Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
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.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2012/09/07 20:06:27
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
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.
Life does not cease to be funny when people die any more than it ceases to be serious when people laugh.
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.
if they want to get something done anyway.
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
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!
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2012/09/07 20:50:56
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
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.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2012/09/07 22:02:01
Life does not cease to be funny when people die any more than it ceases to be serious when people laugh.
whembly wrote: When one party controls both Congress/Prez, the extremism gets play...
We're getting extremist play with a divided government.
The people in the past who convinced themselves to do unspeakable things were no less human than you or I. They made their decisions; the only thing that prevents history from repeating itself is making different ones.
-- Adam Serwer
My blog
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.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2012/09/08 14:46:03
The people in the past who convinced themselves to do unspeakable things were no less human than you or I. They made their decisions; the only thing that prevents history from repeating itself is making different ones.
-- Adam Serwer
My blog
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.
CoALabaer wrote: Wargamers hate two things: the state of the game and change.
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.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2012/09/08 22:49:08
Life does not cease to be funny when people die any more than it ceases to be serious when people laugh.
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."
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2012/09/09 00:46:34
Life does not cease to be funny when people die any more than it ceases to be serious when people laugh.
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: 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.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2012/09/10 02:27:18
The people in the past who convinced themselves to do unspeakable things were no less human than you or I. They made their decisions; the only thing that prevents history from repeating itself is making different ones.
-- Adam Serwer
My blog
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.
This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2012/09/10 03:02:47
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
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.
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
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.
This message was edited 10 times. Last update was at 2012/09/11 06:36:45
The people in the past who convinced themselves to do unspeakable things were no less human than you or I. They made their decisions; the only thing that prevents history from repeating itself is making different ones.
-- Adam Serwer
My blog
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?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2012/09/11 14:54:50
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.
This message was edited 8 times. Last update was at 2012/09/11 17:29:49
The people in the past who convinced themselves to do unspeakable things were no less human than you or I. They made their decisions; the only thing that prevents history from repeating itself is making different ones.
-- Adam Serwer
My blog
