that it's un-elected they have made the government in power stop and think. Even change tack. Perhaps their unique position gives them the freedom to actually be more of a balanced person politically? No pressure to conform, no need to say things that make voters happy. Who knows.
Testify wrote: FDR managed to get radical things done, and so has Obama. Just not as much as he'd like.
Just like to remind non-British posters that the OP comes from a country thats upper house is completely unelected
It likewise bears pointing out that the House of Lords has, particularly during the reigns of large-majority governments (Thatcher's in the mid-80s, Blair's in the late-90s), been regarded in political circles as more effectively filling the role of the opposition than the second party in the Commons, since its members are appointed for life, and thus free from the obligation to bow either to the party line or popular sentiment.
And there is legislation that allows the Commons to bypass the Lords anyway, so it really is more of a place to raise issues than anything else. It can't act as a block to Commons legislation if the Commons doesn't wish it to.
Utilising the 1911 Parliament Act is something of "nuclear option", however. Using it oblige a government to stake their reputation on a bill to which there is evident opposition, and overuse of it (or the threat of it) invites the Lords to further intransigence (as notably occurred during the late years of Thatcher's government, when the Lords became home to a number of former Tory ministers who resented the dogmatic new-right direction in which she had taken their party). There's a reason it's only been invoked seven times since 1911 (in practice it's actually been invoked ten times, but on only seven of those occasions has it actually been employed).
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Wolfstan wrote: ... but it does work As English Assassin pointed out, as much as people moan that it's un-elected they have made the government in power stop and think. Even change tack. Perhaps their unique position gives them the freedom to actually be more of a balanced person politically? No pressure to conform, no need to say things that make voters happy. Who knows.
Indeed. Combined with the fact that nobody can agree on how the Lords should be reformed or replaced, this is what has kept them in place.
Wolfstan wrote: Given the size of the US is this really the most practical way to govern?
No. This country is in perpetual elections and the result is political parties who focus on campaigns rather than policy. This is especially pronounced among Republicans since 2008.
Testify wrote: FDR managed to get radical things done, and so has Obama. Just not as much as he'd like.
Just like to remind non-British posters that the OP comes from a country thats upper house is completely unelected
It likewise bears pointing out that the House of Lords has, particularly during the reigns of large-majority governments (Thatcher's in the mid-80s, Blair's in the late-90s), been regarded in political circles as more effectively filling the role of the opposition than the second party in the Commons, since its members are appointed for life, and thus free from the obligation to bow either to the party line or popular sentiment.
Well, you can prove anything with facts can't you.
Wolfstan wrote: Given the size of the US is this really the most practical way to govern?
No. This country is in perpetual elections and the result is political parties who focus on campaigns rather than policy.
The only big issue I have with term lengths is in the House. It'd be interesting to see them moved to 3-year terms. It'd give them an additional year to do their jobs, and also detach the House races from the Presidential cycle.
whembly wrote: I don't know about you.. but I prefer one party has the Presidency and the other has Congress.
I think we get in trouble when one party controls both branch...
You think?! That's 2,000 years of Western democracy out the window then. Best mark that down as a failed experiment
I don't know what you're on about, nor do I care. The US electorate, as evidenced by history, typically prefers divided government. It forces compromise.
whembly wrote: I don't know about you.. but I prefer one party has the Presidency and the other has Congress.
I think we get in trouble when one party controls both branch...
You think?! That's 2,000 years of Western democracy out the window then. Best mark that down as a failed experiment
I don't know what you're on about, nor do I care. The US electorate, as evidenced by history, typically prefers divided government. It forces compromise.
^^^ this.
When one party controls both Congress/Prez, the extremism gets play...
When it's divided, compromise is the name of the game and the extreme elements are mitigated.
whembly wrote: I don't know about you.. but I prefer one party has the Presidency and the other has Congress.
I think we get in trouble when one party controls both branch...
You think?! That's 2,000 years of Western democracy out the window then. Best mark that down as a failed experiment
I don't know what you're on about, nor do I care. The US electorate, as evidenced by history, typically prefers divided government. It forces compromise.
Exactly. It prevents no change at all or too much change too quickly.
Wolfstan wrote: As an outsider your political system appears to make it nigh on impossible for a US President to get anything truly constructive or radical achieved whilst in power. Within two years of being elected you have the Congressional elections? From what I've seen they usually end up giving the opposition the majority, and due to the two parties being so fundamentally different, it becomes nigh on impossible to get anything passed. On top of that they then need to be looking to the election that is coming up in two years time. Given the size of the US is this really the most practical way to govern?
Yes.
It protects us from fools and dreamers. Its only when one party gets a hold of both the executive and legislative functions, that some really bad stuff can happen.
Frazzled has the right of it.
Just to give you an example, currently in Canada the sitting government also has a majority in the house, and as such they can basically do whatever the Hell they like, and as a result there is a chance that "downer cows" will be allowed in Canadian meat (you can look up how bad an idea that is).
The trouble in the US right now is that for the last two years, the opposition party had decided that they were going to ensure that nothing was accomplished, rather than act as the counterpoint that ensures reasonable compromise.
I don't know what you're on about, nor do I care. The US electorate, as evidenced by history, typically prefers divided government. It forces compromise.
Of course, in the past, the parties were split internally along ideological lines, which is no longer the case; especially in the GOP.
So what. before we had physical fights in Congress. Yet Presidents managed to address things. If the President is not going to husband his agenda, no one else will. here's a hint, giving a few speeches is not husbanding your agenda.
Frazzled wrote: It has the power of the pulpit and indeed usaully does set the agenda.
No, the various Congressional committees set the agenda. The President has two powers:
First is, as you say, the power of the pulpit which makes him a highly recognizable figure that is able to lay out a clear rhetorical line for the electorate. In the past, before mass telecommunication, this made it easy for him to distract from what Congress was actually doing; now that's essentially impossible.
Second: the veto, which enables him at least some say over what cannot be passed without large amounts of Congressional support.
What the President cannot do is force Congress to work towards any particular aim. He can try and develop national support for a particular policy, but ultimately Congressmen and Senators don't care about national support, they only car about support within their constituency. You could argue that he holds some sway within his own party, but the reality is closer to the opposite; the party has an agenda and the President serves as its leading advocate. Just look at Obama's Presidency. He hasn't pushed for a anything that has not been a significant part of the Democrat platform for the last 20 years, the one exception being the stimulus which is consistent with nominal Democrat economic policy (and a special case).
And as leader of his party, the leading members of each committee press his agenda.
He can't force them to by law no. He can do a whole lot otherwise to motivate Congressional members. If he can't or won't then he is weak and someone else is needed to press the agenda. Someone with more gravitas.
Do you think LBJ would have sat on the sidelines crying "Wo is me. Congress won't do anything? Wa!" No. Enither, nixon, nor Eisenhower, nor Clinton.
This one doesn't. And nothing gets done, not even out of the Senate.
Frazzled wrote: So what. before we had physical fights in Congress. Yet Presidents managed to address things. If the President is not going to husband his agenda, no one else will. here's a hint, giving a few speeches is not husbanding your agenda.
The problem is that you're looking at agendas as exclusive to the Presidency, which is foolish. There are occasions where Presidents have pushed unpopular agendas, but in the cases where they have managed to see them through they have either bent, or outright broken, the law, or made judicious use of the veto power (FDR is a great example).
I know you're going to cite TR and Reagan. But in the case of TR you see a President advocating a set of policies that already had significant bipartisan support in an environment where the parties themselves were nowhere near as homogeneous as they are today, nor as powerful. And in the case of Reagan you see the Republicans taking the majority in both houses on a platform of fiscal conservatism that they began successfully pushing under Carter, with the majority of Democrats that remained in power being centrist to conservative in their own right. In essence, Reagan didn't develop bipartisan support for his work on the economy, it already existed due to past events.
Frazzled wrote: So what. before we had physical fights in Congress. Yet Presidents managed to address things. If the President is not going to husband his agenda, no one else will. here's a hint, giving a few speeches is not husbanding your agenda.
The problem is that you're looking at agendas as exclusive to the Presidency, which is foolish. There are occasions where Presidents have pushed unpopular agendas, but in the cases where they have managed to see them through they have either bent, or outright broken, the law, or made judicious use of the veto power (FDR is a great example).
I know you're going to cite TR and Reagan. But in the case of TR you see a President advocating a set of policies that already had significant bipartisan support in an environment where the parties themselves were nowhere near as homogeneous as they are today, nor as powerful. And in the case of Reagan you see the Republicans taking the majority in both houses on a platform of fiscal conservatism that they began successfully pushing under Carter, with the majority of Democrats that remained in power being centrist to conservative in their own right. In essence, Reagan didn't develop bipartisan support for his work on the economy, it already existed due to past events.
I'm not actually. If his agenda is substantially different than both parties, than maybe the agenda is coockoo.
Again, Presidents have historically been able to craft legislation with compromises from both parties to a greater or lesser extent. Those that copuldn't get it together didn't achieve anything worth noting on the legislative front.
Great achievers on the legislative front: Roosevelt (pick one), Johnson, Reagan, Clinton. They all had to deal with hostile Congress's for a portion of their presidency, and still suceeded.
Four more years! (for Clinton) Four more years! (for Clinton)
If you can't do it, get out and make way for someone who can.
Frazzled wrote: And as leader of his party, the leading members of each committee press his agenda.
The President is not the leader of his party, I don't even know where you're getting that idea. The leaders of each individual part is the membership of their respective national committees. They are responsible for setting the parties' platforms, and therefore their agendas. The President can influence policy (primarily by way of Executive privilege), but ultimately he has no more say over what the members of his party in each committee might do than the DNC/RNC itself does. Indeed, if his party isn't in the majority in the relevant house, he may have virtually no say do the realities of committee structure.
He can't force them to by law no. He can do a whole lot otherwise to motivate Congressional members. If he can't or won't then he is weak and someone else is needed to press the agenda. Someone with more gravitas.
Do you think LBJ would have sat on the sidelines crying "Wo is me. Congress won't do anything? Wa!" No. Enither, nixon, nor Eisenhower, nor Clinton.
What, explicitly, can the President do to compel members of Congress to take his side? Particularly members of Congress in the opposition? Because to me it just sounds like you're attributing some kind of mystical powers to the office that it doesn't possess.
Frazzled wrote: You also have a Presidency that hasn't worked with, well anyone really, since the ACA was passed.
Two points:
1. Have you forgotten about the Grand Bargain that Boehner walked away from when he couldn't get support from the Tea Partiers in his own party?
2. He reached out plenty of times prior to the ACA and got nothing back, so why even both after that?
I didn't write that. I'll note the new book notes Boehner pulled out after, despite having an agreement, Obama came back in bad faith with $400Bn in additional taxes. Boehner then went to cCongress to actually try to get something done. The Woodward book looks very interesting. I may have to get it.
Again, Presidents have historically been able to craft legislation with compromises from both parties to a greater or lesser extent. Those that copuldn't get it together didn't achieve anything worth noting on the legislative front.
Great achievers on the legislative front: Roosevelt (pick one), Johnson, Reagan, Clinton. They all had to deal with hostile Congress's for a portion of their presidency, and still suceeded.
Clinton's greatest legislative achievements, to the extent they were Clinton's, all occurred when he had a sympathetic Congress. During his second term the majority of his actions were regarding foreign affairs.
I already explained why Reagan isn't a great example for you to cite, and why TR is as well. Reagan because he never faced a hostile Congress, and TR because, when he did face a hostile Congress, saw effective gridlock and eventual ostracism from his own party. Conversely, while FDR did achieve a number of things in the face of Congressional opposition (mostly regarding WWII), he did so by bending or breaking the law.
As for Johnson, his "hostile Congress" wasn't based on party affiliation, but regional location. The best examples of this are the vote totals for the Civil Rights Act.
Again, Presidents have historically been able to craft legislation with compromises from both parties to a greater or lesser extent. Those that copuldn't get it together didn't achieve anything worth noting on the legislative front.
Presidents don't craft legislation.
I know you don't believe that. Technically they can have legislation introduced by another member. In practice they are key in negoiating important legislation with both their party and the opposition.
There is a story of LBJ getting on the phone with the black mistress of one of his former congressional colleagues when said Senator was being recalcitrant over the Civil Rights Act. Who's President Obama going to call? Mitt Romney's accountant?
Manchu wrote: There is a story of LBJ getting on the phone with the black mistress of one of his former congressional colleagues when said Senator was being recalcitrant over the Civil Rights Act. Who's President Obama going to call? Mitt Romney's accountant?
yes actually.
He would be calling Boehner's accountant though, and then everyone else in Congress. Its shmoozing. I can't do it (my wife can network like that) but good presidents sure can.
EDIT: Whats annoying is that I've been dying to type "I find your lack of faith (in cheese) disturbing." Come on people give me a reason!
It isn't a matter of belief, its a matter of understanding the process of crafting legislation. I was exaggerating, of course, but its fairly rare for the Presidency to have a direct hand in determining the content of a bill. And, when he does (especially now), its generally a matter of the part platform (as outline by the relevant national convention) rather than an explicit, and unique, Presidential agenda.
Technically they can have legislation introduced by another member. In practice they are key in negoiating important legislation with both their party and the opposition.
Of course they can, because anyone can have legislation introduced by a member of Congress, but the member of Congress has to have reason to comply (which generally means he had a hand in constructing the legislation). In the present environment that reason is supplied by the larger party in the form of campaign funding and support, not any single elected official.
And, as I said before, while Presidents do play a role in negotiation you are overestimating how important that role is, especially in the present environment where the parties themselves are much, much stronger than individual politicians (look at what happened to Dick Lugar). There was a time when a particularly important Senator could use his political clout to effectively ruin the career of a peer, but that time is long in the past. Now that the media is much more diverse, and funds can be raised independently of a particular political figure, that threat simply doesn't carry the same weight that it once did.
He would be calling Boehner's accountant though, and then everyone else in Congress. Its shmoozing. I can't do it (my wife can network like that) but good presidents sure can.
There's a difference between calling a politician's mistress (which is essentially a declaration of knowledge of her existence), and calling an accountant that everyone knows about, and who is accustomed to dealing high profile public figures.
We started going downhill when the goal of government became "politics" instead of actually governing.
Our politicians (both sides) are too busy casting their votes or not bothering to vote on stuff based on "how will this help me in 2 years" instead of "how will this help the country".
Manchu wrote: That's very true. Bipartisanism has not really characterized divided governments any more than united ones.
In fact, one of the reasons that many Liberals are so disappointed with Obama is because he tried to do bipartisanship too much when the Republicans were clearly not interested...
I mean, the entire health care bill itself was crafted in a notion of bipartisanship, but we'd really have been better off with a public option instead, or something other than Romneycare.
d-usa wrote: We started going downhill when the goal of government became "politics" instead of actually governing.
So about a day after the first Congress took their seats, eh?
I know it's fashionable to go all hagiographic on the period of politics before we were all around, but let's not forget that we've had a Vice President shoot a Secretary of the Treasury to death before.
Manchu wrote: That's very true. Bipartisanism has not really characterized divided governments any more than united ones.
In fact, one of the reasons that many Liberals are so disappointed with Obama is because he tried to do bipartisanship too much when the Republicans were clearly not interested...
I mean, the entire health care bill itself was crafted in a notion of bipartisanship, but we'd really have been better off with a public option instead, or something other than Romneycare.
Melissia... it was the healthcare bill that started all this...
Not one Republican voted for it... so, there were no attempt at bipartisanship... since that passage, the political climate was poisoned and both (R) and (D) are to blame.
In fact, if they truly wanted a single payor system (ala Canada), they're could've done it (and I think that Northeastern republican would've voted for it... Snowe?)
Automatically Appended Next Post:
d-usa wrote: We started going downhill when the goal of government became "politics" instead of actually governing.
Our politicians (both sides) are too busy casting their votes or not bothering to vote on stuff based on "how will this help me in 2 years" instead of "how will this help the country".
Until one side messes up so badly that public opinion fills the majority of government positions with the extremists of one side and allows them free reign to mess things up further. Then you get into a cycle of increasingly extreme agendas being pushed through and increasing government instability.
Melissia... it was the healthcare bill that started all this...
Not one Republican voted for it... so, there were no attempt at bipartisanship... since that passage, the political climate was poisoned and both (R) and (D) are to blame.
Oh, it started well before healthcare. Healthcare is just the most recent example. Another good one is OBRA in '93. And there were repeated attempts at bipartisanship on both sides, but neither side really made them in good faith.
Of course, that brings the question as to whether or not bipartisanship is even something that is intrinsically good. I pointed this out before, but today the parties are pretty well divided along ideological lines, whereas in the past they weren't. So you would see bipartisanship, but the reality was that you would also see individual politicians voting along clear ideological lines as well.
In fact, if they truly wanted a single payor system (ala Canada), they're could've done it (and I think that Northeastern republican would've voted for it... Snowe?)
The legislative history of Obamacare seems to disagree.
Melissia... it was the healthcare bill that started all this...
Not one Republican voted for it... so, there were no attempt at bipartisanship... since that passage, the political climate was poisoned and both (R) and (D) are to blame.
Oh, it started well before healthcare. Healthcare is just the most recent example. Another good one is OBRA in '93. And there were repeated attempts at bipartisanship on both sides, but neither side really made them in good faith.
Of course, that brings the question as to whether or not bipartisanship is even something that is intrinsically good. I pointed this out before, but today the parties are pretty well divided along ideological lines, whereas in the past they weren't. So you would see bipartisanship, but the reality was that you would also see individual politicians voting along clear ideological lines as well.
Good points...
Do you think term limits would help? What about some full disclosure laws that reports who exactly is funding the various politicians?
In fact, if they truly wanted a single payor system (ala Canada), they're could've done it (and I think that Northeastern republican would've voted for it... Snowe?)
The legislative history of Obamacare seems to disagree.
I'll have to brush up on that... I seem to remember that the Republicans in general had no will to work with Democrats on the ACA bill. In the end, only the Dems voted for it...
Seems to me that if the Dems really wanted a single-payor system, they probably could.
The fact that we have the individual mandate that republicans wanted, instead of a public option that the Dems wanted, is a good signs of the attempts at cooperation that was attempted.
No. Term limits tend to increase the power of political parties because individual politicians lose their ability to develop political clout, and so cannot go against the standing platform. If you want greater ideological purity, then you institute term limits.
What about some full disclosure laws that reports who exactly is funding the various politicians?
Those already exist.
The biggest problem in American politics right now is the tendency of the populace to blame all political problems on the government, rather than looking at its role in creating them*. Of course, since what we're talking about is really a sea change in the way people engage with the political system, its not an easy fix; or really even a "fix" at all in the traditional sense of the word.
The second biggest problem is the strength of the Republican and Democrat parties. Anything that could be done to weaken their control on the system would probably help to produce a saner, if not more active, political debate. Of course this is also a difficult solution given what it entails. And also a problematic one given that America is historically rather fond of political and moral absolutism; meaning that a third party might not actually entail a more reasoned debate, but one that is equally ridiculous and much more complicated.
*One thing my friends always used to hear when they were organizing was "Well, what can I do?" They would give some kind of simple goal like "Vote." or "Donate money." But the best answers are "Don't get emotionally involved." and "Don't be fething crazy."
d-usa wrote: Why not in the "another political thread"? Considering this has about as much impact and substance as anything else in there it would be a good fit.
touche... good one.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
d-usa wrote: Why not in the "another political thread"? Considering this has about as much impact and substance as anything else in there it would be a good fit.
Well... then 'bout this then:
HHS PROGRAM TO SHIFT POOR SENIORS OUT OF MEDICARE AND INTO VOUCHER PROGRAMS
“In his convention speech in Charlotte, President Obama vowed to block the Republican Medicare reform plan because “no American should ever have to spend their golden years at the mercy of insurance companies.”
But back in Washington, his Health and Human Services Department is launching a pilot program that would shift up to 2 million of the poorest and most-vulnerable seniors out of the federal Medicare program and into private health insurance plans overseen by the states.
The administration has accepted applications from 18 states to participate in the program, which would give states money to purchase managed-care plans for people who are either disabled or poor enough to qualify for both Medicare and Medicaid. HHS approved the first state plan, one for Massachusetts, last month.
whembly wrote: I don't know about you.. but I prefer one party has the Presidency and the other has Congress.
I think we get in trouble when one party controls both branch...
I think that's only a problem when there's some form of inter-party discipline. Which in US politics is a completely new thing, and really only on the Republican side. In US politics typically when one party wins control they collapse into bitter in-fighting that if anything is bloodier than any fight they ever have with the opposition.
Like the Democrats having unblockable control of all three houses of government in 2009... and just barely getting one bill passed.
And the thing is... with the way US politics is structured that kind of internal chaos is basically how the system works best. In contrast, where one party has enough internal discipline that crossing the floor to vote against one of its bills is seen as treason (or crossing the floor to vote with a bill put forward by the other side for that matter) - well then your system no longer makes any sense.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Frazzled wrote: So what. before we had physical fights in Congress. Yet Presidents managed to address things. If the President is not going to husband his agenda, no one else will. here's a hint, giving a few speeches is not husbanding your agenda.
That kind of reasoning only makes sense in a political environment where a person is an individual representative first, and a party member second. That plainly, obviously is not the case in the US right now, and so ends up being an attack on Obama for the basic realities of what US politics has become.
Which is to say, it's basically nonsense. No president could guide his platform through what Congress is right now.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Frazzled wrote: Great achievers on the legislative front: Roosevelt (pick one), Johnson, Reagan, Clinton. They all had to deal with hostile Congress's for a portion of their presidency, and still suceeded.
Four more years! (for Clinton) Four more years! (for Clinton)
If you can't do it, get out and make way for someone who can.
Yeah, and you can look at the 1998 election at the point the Republicans really started to build one message, and strong discipline. And then you can look at the great big nothing Clinton achieved in the last two years of his time in office.
If Slick Willy couldn't get anything done in that political environment, why would you insist anyone else should be able to?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Melissia wrote: Obama's health care bill was a Republican health care bill, exactly the same as had been proposed by Republicans-- including Romney.
How you can try to twist that in to saying there was no bipartisanship is some twisted logic that I will likely not understand. But please, try.
This. Absolutely 100% completely this.
When the opposition has become so negative they're voting against their own policy goals... people will still pretend it's the other side's fault.
whembly wrote: Not one Republican voted for it... so, there were no attempt at bipartisanship...
Obama's health care bill was a Republican health care bill, exactly the same as had been proposed by Republicans-- including Romney.
How you can try to twist that in to saying there was no bipartisanship is some twisted logic that I will likely not understand. But please, try.
Are you referring to the Mandate idea crafted by the Heritage Foundation during HillaryCare debates that the Republican congress sumbitted as an opposing plan in the early 90's?
If you're saying that's the source... that's a bit of a stretch that it's now a "bipartisan" bill.
About halfway thru the process, the Republicans were effectively shut out from further deliberations. That's why they had to do the "Cornhusker Kickbacks" (which was removed) and similar things to get enough Democrats to vote for this thing.
And in the end, if not one Republican didn't vote for the passage, how can you say that it was bipartisan?
In fact, the only thing "bipartisan" about Obamacare is the opposition to it as some house (D)s did vote against it, along with all (R)s.
EDIT: Although, to be fair, this is what Wyden said during the (R)s change of heart: “I would characterize the Washington, D.C., relationship with the individual mandate as truly schizophrenic,” he said.
I've often thought that the two year term for the House is a bit antiquated. I think that it should be a term no longer than 6 years, with new elections being able to be called at any time by either majority vote of members, or the president, or some combination. Kind of like a parliament hybrid. The senate is fine with 1/3 of it's membership up every 2 years.
Either way, house members need a longer term. In the best of times, you do a year of work, then a year of reelection, wash rinse repeat...
whembly wrote: And in the end, if not one Republican didn't vote for the passage, how can you say that it was bipartisan?
Because of the nature of what it was - the concepts in the bill were, as you recognised, straight out of Republican policy goals. It was a middle of the road bill with a solution that came from the centre of politics.
That Republican strategy groups decided before the content of the bill was even finalised to use this issue to smash Obama and rebuild their party, fight every single piece of the bill, and launch all manner of absurd lies about the content of the bill (death panels, anyone?), and then vote against the bill doesn't change the nature of what the bill was. It does tell us a lot about the modern Republican Party, though.
whembly wrote: If you're saying that's the source... that's a bit of a stretch that it's now a "bipartisan" bill.
What delusional nonsense is this?
So what, it's not bipartisan to attempt to compromise with someone of a different party by putting forth a bill they should like?
That is the very definition of bipartisanship, what the feth is bipartisan if that isn't?
Don't bother answering that question. I was being rhetorical. The answer is "nothing".
whembly wrote: And in the end, if not one Republican didn't vote for the passage, how can you say that it was bipartisan?
Just because Republicans are hypocritical douchebags who care more about opposing Obama for political points than actually getting anything done does not mean that Obama has not tried to push forth bipartisan legislation.
I think a lot of people need to get it out of their head that, just because all politicians are deceitful because of the nature of their job, that this somehow means that all politicians are the same. There are liars, and then there are damned liars, and at the moment, Republicans are pretty much masters of being the latter, while the Democrats' main problem is incompetence and lack of party discipline. But Democratic incompetence doesn't mean that the Republicans are not lying their asses off right now.
Edit: Okay, I'm gonna cut this tangential rant off early. Edit2: I'm referring to the politicians and the party, mind you, not to the voters who vote for them. I hope that was obvious, but I'm putting this here just in case.
whembly wrote: If you're saying that's the source... that's a bit of a stretch that it's now a "bipartisan" bill.
What delusional nonsense is this?
So what, it's not bipartisan to attempt to compromise with someone of a different party by putting forth a bill they should like?
That is the very definition of bipartisanship, what the feth is bipartisan if that isn't?
Don't bother answering that question. I was being rhetorical. The answer is "nothing".
whembly wrote: And in the end, if not one Republican didn't vote for the passage, how can you say that it was bipartisan?
Just because Republicans are hypocritical douchebags who care more about opposing Obama for political points than actually getting anything done does not mean that Obama has not tried to push forth bipartisan legislation.
I think a lot of people need to get it out of their head that, just because all politicians are deceitful because of the nature of their job, that this somehow means that all politicians are the same. There are liars, and then there are damned liars, and at the moment, Republicans are pretty much masters of being the latter, while the Democrats' main problem is incompetence and lack of party discipline. But Democratic incompetence doesn't mean that the Republicans are not lying their asses off right now.
Edit: Okay, I'm gonna cut this tangential rant off early.
Edit2: I'm referring to the politicians and the party, mind you, not to the voters who vote for them. I hope that was obvious, but I'm putting this here just in case.
I gotcha... no problemo
I've been doing some more research on this (waaaaay back in late 80's/early 90's)...
The premise that a lot of the ACA policy incorporated many Republican ideas is true...and I get it. So the ideas is bipartisan.
When I was saying that it wasn't bipartisan was during the final passage, that's all. And yes, they did it to oppose Obama and mostly the democrats because they understood that the "mandate" polled poorly, which lead to the (R)s retaking the House in 2010. I also don't think that much planning was done to implement the provisions of the ACA bill... it seems like... here's what we want, you (as in the regulatory boards) figure out how to do it... (lawyers specializing in healthcare regulations are hot now... that should tell you something)
Just scrap the whole thing and expand Medicare for everyone... there's a single payor system! Can't be much worse than it is now, eh?
whembly wrote:When I was saying that it wasn't bipartisan was during the final passage, that's all. And yes, they did it to oppose Obama and mostly the democrats because they understood that the "mandate" polled poorly, which lead to the (R)s retaking the House in 2010.
I thought it polled poorly because of the GOP propaganda. The individual elements of the ACA all seem to poll extremely well.
The final passage wasn't bipartisan because Republican politicians were being hypocritical douchebags more interested in getting re-elected than getting things done. The blame is pretty much squarely and entirely laid upon them. As for popularity, people like what the ACA does by a very sizable majority. When you say it's the ACA, they don't like it. Because they were fed lies by the Republican party, lies apparently that you still believe yourself.
I don't mind a single payer system-- in fact, I think it'd be better than the Romneycare we have now-- but trying to lie to yourself and say that the ACA was not a bipartisan attempt does you disservice. Just because the Republicans were completely and utterly uninterested in bipartisan solutions doesn't mean that there were no bipartisan solutions offered up. It just means that the Republican party is uninterested in bipartisan solutions even when the Democrats try to reach across the aisle.
Don't get all high and mighty Melissa. There are plenty of "hypocritical douchebags more interested in getting re-elected than getting things done" in the Democratic party too. Both parties have them. neither party has worse ones either, one party just has ones you disagree with on an ideological level. Thats how it always is.
As for Term Limits and Campaigning, I think something does need to be done to change the way campaigns are run.
Perhaps a law to get put into place that would outlaw political campaigning for a period of time while in office.
Something like this.
Politician gets elected to Congress, lets say its a Senator. He has 4 years in office. I would propose he, and anyone running for said office, would be prohibited from running any political advertisments, appeals for support, or anything related to the political (re)election process until a time 6 months prior to the polling date(this could be adjusted depending on the office being run for)
Obviously someone would need to be incharge of determining what exactly "campaigning" is. I'm thinking maybe a non-elected independent government watchdog agency. A large group of people would be responsible for monitoring politicians actions in office. If campaigning is done outside of the allotted timeframe a fine would be issued, along with maybe censure? To prevent the group from being partisen, only a minority would be needed to deem a politicians actions Campaigning(40% maybe) so if 40% of the Group viewed an action as being illegal campaigning the fine and censure would happen.
This would keep politicians doing what they are supposed to do, make laws and govern the freaking country.
Melissia wrote: I think a lot of people need to get it out of their head that, just because all politicians are deceitful because of the nature of their job, that this somehow means that all politicians are the same.
You're one of them. Just because one party is extremely corrupt doesn't mean that every party is equally so. That is an argument made entirely without logic. An argument made by, and for, the intellectually lazy.
Melissia wrote: The final passage wasn't bipartisan because Republican politicians were being hypocritical douchebags more interested in getting re-elected than getting things done. The blame is pretty much squarely and entirely laid upon them. As for popularity, people like what the ACA does by a very sizable majority. When you say it's the ACA, they don't like it. Because they were fed lies by the Republican party, lies apparently that you still believe yourself.
I think there's plenty of blame to put on the blue dogs, and on the Democrats as a whole for making sure the pharmaceutical companies were more than a little well cared for by this legislation (the amount of money that could be saved in your healthcare system simply by government playing hardball with the drug companies is staggering).
Nowhere near as much blame as can be placed on the Republicans, though. I absolutely agree with you about that. I don't think I've seen many cases were a party was so openly and brazenly political. Normally that kind of stuff is hidden under the surface, and given some restraint by, well, decency. But with ACA they were willing to say anything, and give legitimacy to any crazy who wanted to claim any absurd thing about ACA, and GOP just did not care how stupid it was.
Melissia wrote: The final passage wasn't bipartisan because Republican politicians were being hypocritical douchebags more interested in getting re-elected than getting things done. The blame is pretty much squarely and entirely laid upon them. As for popularity, people like what the ACA does by a very sizable majority. When you say it's the ACA, they don't like it. Because they were fed lies by the Republican party, lies apparently that you still believe yourself.
I think there's plenty of blame to put on the blue dogs, and on the Democrats as a whole for making sure the pharmaceutical companies were more than a little well cared for by this legislation (the amount of money that could be saved in your healthcare system simply by government playing hardball with the drug companies is staggering).
Nowhere near as much blame as can be placed on the Republicans, though. I absolutely agree with you about that. I don't think I've seen many cases were a party was so openly and brazenly political. Normally that kind of stuff is hidden under the surface, and given some restraint by, well, decency. But with ACA they were willing to say anything, and give legitimacy to any crazy who wanted to claim any absurd thing about ACA, and GOP just did not care how stupid it was.
Yes, that's kind of the argument I was making.
The Democrats have their problems, and their corruption. As well as their incompetence as a party. But the Republicans, while more competent, are also far more corrupt-- less of an ideological party and more of a professional politicians party..
Obviously someone would need to be incharge of determining what exactly "campaigning" is. I'm thinking maybe a non-elected independent government watchdog agency.
The surest way to make something political is to pretend that you can prevent it from being influenced by politics.
This would keep politicians doing what they are supposed to do, make laws and govern the freaking country.
In a democracy governance necessarily involves campaigning. If you don't want politicians to campaign, there are already a host of systems we can put it place to make it unnecessary.
Whenever people talk about how Obama hasn't done anything, this is what I bring up. It wouldn't be too much of a problem if we had a Republican majority in Congress (Well, as a Socialist, I would see it as a problem, but that's entirely subjective) if less of them (and less Democrats, for that matter) were partisans.
DOOMBREAD wrote: Whenever people talk about how Obama hasn't done anything, this is what I bring up. It wouldn't be too much of a problem if we had a Republican majority in Congress (Well, as a Socialist, I would see it as a problem, but that's entirely subjective) if less of them (and less Democrats, for that matter) were partisans.
wut?
We're one disfunctional family...
One side thinks it's all the (R)s fault...
Other side things it's all the (D)s fault...
Other says both are at fault... but the other side is worse...
DOOMBREAD wrote: Whenever people talk about how Obama hasn't done anything, this is what I bring up. It wouldn't be too much of a problem if we had a Republican majority in Congress (Well, as a Socialist, I would see it as a problem, but that's entirely subjective) if less of them (and less Democrats, for that matter) were partisans.
wut?
We're one disfunctional family...
One side thinks it's all the (R)s fault...
Other side things it's all the (D)s fault...
Other says both are at fault... but the other side is worse...
It's Heitfield and McCoy all over again...
Well, it's more sensible than saying that everything is the fault of one political group, isn't it?
Grey Templar wrote: Don't get all high and mighty Melissa. There are plenty of "hypocritical douchebags more interested in getting re-elected than getting things done" in the Democratic party too. Both parties have them. neither party has worse ones either, one party just has ones you disagree with on an ideological level. Thats how it always is.
That argument held true for the most part about two decades ago. Nothing much has changed in the Democratic party in that time, but the Republican party has seriously moved into crazy pants town. It's actually hard to overstate the extent to which they've confused opposition for outright lying about basic issues of governance.
I agree with your calls for reform, though I think controlling a politicians campaigning is probably the wrong way to go. I think the primary drive of any meaningful reform has to be with finance reform, and then adding a non-political electoral agency on top of that would solve most of the problems that are solvable.
Grey Templar wrote: Don't get all high and mighty Melissa. There are plenty of "hypocritical douchebags more interested in getting re-elected than getting things done" in the Democratic party too. Both parties have them. neither party has worse ones either, one party just has ones you disagree with on an ideological level. Thats how it always is.
That argument held true for the most part about two decades ago. Nothing much has changed in the Democratic party in that time, but the Republican party has seriously moved into crazy pants town. It's actually hard to overstate the extent to which they've confused opposition for outright lying about basic issues of governance.
I agree with your calls for reform, though I think controlling a politicians campaigning is probably the wrong way to go. I think the primary drive of any meaningful reform has to be with finance reform, and then adding a non-political electoral agency on top of that would solve most of the problems that are solvable.
Democrats gone to crazy pants too...
At least the Republican passed Budget bills that Harry Reid won't floor...
Melissia wrote: Yes, that's kind of the argument I was making.
The Democrats have their problems, and their corruption. As well as their incompetence as a party. But the Republicans, while more competent, are also far more corrupt-- less of an ideological party and more of a professional politicians party..
I'm not sure I agree with that summary. I mean, what's really changed in the Republican Party in the last couple of decades has been the amount of crazy pants ideology that's come in. Almost going into mutiny over the failure to support Majority Leader Boehner's compromise deal on the debt ceiling isn't professional politics, it's the actions of a collection of lunatics who don't understand governance is more important than conservative ideology.
I don't know which party is more corrupt. While that's a major issue, I just don't think it's as important as the plain reality that right now one of your two major parties is not only unable or unwiling to govern, but that they largely reject the idea of governing at all.
Melissia wrote: The final passage wasn't bipartisan because Republican politicians were being hypocritical douchebags more interested in getting re-elected than getting things done. The blame is pretty much squarely and entirely laid upon them. As for popularity, people like what the ACA does by a very sizable majority. When you say it's the ACA, they don't like it. Because they were fed lies by the Republican party, lies apparently that you still believe yourself.
I think there's plenty of blame to put on the blue dogs, and on the Democrats as a whole for making sure the pharmaceutical companies were more than a little well cared for by this legislation (the amount of money that could be saved in your healthcare system simply by government playing hardball with the drug companies is staggering).
Nowhere near as much blame as can be placed on the Republicans, though. I absolutely agree with you about that. I don't think I've seen many cases were a party was so openly and brazenly political. Normally that kind of stuff is hidden under the surface, and given some restraint by, well, decency. But with ACA they were willing to say anything, and give legitimacy to any crazy who wanted to claim any absurd thing about ACA, and GOP just did not care how stupid it was.
Yes, that's kind of the argument I was making.
The Democrats have their problems, and their corruption. As well as their incompetence as a party. But the Republicans, while more competent, are also far more corrupt-- less of an ideological party and more of a professional politicians party..
Your still trying to get your shots in Mel. How is that any different? I blame both sides. Reps were being overly stubborn and dems were adding things they new the reps wouldn't go for just so they could point their fingers. They never should have forced that bill through. The American people deserve better from our leaders. They should be better. That bill will have such far reaching effects that it should have been hammered out to the last detail. Instead what we got was a mess that nobody is going to be able to fix. They'll slap "band adds" on it but won't work as well as it should have. I'm disgusted with the whole situation. I don't even want to vote but I'm going to.
Jihadin wrote: It was all the Tea Party back reps that held up on Boehner or so say everyone.
Yep. The Republican Party played with the fringe lunatics for decades, relying on their votes to get candidates over the line. Then come 2008 the Republican brand was on the nose, and Republican backers put up the Tea Party as a way to rebuild the party. Unfortunately this accelerated the trend we'd seen over the decade before that of crazies getting more power within the Republican party.
Suddenly Bachmann wasn't alone, and in fact she was in the middle of a really powerful political bloc. Then the crazy really started happening, culminating in some republicans actually wanting to hit the debt ceiling just because feth it, why not?
Jihadin wrote: It was all the Tea Party back reps that held up on Boehner or so say everyone.
Yep. The Republican Party played with the fringe lunatics for decades, relying on their votes to get candidates over the line. Then come 2008 the Republican brand was on the nose, and Republican backers put up the Tea Party as a way to rebuild the party. Unfortunately this accelerated the trend we'd seen over the decade before that of crazies getting more power within the Republican party.
Suddenly Bachmann wasn't alone, and in fact she was in the middle of a really powerful political bloc. Then the crazy really started happening, culminating in some republicans actually wanting to hit the debt ceiling just because feth it, why not?
The in-mates had control of the asylum.
Not quite. Nobody wanted to hit the debt ceiling. Many people did not want to just tack another extension on to the national credit card.
We are, without question, going to hit a point where we simply cannot pay back all that we owe if we do not actually curb the rise of the debt level. Why that's such a hostile concept is beyond me, frankly.
wowsmash: You blame both sides equally because you are being intellectually lazy. Both sides are NOT equally in the wrong.
Seaward: We're nowhere near that point. In fact, people can't still can't get enough of United States debt. In the modern world, loaning the US government money is seen as a safe thing-- and rightfully so. I'm not saying we should pull another Republican presidency and massively run the debt up again (and yes, this is a thing that Republicans like to do even more than Democrats-- dems may be tax and spend, but Republicans are just spend), I'm just saying it's nowhere near panic levels right now.
More laziness by someone who hasn't actually thought at all about the issue.
When one side offers up bipartianship and the other side smacks it down and then throws up its hands with a temper tantrum refusing to pass any laws-- EVEN THEIR OWN-- both sides are not equally at fault.
Melissia wrote: wowsmash: You blame both sides equally because you are being intellectually lazy. Both sides are NOT equally in the wrong.
Your opinion is not at all influenced because you happen to agree with the political positions of one side over the other, I'm sure.
Yes, Democrats and Republicans may not be equally corrupt and untrustworthy, but the difference is so remarkably small we're getting into electron microscope territory.
Seaward: We're nowhere near that point. In fact, people can't still can't get enough of United States debt. In the modern world, loaning the US government money is seen as a safe thing-- and rightfully so. I'm not saying we should pull another Republican presidency and massively run the debt up again (and yes, this is a thing that Republicans like to do even more than Democrats-- dems may be tax and spend, but Republicans are just spend), I'm just saying it's nowhere near panic levels right now.
Why wait until we hit panic levels to do something about it? This is the argument I do not get. No one - and I mean, no one - disputes that we will, without question, get there if we continue run the government as we currently do. You wouldn't wait until your bank account hit zero dollars before getting a job, for example.
More laziness by someone who hasn't actually thought at all about the issue.
When one side offers up bipartianship and the other side smacks it down and then throws up its hands with a temper tantrum refusing to pass any laws-- EVEN THEIR OWN-- both sides are not equally at fault.
Melissia wrote: wowsmash: You blame both sides equally because you are being intellectually lazy. Both sides are NOT equally in the wrong.
Equally in an absolute sense? No, probably not, but its close enough for an abstract application of the term.
I had a prof. that always took me on for refusing to pick a side, but the reality is that you don't always have enough information to draw such a fine-grained conclusion.
Why wait until we hit panic levels to do something about it? This is the argument I do not get. No one - and I mean, no one - disputes that we will, without question, get there if we continue run the government as we currently do. You wouldn't wait until your bank account hit zero dollars before getting a job, for example.
Depends on how bad your job prospects were. If I could only get a fast food job, I would wait until I was down to ramen and my parents' basement.
We wait because the majority of people either do not want to deal with what the solution entails, or cannot agree on what it should entail.
dogma wrote: Depends on how bad your job prospects were. If I could only get a fast food job, I would wait until I was down to ramen and my parents' basement.
We wait because the majority of people either do not want to deal with what the solution entails, or cannot agree on what it should entail.
We don't really have a parents' basement equivalent as a nation, and if we wait to start dealing with the problem until everybody agrees, we might as well just default now. Republicans are never going to agree that taxes need to be raised and defense spending needs to be cut; Democrats are never going to agree that government size needs to be reduced and entitlement spending needs to be cut. The only way the issue's going to get dealt with is by one side of the other ramming through their agenda when they've got the critical mass to do so.
And employment isn't really comparable to national policy, yet you made the comparison.
I wonder why that is?
In order to dumb it down for folks who have trouble understanding why it might be a good idea to act on mounting debt prior to hitting the wall. Let me know if you need me to break out MS Paint, though.
If we default now, then we forfeit all the time between now and necessary default that we might otherwise have.
Which is why we should probably neither default nor continually fail to do anything about it.
In order to dumb it down for folks who have trouble understanding why it might be a good idea to act on mounting debt prior to hitting the wall. Let me know if you need me to break out MS Paint, though.
It isn't a lack of understanding, its a lack of desire. I would actually prefer no action on the debt because it means more money for me.
I agree, but if neither option is possible or probable, then we're left with extenuating debt increases.
It's certainly possible. If the 'pubs pick up both the White House and the Senate, as is very much within the realm of possibility, there won't be much to stop them from doing their version of saving us all, save for lack of backbone.
If the Tea Party hadn't decided to become the extremist wing of the Republican Party in almost all areas, rather than just focusing on fiscal policy, we likely could have seen some movement as well. They were a rather popular movement at the start.
It's certainly possible. If the 'pubs pick up both the White House and the Senate, as is very much within the realm of possibility, there won't be much to stop them from doing their version of saving us all, save for lack of backbone.
What probable scenario sees the GOP pick up a filibuster proof majority in the Senate?
It's certainly possible. If the 'pubs pick up both the White House and the Senate, as is very much within the realm of possibility, there won't be much to stop them from doing their version of saving us all, save for lack of backbone.
What probable scenario sees the GOP pick up a filibuster proof majority in the Senate?
None. I don't think it needs to be filibuster-proof. I think the Tea Party crazies would be fine letting the Dems try to keep a permanent filibuster going. In an odd way, it accomplishes their goal almost as well. Nothing gets passed, period.
whembly wrote: I don't know about you.. but I prefer one party has the Presidency and the other has Congress.
I think we get in trouble when one party controls both branch...
You think?! That's 2,000 years of Western democracy out the window then. Best mark that down as a failed experiment
I don't know what you're on about, nor do I care. The US electorate, as evidenced by history, typically prefers divided government. It forces compromise.
This is the same bs that people pulled here after the co-allition government. "Well the people voted for it". People don't vote for a divided government, it's a symptom of the electoral process.
whembly wrote: I don't know about you.. but I prefer one party has the Presidency and the other has Congress.
I think we get in trouble when one party controls both branch...
You think?! That's 2,000 years of Western democracy out the window then. Best mark that down as a failed experiment
I don't know what you're on about, nor do I care. The US electorate, as evidenced by history, typically prefers divided government. It forces compromise.
This is the same bs that people pulled here after the co-allition government. "Well the people voted for it". People don't vote for a divided government, it's a symptom of the electoral process.
Um...what?
Divided government typically encourages more compromise... When both Congress and WH is controled by one party... they generally have carte blanche over the government and the extreme elements of said party get's their wishlist in motion. In a divided government, the extremists are generally marginalize.
I'm not familiar how your Parliamentry system really work, but it's possible that a "divided" govt may not work well there...
For what its worth, and I know ya'll won't believe me, I totally believe that Obama will get re-elected and it's encouraging to me that the House will remain in (R)s control... and also there's a chance that the (R)s will get control of the Senate (not likely tho).
None. I don't think it needs to be filibuster-proof. I think the Tea Party crazies would be fine letting the Dems try to keep a permanent filibuster going. In an odd way, it accomplishes their goal almost as well. Nothing gets passed, period.
That isn't their goal. The inability to pass anything means no changes to entitlements, no budget reductions (or budgets), and no motion on DADT and other social issues.
None. I don't think it needs to be filibuster-proof. I think the Tea Party crazies would be fine letting the Dems try to keep a permanent filibuster going. In an odd way, it accomplishes their goal almost as well. Nothing gets passed, period.
That isn't their goal. The inability to pass anything means no changes to entitlements, no budget reductions (or budgets), and no motion on DADT and other social issues.
It also means no increases to entitlements, no budget increases (or budgets), no laws regarding stricter gun control or other social issues.
Plus, for a group of people who don't seem to be all that certain the federal government's necessary, preventing a pretty important part of it from functioning would be quite a victory. It'd show us all how our town council can handle everything just fine, or whatever.
Actually, many local democrats have gone further right, as it wer, on gun control issues. Even Obama is further right than the Democratic party was ten years ago, in terms of gun control.
Melissia wrote: Actually, many local democrats have gone further right, as it wer, on gun control issues. Even Obama is further right than the Democratic party was ten years ago, in terms of gun control.
Very true. Gun control has become a non-issue at the level of federal legislation.
whembly wrote: I don't know about you.. but I prefer one party has the Presidency and the other has Congress.
I think we get in trouble when one party controls both branch...
You think?! That's 2,000 years of Western democracy out the window then. Best mark that down as a failed experiment
I don't know what you're on about, nor do I care. The US electorate, as evidenced by history, typically prefers divided government. It forces compromise.
This is the same bs that people pulled here after the co-allition government. "Well the people voted for it". People don't vote for a divided government, it's a symptom of the electoral process.
It's true though, historically the American people prefer split ticket voting and divided gov.
Or rather, we couldn't sign it because there was no political will to do so. Republicans have no desire to, and Democrats see it as, at best, a battle to be pushed off to another time, not one to be fought right now-- and in fact many Democrats think that we just need to enforce the laws we have better, rather than necessarily add new ones.
I like how you decided to single out the one issue that hasn't been an issue at all.
It's an issue on the right, warranted or not. I can point you to plenty of conservative blogs that're paranoid as all hell about Obama's second term equating the end of gun ownership in America, though I'd prefer not to.
It's an issue on the right, warranted or not. I can point you to plenty of conservative blogs that're paranoid as all hell about Obama's second term equating the end of gun ownership in America, though I'd prefer not to.
What prominent right wing source is saying Obama will take your guns?
It's an issue on the right, warranted or not. I can point you to plenty of conservative blogs that're paranoid as all hell about Obama's second term equating the end of gun ownership in America, though I'd prefer not to.
What prominent right wing source is saying Obama will take your guns?
I'd consider Fox a prominent right-wing source, personally. Hotair is also a fairly popular conservative site.
Are you arguing just for the sake of argument, or do you really believe right-wing conservatives are comfortable with Obama's stance on gun control?
Melissia wrote: Fox might be prominent, but it isn't actually any good.
If you want a good right-wing source, try The Economist.
And yes, I said right-wing. Not conservative. They're actually MORE right wing than Fox is. But they aren't social conservatives.
The request wasn't for a good right-wing source, but a prominent one. Dogma chose to dispute my assertion that right-wingers are concerned about gun control under Obama, for reasons that still escape me, and requested a prominent right-wing source to back up said assertion. I provided a couple.
Is a news network really a source, though? They're not supposed to be; they're supposed to relay information which comes from sources. Not, of course, that that's most of what they do anymore.
While obviously the NRA and other pro-gun organizations have been raving about theoretically-strengthened gun control under Obama as a way to drive up donations and membership, do we know any credible sources who really believe that Obama's going to try to take away any guns? I haven't seen any real evidence of him trying so far, or even that gun control regs are even a priority on his radar.
I think Dogma may have been inviting you to reference a specific source. If you think there's a credible argument there, it might be a good time to find a good one, and not a paranoid blogger.
Mannahnin wrote: If you think there's a credible argument there, it might be a good time to find a good one, and not a paranoid blogger.
It would be nice if you guys actually started reading what I wrote. At no point did I suggest I thought the accusation that Obama wants to take everyone's guns was credible, only that the right-wing base was concerned about it. Thus, a Senate stuck in a filibuster loop would not be capable of passing harsher gun control legislation, alleviating the concern, whether there was actually anything to be concerned about or not in the first place.
Okay, but is that really high on the actual legislators' agendas? Yeah, it's a rallying cry for some of the base, but I do think gun control has been practically irrelevant in the larger ongoing debate about debt, spending, entitlements, and healthcare reform.
That's not the point. The point of using that issue is to motivate that part of the base to get to the polls. A wedge issue isn't used to convince people on the other side. It's used to draw an us vs. them contrast to get people stirred up and emotional, motivated to knock on doors and actually get out themselves to vote.
It's borderline, but I think it's clear that she's referring to racist fears about immigration. I'm up for editing it if other folks (especially in the Southwest) think the usage of the term is too offensive.
You mean would I mention in casual conversation that the term is used by politicians to motivate their xenophobic voter base?
Well... yes. And they'd probably agree with me. I'm not using the term to denigrate Mexican immigrants in specific or Hispanics in general. I'm using it as an example of how unsavory, unsupported things are used to motivate the Republican base to vote.
Jihadin wrote: There's nothing borderline about it. Would you in fact say that to a mexican. If I said that in my current occupation I would lose stripes.
Remember way back I got nailed for using the word "Paki"
I'm also talking about the usage, not just the term.
You got nailed for using the word in a way which didn't make manifestly clear that you didn't mean it as a slur. IIRC because you didn't realize how bad a term it is in some parts of the world. You used it kind of casually, not realizing you were making yourself look like a racist. Mel's specifically using the term as a quote of racist jerks, not as a slur she's making herself. Our word filter doesn't auto-filter "Paki" or "wetback" because we have not (at least as yet) determined that they're totally without redeemining value as used, and can't be discussed in a polite way.
Mannahnin wrote: Okay, but is that really high on the actual legislators' agendas? Yeah, it's a rallying cry for some of the base, but I do think gun control has been practically irrelevant in the larger ongoing debate about debt, spending, entitlements, and healthcare reform.
At this point, I'd advise just going back and looking at how gun control made its way into this thread. It has nothing at all to do with...anything, really, other than that I used it as an example of things that would make Republican basers happy to have stalled in the event of a Senate majority that wasn't filibuster-proof.
You guys crack me up, I'll admit. You see anything that you even think is a conservative statement, and it's full-on attack mode. I'm not conservative, by the way.
Jihadin wrote: Yet I never heard the word mention by government.at any political rallies, speechs, admin, or SOP.
Yeah, Mel got a bit sloppy there. You don't hear it mentioned in public by governmental figures, as a rule. It's pretty much the same thing as what Atwater described (but for the Mexican border area, as opposed to the South). I think she was trying to reference the kind of terminology they'd use in private, as in public nowadays you have to use lesser terms like "illegals".
You start out in 1954 by saying, “[see forum posting rules], [see forum posting rules], [see forum posting rules].” By 1968 you can't say “[see forum posting rules]” — that hurts you. Backfires. So you say stuff like forced busing, states' rights and all that stuff. You're getting so abstract now [that] you're talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you're talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is [that] blacks get hurt worse than whites. And subconsciously maybe that is part of it. I'm not saying that. But I'm saying that if it is getting that abstract, and that coded, that we are doing away with the racial problem one way or the other. You follow me — because obviously sitting around saying, “We want to cut this,” is much more abstract than even the busing thing, and a hell of a lot more abstract than “[see forum posting rules], [see forum posting rules].”
Mannahnin wrote: Okay, but is that really high on the actual legislators' agendas? Yeah, it's a rallying cry for some of the base, but I do think gun control has been practically irrelevant in the larger ongoing debate about debt, spending, entitlements, and healthcare reform.
At this point, I'd advise just going back and looking at how gun control made its way into this thread. It has nothing at all to do with...anything, really, other than that I used it as an example of things that would make Republican basers happy to have stalled in the event of a Senate majority that wasn't filibuster-proof.
I did go back, and that's why I tried to moderate the tone and address your argument respectfully. I think dogma has a point that the actual legislators are hoping to get some things done, not just stop anything from being done. Debt, taxes and healthcare seem to be obviously high-priority issues. Gun control is a tiny speck on the rader by comparison, because nothing's actually happening with gun control right now.
But yeah, you're right, it's a side issue, and dogma may have been nitpicking just for the fun of it.
Yup. Runs on ammo and some guns, and zero legislation introduced by Obama. IIRC some legislation has actually expired since then, so the overall trend has been less gun control under Obama so far.
Mannahnin wrote: Yup. Runs on ammo and some guns, and zero legislation introduced by Obama. IIRC some legislation has actually expired since then, so the overall trend has been less gun control under Obama so far.
Gun sales are definitely up, which is annoying the hell out of me, as I'm in the market for a new piece. Ammo, fortunately, doesn't seem to have become as scarce as it was right after he was elected. It was painful just trying to get to the range back then. I almost took up reloading.
Mannahnin wrote: But it was all based on a narrative which was constructed for political gain, and supported by miniscule evidence from his old legislative record.
Yeah... but that happens everywhere...
Remember when Bush was re-elected that everyone believed that abortion would stop?
When he was running, he pretended to be moderate on the issue. A friend of mine met him at a campaign stop here in NH, and she asked him if he would uphold Roe Vs. Wade. He said to her "I don't think the country's ready for a change".
First day in office, he signed the Global Gag Rule back into effect.
Mannahnin wrote: When he was running, he pretended to be moderate on the issue. A friend of mine met him at a campaign stop here in NH, and she asked him if he would uphold Roe Vs. Wade. He said to her "I don't think the country's ready for a change".
First day in office, he signed the Global Gag Rule back into effect.
Yeah that was obvious pandering to religious rights there...
I'd be okay with making sure federal dollars to the funding of abortions, but that was a cluster feth that did more harm (like couldn't fund mammerygram... wth? dude, we need to protect ALL boobeh!)
Mannahnin wrote: But it was all based on a narrative which was constructed for political gain, and supported by miniscule evidence from his old legislative record.
I think it was the "bitter clingers" gaffe, personally.
Mannahnin wrote: That happened well after the narrative had been constructed and put into use. Though it certainly helped them.
Well, let's be honest: it's not as though it's a narrative without merit, at least if we speak broadly about Democrats in general. They generally tend to be more favorable towards crap like the Assault Weapons Ban than Republicans.
Mannahnin wrote: That happened well after the narrative had been constructed and put into use. Though it certainly helped them.
Well, let's be honest: it's not as though it's a narrative without merit, at least if we speak broadly about Democrats in general. They generally tend to be more favorable towards crap like the Assault Weapons Ban than Republicans.
Sure, no argument there.
But it was never a serious priority of Obama's, and they still made it into some kind apocalyptic issue which led to those runs on ammo and some guns that we experienced.
Given Obama's record as compared to the strident accusations and apocalyptic prophecies leveled at him, you have to wonder what's really underlying the narrative.
Its a beat stick on Obama. It was really heated due to the UN Charter recently concerning about personnel own weapons. We all knew before it even hit the paperwork that it wasn't going to go through if the "treaty" was signed since it have to pass through the Senate. Obama didn't really say much at all about it and most of the talk was reps from the admin. Since he didn't make no comment on the treaty then he condone the treaty so people were all over it. Personaly I'm sure Obama be so "hands" off that treaty because its literally now a IED for either side
I'd consider Fox a prominent right-wing source, personally. Hotair is also a fairly popular conservative site.
Are you arguing just for the sake of argument, or do you really believe right-wing conservatives are comfortable with Obama's stance on gun control?
No, I believe that its not an issue at all. It isn't being seriously discussed by any politicians, or used against Obama in any meaningful way.
The only major organization that is leveraging gun politics, and particularly Obama's gun politics, is the NRA who are basically trying to justify their existence.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: To be fair though, when does a Democratic candidate ever have the lead according to Rasmussen?
Never, really. Rasmussen is not an unbiased polling station.
Anyone who gets their polling information from Rasmussen should feel ashamed and unclean, as they're basically lying to themselves. It's like trying to get information on Israel from early Al-Jazeera.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: To be fair though, when does a Democratic candidate ever have the lead according to Rasmussen?
Never, really. Rasmussen is not an unbiased polling station.
Anyone who gets their polling information from Rasmussen should feel ashamed and unclean, as they're basically lying to themselves. It's like trying to get information on Israel from Al-Jazeera.
Ummm what?
In 2008, Rasmussen's last poll predicted 52% Obama/46% McCain.
IIRC Rasmussen normally trends R prior to the election, and Gallup D, and they both converge closer to the actual numbers the closer you get to the actual date.
At the very least, Mr. Obama’s lead in the national polls no longer seems to be growing. If he gained additional ground following the attacks on Americans in Benghazi, Libya — or from Mitt Romney’s response to it — there has been no sign of it in the most recent national tracking surveys.
Instead, the question is to what extent, if any, Mr. Obama’s lead has declined. The Gallup national tracking poll now shows him ahead of Mr. Romney by four points — down from a peak of seven. And there has been a clearer reversal in the Rasmussen Reports tracking poll, which has now reverted to showing a two-point lead for Mr. Romney.
Two online tracking polls do not show any signs of decline for Mr. Obama, however. In the American Life Panel survey conducted by the RAND Corporation, Mr. Obama had a smaller bounce than in some other polls — but it has held steady over the past week, as he has continued to hold roughly a three-point lead among likely voters. The RAND poll differs from others in that it uses a panel of the same 3,500 respondents who are asked their opinions about the presidential race continually throughout the contest; it is therefore subject to less statistical noise than other surveys.
Mr. Obama also enjoyed his widest lead to date, seven points, in the last version of the Ipsos online tracking poll, which was published on Thursday — although the poll has not been updated over the past two days.
There’s also been a large volume of state polling to sort through. Our view is that the consensus of the evidence from these surveys has shown pretty good numbers for Mr. Obama — but not great ones — and tends to provide the most support for the hypothesis that Mr. Obama holds a lead in the national race of just under four percentage points right now.
No, it's not. Rasmussen is on average less accurate than other polls, often underestimating support for democrats.
This occurs, for example, in a recent September poll, where Rasmussen showed Obama's lead dropping by several points, while Gallup and several others showed him increasing his lead.
And in Wisconsin, it lists Romney as having a two point lead over Obama, but aggregate polls show the opposite is true-- that Obama leads by about three percentage points. this is fairly normal for Rasmussen.
Something going to happen in about 21 days in points probaly. If the ME doesn't calm down within a week, teacher strike in Chicago doesn't end soon, another job reports, and another another jobless claim report to go. Either be a lead or another neck to neck
Mannahnin wrote: IIRC Rasmussen normally trends R prior to the election, and Gallup D, and they both converge closer to the actual numbers the closer you get to the actual date.
Rasmussen tends to produce results that diverge widely from other polling groups, which is almost certainly an issue with the metric they use for determining likely voters.
There's also an issue regarding public perception of polling agencies that hasn't been explored in great detail. That is, voters who lean in a particular direction may be more likely to respond to polls taken by agencies they perceive as sympathetic thereby distorting the sample.
Jihadin wrote: Something going to happen in about 21 days in points probaly. If the ME doesn't calm down within a week, teacher strike in Chicago doesn't end soon, another job reports, and another another jobless claim report to go. Either be a lead or another neck to neck
Or more gaffes and stupidity from Romney on the national stage.
Romney and his campaign haven't made themselves look particularly competent after all, and people are starting to notice more and more.
Seaward wrote: Not quite. Nobody wanted to hit the debt ceiling. Many people did not want to just tack another extension on to the national credit card.
That's just wrong. In the wake of the debt ceiling crisis Republican Leader McConnell described his own party - "I think some of our members may have thought the default issue was a hostage you might take a chance at shooting."
Republicans recognise that many within their own ranks were happy to hit the debt ceiling.
We are, without question, going to hit a point where we simply cannot pay back all that we owe if we do not actually curb the rise of the debt level. Why that's such a hostile concept is beyond me, frankly.
It isn't a hostile concept. It's an issue that demands serious mid and long term solutions. The issue is that Republicans have waited until the boat is sinking before they decided people should stop spending money, and therefore they won't support anyone bailing any water out.
The reality of the issue is quite simple. The country isn't in an absolutely right now cannot have any more debt position. So calls to stop amounts of minor spending on things Republicans don't like has nothing to do with solving the deficit issue, and everything to do with Republican pushing forward the same policies they always push forward.
There simply is not anyone like Michelle Bachman holding any kind of real power in the ranks of elected Democrats.
At least the Republican passed Budget bills that Harry Reid won't floor...
You keep claiming the Republican bill was anything more than an empty political gesture. I keep explaining how it actually worked. fething stop it.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Seaward wrote: It's certainly possible. If the 'pubs pick up both the White House and the Senate, as is very much within the realm of possibility, there won't be much to stop them from doing their version of saving us all, save for lack of backbone.
Ah, no. That's not how US politics works. That's not how it's ever worked, and for a guy claiming he's dumbing things down for other people, I can't help but giggle a little at how crude your political prediction above is.
The Republicans held all three houses as recently as 2006. Democrats have controlled all three houses, even with a super-majority, from 2008 to 2010.
And yet neither party just solved the debt crisis their way. Because each of those members still wants to keep their seat, and each has different priorities that'll make that likely.
Divided government typically encourages more compromise... When both Congress and WH is controled by one party... they generally have carte blanche over the government and the extreme elements of said party get's their wishlist in motion. In a divided government, the extremists are generally marginalize.
No, that's not true.
Where a party has a strong base of control, that power will tend to be focussed around the centre. That means they don't need to reach out to the fringes to win more votes, they can govern entirely from the centre. Think of New Labour in England as an example.
On the other hand, when the centre of politics is bitterly contested then a party will look to gain advantage by winning support from the fringes of politics. Consider all those proportional representative governments in Europe where no major party wins much of the vote, and they end up forming those screwball coalitions that include Communist parties or ultra-conservative Christian groups.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
youbedead wrote: It's true though, historically the American people prefer split ticket voting and divided gov.
There is a tendency for people to vote against the President's party in the mid-term elections. But I don't know if its clear if there are people actively looking to check the power of the president, or if its just easier to get your base fired up when the other side controls the presidency.
Rasmussen is showing a strong right wing bias in their polls this electoral run. Other polls are showing nothing like that, and in fact are showing Obama with a strong lead in swing states, most importantly Ohio.
If you want a really solid, in depth look at consolidating all the polls, and adding in other information such as economic indicators head to this site;
fivethirtyeight.com
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Melissia wrote: Anyone who gets their polling information from Rasmussen should feel ashamed and unclean, as they're basically lying to themselves. It's like trying to get information on Israel from early Al-Jazeera.
That's a bit harsh. Rasmussen isn't dodgy, it's just that the way they conduct their polls produced a systemic right wing lean to Republicans of a couple of points (if memory serves correct they only phone poll, and only to landlines, thereby removing a lot of youth votes from their results).
They can be used, it's just that their systemic lean to the right needs to be accounted for, just as with the polls that tend to lean left.
Yes, it is. If one party holds the House, Senate, and White House, they can write whatever legislation they want, with only the prospect of it being found unconstitutional or being filibustered to stop them.
That's not how it's ever worked, and for a guy claiming he's dumbing things down for other people, I can't help but giggle a little at how crude your political prediction above is.
It wasn't a prediction. I don't think they'll get it all.
The Republicans held all three houses as recently as 2006. Democrats have controlled all three houses, even with a super-majority, from 2008 to 2010.
And yet neither party just solved the debt crisis their way. Because each of those members still wants to keep their seat, and each has different priorities that'll make that likely.
Hence why I did not say, "If the Republicans held all three, the debt crisis would be instantly solved," but instead said that they could solve it under such circumstances if they had the backbone to do so. Is this just a reading comprehension issue?
Divided government typically encourages more compromise... When both Congress and WH is controled by one party... they generally have carte blanche over the government and the extreme elements of said party get's their wishlist in motion. In a divided government, the extremists are generally marginalize.
No, that's not true.
Where a party has a strong base of control, that power will tend to be focussed around the centre. That means they don't need to reach out to the fringes to win more votes, they can govern entirely from the centre. Think of New Labour in England as an example.
On the other hand, when the centre of politics is bitterly contested then a party will look to gain advantage by winning support from the fringes of politics. Consider all those proportional representative governments in Europe where no major party wins much of the vote, and they end up forming those screwball coalitions that include Communist parties or ultra-conservative Christian groups.
And here I think your knowledge of how the Parlimentary system works in Australia/Europe is mixing in how you think US politics works...
That's actually the opposite here... in divided government, both parties typically move to the center in order to get stuff done (called compromise). When one party controls WH/Congress... that's when big things happen (for good or bad). The Clinton tenure is a perfect example of parties moving to the center when Rep retook the house.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
youbedead wrote: It's true though, historically the American people prefer split ticket voting and divided gov.
There is a tendency for people to vote against the President's party in the mid-term elections. But I don't know if its clear if there are people actively looking to check the power of the president, or if its just easier to get your base fired up when the other side controls the presidency.
I know a lot of folks who will generally vote for the challenger, simply to ensure that there is a divided government.
Rasmussen is showing a strong right wing bias in their polls this electoral run. Other polls are showing nothing like that, and in fact are showing Obama with a strong lead in swing states, most importantly Ohio.
If you want a really solid, in depth look at consolidating all the polls, and adding in other information such as economic indicators head to this site;
fivethirtyeight.com
Right... and look at their methodology... they're expecting the same D/R/I splits this year as in 2008.. that's why its skewed. They should be using the 2010 splits at least....
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Melissia wrote: Anyone who gets their polling information from Rasmussen should feel ashamed and unclean, as they're basically lying to themselves. It's like trying to get information on Israel from early Al-Jazeera.
That's a bit harsh. Rasmussen isn't dodgy, it's just that the way they conduct their polls produced a systemic right wing lean to Republicans of a couple of points (if memory serves correct they only phone poll, and only to landlines, thereby removing a lot of youth votes from their results).
They can be used, it's just that their systemic lean to the right needs to be accounted for, just as with the polls that tend to lean left.
There is some truth to this...
At the end of the day Razzie was very close to the actual turn out (see 2008). He actually underestimated the Republican victories in the house in 2010...
It's September... waaaaaaaay to soon to really pay attention to the polls... it's crapshoot now. We haven't had any Debates either.
Seaward wrote: Yes, it is. If one party holds the House, Senate, and White House, they can write whatever legislation they want, with only the prospect of it being found unconstitutional or being filibustered to stop them.
As I already pointed out, the Republicans held the house, senate and presidency from 2000 to 2006. And yet in that time they didn't just write whatever legislation they wanted, because they are still a collection of individuals with their own priorities.
And the Democrats then held the house, a veto proof majority in the senate and the presidency from 2008 to 2010, and yet in that time they didn't just write whatever legislation they wanted, because they are still a collection of individual with their own priorities.
Political parties are not hive minds able to act with one will. Once you understand this you will understand why your political theories aren't very useful.
Hence why I did not say, "If the Republicans held all three, the debt crisis would be instantly solved," but instead said that they could solve it under such circumstances if they had the backbone to do so. Is this just a reading comprehension issue?
Don't try the smart arse stuff. Either know stuff, or be willing to learn. Otherwise your time on this board, or any other board for that matter, will just be a waste of time.
sebster wrote: And the Democrats then held the house, a veto proof majority in the senate and the presidency from 2008 to 2010, and yet in that time they didn't just write whatever legislation they wanted, because they are still a collection of individual with their own priorities.
When was the ACA passed, again?
Political parties are not hive minds able to act with one will. Once you understand this you will understand why your political theories aren't very useful.
I don't recall ever suggesting political parties were hive minds that acted with one will. I am attempting to educate you regarding the political process in the United States. When one party holds the House, a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate, and the White House, the opposition party is functionally incapable of preventing them from passing the legislation they want to pass.
Don't try the smart arse stuff. Either know stuff, or be willing to learn. Otherwise your time on this board, or any other board for that matter, will just be a waste of time.
I know perfectly well how Congress functions and legislation is passed. I'm doing my best to pass on that knowledge, but you seem unwilling to listen. If you wish to continue insisting that a White House, House of Representatives, and Senate controlled by one party or the other could not pass legislation without the other side being capable of blocking it - provided the Senate majority was filibuster-proof - I cannot stop you, but I can continue to tell you that you are incorrect.
whembly wrote: Uh... Nancy Pelosi or Harry Reid... methinks your politics is fighting through...
No, that's just not a sensible claim. You might not like Pelosi or Reid, but it just doesn't match reality to claim they're anything like as extreme as Bachman.
Do you know who Bachman is?
Looks at my flag.. looks are your flag...
What makes you think you know MORE than me?
I know how it works.
To be perfectly honest, what makes me think I know more than you about US politics is our conversations here on dakka. I correct you constantly, because you keep posting the standard Republican claims on various isses. The classic example of which is the 'Republicans voted for a budget, Democrats didn't vote for a budget' line.
As I've already explained, putting up a fantasy budget that you know the other side will simply not accept is not constructive politics. It's political grandstanding. The Democrats could have put up a bill that kept every piece of social spending, and balanced the budget by halving military spending and cranking up taxes on the mega-rich to 80%, and it would have been just as constructive.
So you can please stop pretending that 'Republicans have posted a budget and Democrats haven't' is anything more than political grandstanding?
And here I think your knowledge of how the Parlimentary system works in Australia/Europe is mixing in how you think US politics works...
People don't stop being people because they start to live in the USA. Political realities continue to be the same.
That's actually the opposite here... in divided government, both parties typically move to the center in order to get stuff done (called compromise). When one party controls WH/Congress... that's when big things happen (for good or bad). The Clinton tenure is a perfect example of parties moving to the center when Rep retook the house.
It's a huge mistake to confuse the actions of one politician, noted for his centrist values, with the actions of political parties as a whole.
Instead look at how the Democrats and the Republicans have looked to secure their own power bases in the last congressional cycle. See how they've attempted to secure advantage by appealing to fringe elements, like the Democrats making noted outreaches to the gay community? That's because when politics is close fought parties will attempt to expand their bases.
I know a lot of folks who will generally vote for the challenger, simply to ensure that there is a divided government.
There is a lot of talk of that. But from the evidence I've seen it's pretty debatable whether it actually happens on a meaningful scale. Instead what does change consistantly is turnout - you get a noted drop from demographic groups that are typically in support of the President's party, while the demographics that support the President typically hold firm or decline less.
Right... and look at their methodology... they're expecting the same D/R/I splits this year as in 2008.. that's why its skewed. They should be using the 2010 splits at least....
First up - they aren't expecting DRI splits. They compile surveys, including ones that have already undergone likely voter adjustments. Where a survey doesn't account for likely voters, it is adjusted for such by regression analysis with other polls already given.
Second up, claiming Rasmussen should be focused in on, while fivethirtyeight should be ignored is a pretty odd stance when your argument for Rasmussen used the accuracy of their 2008 final poll. fivethirtyeight successfully predicted the way every single state would go in 2008.
Rasmussen was reasonably close with their last poll. fivethirtyeight got it exactly right.
There is some truth to this...
At the end of the day Razzie was very close to the actual turn out (see 2008). He actually underestimated the Republican victories in the house in 2010...
It's September... waaaaaaaay to soon to really pay attention to the polls... it's crapshoot now. We haven't had any Debates either.
fivethirtyeight predicted all but two of the senate seats in 2010 (both of which predicted Republican wins and instead were won by Democrats), and was only off on the number of seats won in the House by 8 (and the site was very open about how difficult predictions are for the House, with less than 25% of districts getting polled before election day). The site's record is seriously impressive.
More to the point, how are you now claiming it's a little early to pay attention to the polls. You brought this up by raising Rasmussen in the first place.
That's right. Two years of unlimited control of the legislative process, and the end result is one major bill that just gets over the line.
Which basically is about the best evidence you could get for the point I'm trying to explain - that when a party gains complete control that doesn't translate to a series of sweeping reforms. Instead each elected official continues to advance his own agenda. In that Democrats in general tend towards certain political beliefs, and Republican in general tend towards certain political beliefs, increased control of congress and the presidency means a tendency towards certain kinds of reforms, but nothing more than that.
The idea that a Democrat or Republican would never cross the floor to oppose legislation proposed by their own party is frankly laughable.
I don't recall ever suggesting political parties were hive minds that acted with one will.
No, but your political claim assumed it. And I am pointing out that once you realise it isn't true, your ideas about politics stop being plausible.
I am attempting to educate you regarding the political process in the United States. When one party holds the House, a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate, and the White House, the opposition party is functionally incapable of preventing them from passing the legislation they want to pass.
But the party isn't a single mind. A majority government is 240 to 250 people in the House of Representatives. It's 51 (or 60 to be veto-proof) senators. And a president. Each has their own political values, with more than few having their political fortunes tied to specific state issues.
And getting legislation passed means producing something that's more or less agreeable to each of them.
I mean... did you pay any attention at all during the creation of ACA?
I know perfectly well how Congress functions and legislation is passed. I'm doing my best to pass on that knowledge, but you seem unwilling to listen. If you wish to continue insisting that a White House, House of Representatives, and Senate controlled by one party or the other could not pass legislation without the other side being capable of blocking it - provided the Senate majority was filibuster-proof - I cannot stop you, but I can continue to tell you that you are incorrect.
Is the problem here that you just aren't bothering to read my posts? Because at no point did I say the problem had anything to do with the opposition.
The problem with your theory is that a party doesn't act in perfect unison. If the Republicans were to achieve total victory in the upcoming election, then your theory of 'they can do whatever they want' would involve the assumption that Jim DeMint and Susan Collins had the exact same legislative ambitions. Which is just fething wrong.
sebster wrote: And the Democrats then held the house, a veto proof majority in the senate and the presidency from 2008 to 2010, and yet in that time they didn't just write whatever legislation they wanted, because they are still a collection of individual with their own priorities.
When was the ACA passed, again?
Are you pulling my leg? If the ACA was an example of what you've suggested, it would have passed about a year earlier, and have included a public option. Instead they spent a year compromising it to appeal to right-leaning Dems and to try to get bipartisan support.
Are you pulling my leg? If the ACA was an example of what you've suggested, it would have passed about a year earlier, and have included a public option. Instead they spent a year compromising it to appeal to right-leaning Dems and to try to get bipartisan support.
Because they wanted bipartisan support, and they needed it to get through the Senate, where they did not have a filibuster-proof majority. Not the scenario I'm talking about. It was a gak bill, nobody's first choice, and they wanted cover for it in the mid-terms and the general.
Question: do you agree with the statement that with control of a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate, control of the House, and control of the White House, a party can pass the legislation it chooses without the opposition being able to stop it? That's the point of contention.
Bring back the old Filibuster. Not this "I filibuster, now let's go have tea" bs. Make those fethers stand up there and actually fill that goddam time like they used to. I want to see the Honored Representative from Ohio standing up there for 10 hours reading Twilight or 1990s Jerry Springer Show Transcripts.
kronk wrote: Bring back the old Filibuster. Not this "I filibuster, now let's go have tea" bs. Make those fethers stand up there and actually fill that goddam time like they used to. I want to see the Honored Representative from Ohio standing up there for 10 hours reading Twilight or 1990s Jerry Springer Show Transcripts.
whembly wrote: Uh... Nancy Pelosi or Harry Reid... methinks your politics is fighting through...
No, that's just not a sensible claim. You might not like Pelosi or Reid, but it just doesn't match reality to claim they're anything like as extreme as Bachman.
Do you know who Bachman is?
Yes, I know who Bachman is... it's telling to me that you don't think Pelosi or Reid has the same sort of issues...
Mrs Pelosi "we'll have to pass the bill in order to read it"...
Mr. Reid "I'm not going to work with the House, cause its to my best interest to keep the status quo"...
Looks at my flag.. looks are your flag...
What makes you think you know MORE than me?
I know how it works.
To be perfectly honest, what makes me think I know more than you about US politics is our conversations here on dakka. I correct you constantly, because you keep posting the standard Republican claims on various isses. The classic example of which is the 'Republicans voted for a budget, Democrats didn't vote for a budget' line.
As I've already explained, putting up a fantasy budget that you know the other side will simply not accept is not constructive politics. It's political grandstanding. The Democrats could have put up a bill that kept every piece of social spending, and balanced the budget by halving military spending and cranking up taxes on the mega-rich to 80%, and it would have been just as constructive.
So you can please stop pretending that 'Republicans have posted a budget and Democrats haven't' is anything more than political grandstanding?
Seb... you're arguing with me based on your opinions. Stop saying everything out of your mouth is "facts".
The fact is, that "fantasy" bill that your keep bringing up (ya know, that Ryan plan) was derived from the Simpson-Bowles commission that Obama just ignored.
You seem to think that when a bill is passed in the House, that the Senate must pass it "as is". That's NOT how it works. The Senate has an opportunity to then take that bill and tweak it, add stuff, whatever... then if that pass, it goes into conference to the House for them to approve.
It's at back and forth thing.
And here I think your knowledge of how the Parlimentary system works in Australia/Europe is mixing in how you think US politics works...
People don't stop being people because they start to live in the USA. Political realities continue to be the same.
Didn't say you weren't "people"... and no, political realities are NOT the same. That's too simplistic.
That's actually the opposite here... in divided government, both parties typically move to the center in order to get stuff done (called compromise). When one party controls WH/Congress... that's when big things happen (for good or bad). The Clinton tenure is a perfect example of parties moving to the center when Rep retook the house.
It's a huge mistake to confuse the actions of one politician, noted for his centrist values, with the actions of political parties as a whole.
Instead look at how the Democrats and the Republicans have looked to secure their own power bases in the last congressional cycle. See how they've attempted to secure advantage by appealing to fringe elements, like the Democrats making noted outreaches to the gay community? That's because when politics is close fought parties will attempt to expand their bases.
If that's how you interpret that...
The Tea Party was a grassroot movement without any established Republican endorsment for a long time. That 2010 election was more about pissed off electorate, than the Republican "reaching out" to the fringe elements.
Don't make the same mistakes that the alliances you see in your Parlimentary system works the same way here.
I know a lot of folks who will generally vote for the challenger, simply to ensure that there is a divided government.
There is a lot of talk of that. But from the evidence I've seen it's pretty debatable whether it actually happens on a meaningful scale. Instead what does change consistantly is turnout - you get a noted drop from demographic groups that are typically in support of the President's party, while the demographics that support the President typically hold firm or decline less.
You're right, it is debatable... but, it shouldn't be ignored.
Right... and look at their methodology... they're expecting the same D/R/I splits this year as in 2008.. that's why its skewed. They should be using the 2010 splits at least....
First up - they aren't expecting DRI splits. They compile surveys, including ones that have already undergone likely voter adjustments. Where a survey doesn't account for likely voters, it is adjusted for such by regression analysis with other polls already given.
Second up, claiming Rasmussen should be focused in on, while fivethirtyeight should be ignored is a pretty odd stance when your argument for Rasmussen used the accuracy of their 2008 final poll. fivethirtyeight successfully predicted the way every single state would go in 2008.
Rasmussen was reasonably close with their last poll. fivethirtyeight got it exactly right.
Well see shall we?
There is some truth to this...
At the end of the day Razzie was very close to the actual turn out (see 2008). He actually underestimated the Republican victories in the house in 2010...
It's September... waaaaaaaay to soon to really pay attention to the polls... it's crapshoot now. We haven't had any Debates either.
fivethirtyeight predicted all but two of the senate seats in 2010 (both of which predicted Republican wins and instead were won by Democrats), and was only off on the number of seats won in the House by 8 (and the site was very open about how difficult predictions are for the House, with less than 25% of districts getting polled before election day). The site's record is seriously impressive.
More to the point, how are you now claiming it's a little early to pay attention to the polls. You brought this up by raising Rasmussen in the first place.
LOL... fair enough... (I'll check out that site, first time I've heard of it).
Mannahnin wrote: Are you pulling my leg? If the ACA was an example of what you've suggested, it would have passed about a year earlier, and have included a public option. Instead they spent a year compromising it to appeal to right-leaning Dems and to try to get bipartisan support.
Because they wanted bipartisan support, and they needed it to get through the Senate, where they did not have a filibuster-proof majority. Not the scenario I'm talking about. It was a gak bill, nobody's first choice, and they wanted cover for it in the mid-terms and the general.
Question: do you agree with the statement that with control of a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate, control of the House, and control of the White House, a party can pass the legislation it chooses without the opposition being able to stop it? That's the point of contention.
And the answer is that they can only do it if the party is united, and doesn't divide itself due to conflicting internal priorities and concerns. Like blue dogs running in red states concerned for the future of their careers, for one example, or just legitimate differences of opinion, for another. Do you know who Bart Stupak is?
You made the claim that if the Reps picked up the majority in the house and senate, as well as the Presidency, the only thing preventing them from implementing their version of debt/budget reform would be lack of backbone. But in fact a lot of other things can get in the way, like representatives not wanting to cut things which are important to their own constituencies.
Mannahnin wrote: And the answer is that they can only do it if the party is united, and doesn't divide itself due to conflicting internal priorities and concerns. Like blue dogs running in red states concerned for the future of their careers, for one example, or just legitimate differences of opinion, for another. Do you know who Bart Stupak is?
You made the claim that if the Reps picked up the majority in the house and senate, as well as the Presidency, the only thing preventing them from implementing their version of debt/budget reform would be lack of backbone. But in fact a lot of other things can get in the way, like representatives not wanting to cut things which are important to their own constituencies.
That's a backbone issue, is it not? Keeping pork coming into your district so you can keep getting reelected vice doing the right thing for the country is, to me, not something commendable or particularly principled.
dogma wrote: You just outlined why it is principled.
Of course, if we got rid of those heathen "states" we would all be better off.
No, I outlined why it's unprincipled. It is, at its core, a choice between doing the right thing or keeping your job. Which one of those is the principled thing to do?
Seaward wrote: Question: do you agree with the statement that with control of a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate, control of the House, and control of the White House, a party can pass the legislation it chooses without the opposition being able to stop it? That's the point of contention.
That is not the point of contention, as I've already explained to you. Twice.
The point in contention is your assumption that a party having theoretical control means they will then proceed to pass any bills they want. That claim doesn't work because the party is not a hive mind, but made up of individuals with their own political values, and so even when the minority party cannot pass legislation you still get a check on the passage of bills through the internal processes of the party in power.
Yes, but the party will be able to pass the majority of their bills with impunity.
Interparty divisions rarely do much beside slow a bills progress unless it radical enough that the more moderate members of the party will oppose it, and then they are more likely to abstain from voting then to vote against it.
whembly wrote: Yes, I know who Bachman is... it's telling to me that you don't think Pelosi or Reid has the same sort of issues...
Mrs Pelosi "we'll have to pass the bill in order to read it"...
Mr. Reid "I'm not going to work with the House, cause its to my best interest to keep the status quo"...
I mention an actual extreme outlier in the Republican party, and it is telling that the only names you can come back with our house leaders. I mean, couldn't you at least have gone for someone from the actual left of the Democrats, like Kucinich?
Seb... you're arguing with me based on your opinions. Stop saying everything out of your mouth is "facts".
The fact is, that "fantasy" bill that your keep bringing up (ya know, that Ryan plan) was derived from the Simpson-Bowles commission that Obama just ignored.
You seem to think that when a bill is passed in the House, that the Senate must pass it "as is". That's NOT how it works. The Senate has an opportunity to then take that bill and tweak it, add stuff, whatever... then if that pass, it goes into conference to the House for them to approve.
It's at back and forth thing.
I know how the process works, how the back and forth is intended to operate.
And what I'm telling you is not just an opinion. I don't think there's a person on Earth who'd honestly claim that the Republican budget was passed with the intent of being a starting point in a back and forth process.
Are you claiming you honestly believe that's why the Republicans passed that bill?
Didn't say you weren't "people"... and no, political realities are NOT the same. That's too simplistic.
Of course some things change. Cultural values are slightly different, and processes are different.
But in this very general case the point holds true for all politics.
If that's how you interpret that...
The Tea Party was a grassroot movement without any established Republican endorsment for a long time.
That's a little simplistic. The Koch brothers through a pile of money into some think tanks to figure out how to rebrand conservatives politics outside of the Republican party, given how toxic the Republican brand had become in the lead up to and aftermath of the 2008 election (remember that legal dispute where the Republican candidate was putting Conservative next to his name on election advertising, and the Democrat was trying to force him to put Republican?).
From there the movement spurred a lot of genuinely grassroots groups. But it was not a purely grassroots movement.
The basic reason its had considerably more success in affecting national politics than the OWS, despite being a much smaller movement overall, is because it had better organisation and better direct links to a political party.
That 2010 election was more about pissed off electorate, than the Republican "reaching out" to the fringe elements.
Not really. You basically saw the same Republican demographics turn out in the same numbers you see in every mid-term election, while turnout among Democratic groups was very depressed, even by mid-term standards.
The only thing that stopped it being a complete disaster for the Democrats, including the loss of very safe seats and the loss of the senate was the number of Tea Party people that won through the Republican primaries and then proceeded to crash and burn through sheer crazy.
Don't make the same mistakes that the alliances you see in your Parlimentary system works the same way here.
The alliances in our Parliamentary system? I don't think you know much about Australian politics, yeah?
The norm here is a single majority government, and all other parties in opposition. I think you might have some vague idea of proportional representation common in Europe in your head.
You're right, it is debatable... but, it shouldn't be ignored.
For sure.
Well see shall we?
We shall.
LOL... fair enough... (I'll check out that site, first time I've heard of it).
It's well worth a read.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Seaward wrote: That's a backbone issue, is it not? Keeping pork coming into your district so you can keep getting reelected vice doing the right thing for the country is, to me, not something commendable or particularly principled.
That all depends on whether you're willing to pretend that a person could know that something is not in the best interests of the country, but still protect because it is good for their chances of re-election. Which is great fodder for a Mr Smith Goes to Washington type movie, but real life is more complicated than that.
For instance, much of your party might believe that part of the necessary cuts to military spending include an R&D project undertaken in your state. But you might believe that particular project is essential to the future defence of the country, in addition to any jobs it provides.
Mannahnin wrote: And the answer is that they can only do it if the party is united, and doesn't divide itself due to conflicting internal priorities and concerns. Like blue dogs running in red states concerned for the future of their careers, for one example, or just legitimate differences of opinion, for another. Do you know who Bart Stupak is?
You made the claim that if the Reps picked up the majority in the house and senate, as well as the Presidency, the only thing preventing them from implementing their version of debt/budget reform would be lack of backbone. But in fact a lot of other things can get in the way, like representatives not wanting to cut things which are important to their own constituencies.
That's a backbone issue, is it not? Keeping pork coming into your district so you can keep getting reelected vice doing the right thing for the country is, to me, not something commendable or particularly principled.
A. You ignored the example of Stupak.
B. Reducing all "things which are important to (state) constituencies" to "pork" as a rhetorical device is absurd. You can't honestly mean that. Part of a State rep's job is to look out for the interests of their constituents.
whembly wrote: The Tea Party was a grassroot movement without any established Republican endorsment for a long time.
That's a little simplistic. The Koch brothers through a pile of money into some think tanks to figure out how to rebrand conservatives politics outside of the Republican party, given how toxic the Republican brand had become in the lead up to and aftermath of the 2008 election (remember that legal dispute where the Republican candidate was putting Conservative next to his name on election advertising, and the Democrat was trying to force him to put Republican?).
From there the movement spurred a lot of genuinely grassroots groups. But it was not a purely grassroots movement.
The basic reason its had considerably more success in affecting national politics than the OWS, despite being a much smaller movement overall, is because it had better organisation and better direct links to a political party.
It also had a lot of direct funding from Republican and other conservative richies, like the Kochs, as soon as they decided it was a useful tool to advocate decreased regulatory and tax burdens on themselves, through the guise of "ordinary" citizens concerned about economics and deficits.
At least the elected official from the Tea Party listens to them --->insert evil laughter<--- seems to be more and more elected to --->insert even more evil laughter<-----
Mannahnin wrote: B. Reducing all "things which are important to (state) constituencies" to "pork" as a rhetorical device is absurd. You can't honestly mean that. Part of a State rep's job is to look out for the interests of their constituents.
I can indeed mean it. It's a short-sighted individual who prioritizes a local public works project over the fiscal solvency of the nation. The "interests of their constituents" are most certainly not going to be served by failing to do anything at all about the debt.
That's a simple false dichotomy. Real life, and politics, are more complicated than a simple A vs. B proposition. Just because you consider a particular law or program which costs money to be important and worthy of preservation, doesn't mean you're necessarily "failing to do anything at all about the debt." Part of the job of representatives is to look at the big picture for the national interest, and part of it is to champion stuff in their constituents' local interest. There's a balance, and part of Congress is negotiating and making compromises on differing priorities.
Hey... he had some doobies... I read all political threads...
Which one warps the brain?
Hmmmmm...
Seriously though... these types of information is getting out... whether they're fair or not, doesn't matter, people will seek more infomation. To be honest, any criticism of him growning up, or even his college years is dumb...
I was a dumb ass in college too..
And now, I'm AWESOME! (my kidz tell me so, therefore, it's true)
Automatically Appended Next Post:
youbedead wrote: I don't think there has been a serious presidential candidate that didn't come from privilege since Lincoln.
Um... wasn't Clinton and Regan like dirt poor growing up?
I can indeed mean it. It's a short-sighted individual who prioritizes a local public works project over the fiscal solvency of the nation. The "interests of their constituents" are most certainly not going to be served by failing to do anything at all about the debt.
Then perhaps we should do away with state governments.
I've seen Obama's apartment complex in Hawaii. It's pretty standard, middle of the road accomodation. So I'm a bit puzzled as to what point is being made here.
I've seen Obama's apartment complex in Hawaii. It's pretty standard, middle of the road accomodation. So I'm a bit puzzled as to what point is being made here.
Keep reading each chapter... there's 10 pages.
But, yeah, his young life... why bother going there?
Who doesn't have stuff the don't want other's to know?
gak... I don't know how I'm alive with that crap I did...
EDIT: Careful seb... Manny says it may warp your brain...
whembly wrote: Um... wasn't Clinton and Regan like dirt poor growing up?
I think probably because of its emphasis on personal stories as a major part of a politician's platform, the US throws up a pretty remarkable number of rags to riches presidents.
I think when talking about privilege and top tier politics, the point is more that by the time a candidate is able to go for an office of any real standing, even a state representative position, he will have acquired all kinds of political connections and alliances with powerful establishment figures. As such, the idea of an actual outside candidate is a bit of a myth.
No, I outlined why it's unprincipled. It is, at its core, a choice between doing the right thing or keeping your job. Which one of those is the principled thing to do?
No it isn't. Senators and Representatives are not elected to represent the nation, that isn't how our system works.
The door that he opened 5 years ago saying that outside influence is needed for change? The message that he has been consistent with? That communities have to be engaged and be the force that enacts change? That we are all part of the change instead of some random people in DC. The door that he never closed to begin with?
Honestly, do you even know why you are outraged? Or are you just outraged because people tell you that you should be?
The door that he opened 5 years ago saying that outside influence is needed for change? The message that he has been consistent with? That communities have to be engaged and be the force that enacts change? That we are all part of the change instead of some random people in DC. The door that he never closed to begin with?
Honestly, do you even know why you are outraged? Or are you just outraged because people tell you that you should be?
I'm not outraged...
That comment was perplexing me...
He has ALWAYS stated the he (and "we") would change Washington... right?
That comment he made sounded like he threw in the towel... that's all.
dogma wrote: No it isn't. Senators and Representatives are not elected to represent the nation, that isn't how our system works.
Yes, it is. Only an idiot believes Mississippi will do just fine, and not be affected in the slightest, if the federal government should, say, default on the debt. The long-term fiscal health of the Unites States is important, - critical, even - to every state in the union.
Of course it is, but the job of every member of the house is balancing priorites, some of which naturally conflict.
We could balance the budget easily if we abolished all social welfare and the military. Obviously we want to keep some of both, though, so our representatives have to negotiate and argue to figure out what stays and what goes.
As English Assassin pointed out, as much as people moan that it's un-elected they have made the government in power stop and think. Even change tack. Perhaps their unique position gives them the freedom to actually be more of a balanced person politically? No pressure to conform, no need to say things that make voters happy. Who knows.
