So, MM, if republicans design policy, and then later obstruct that policy in order to improve their electoral chances, there are two possibilities.
Either they believe that their policy would help America, but naturally there would be a net gain for America if the policy was hindered so that republicans could take power.
Or the policy was just bad to begin with, which makes one wonder why the fuck republicans designed the policy.
And I have yet to touch the republican idea of actively hurting the process of government not because you dislike the policy that it would result but because you have unanimously decided the country would obviously be better off if you hurt it enough to get it to vote for your party.
Holy fucking fuck, I am a better person than MM by several magnitudes - that much is obvious.
It's the former. The legislation might be good, but blocking it as a political tool, getting back into power then passing it later is even better.
I'm not sure why people are so shocked by a strategic approach to passing bills.
So, MM, if republicans design policy, and then later obstruct that policy in order to improve their electoral chances, there are two possibilities.
Either they believe that their policy would help America, but naturally there would be a net gain for America if the policy was hindered so that republicans could take power.
Or the policy was just bad to begin with, which makes one wonder why the fuck republicans designed the policy.
And I have yet to touch the republican idea of actively hurting the process of government not because you dislike the policy that it would result but because you have unanimously decided the country would obviously be better off if you hurt it enough to get it to vote for your party.
Holy fucking fuck, I am a better person than MM by several magnitudes - that much is obvious.
It's the former. The legislation might be good, but blocking it as a political tool, getting back into power then passing it later is even better.
I'm not sure why people are so shocked by a strategic approach to passing bills.
You were saying?
I think that's a different conversation than this one. Kastanj seemed to be talking about Obama co-opting Republican policies. I don't see a problem with strategically timing the passage of bills so that Obama doesn't get credit for them. That's a smart move when you look at the big picture- it's better to delay a bill a few months to prevent Obama from getting a victory and hopefully prevent him from being re-elected. But that's different than actively hoping the economy stays shitty so Obama will take the blame in 2012.
The ideal is a recovering economy come election time, but one where the perception of recovery is lagging.
Modern Man on
Aetian Jupiter - 41 Gunslinger - The Old Republic
Rigorous Scholarship
The problem with that "strategic timing" is that you're willing to fuck plenty of people over (by not letting the policy take effect earlier) in order to get your own personal benefit. And that, sir, is fucking contemptible.
The problem with that "strategic timing" is that you're willing to fuck plenty of people over (by not letting the policy take effect earlier) in order to get your own personal benefit. And that, sir, is fucking contemptible.
Unless you view having Democrats in power as fucking people over and fucking the country over. At which point having anything help them would make you a rotten human being out to destroy the country. Which, shocker, is what most conservatives believe.
The problem with that "strategic timing" is that you're willing to fuck plenty of people over (by not letting the policy take effect earlier) in order to get your own personal benefit. And that, sir, is fucking contemptible.
Unless you view having Democrats in power as fucking people over and fucking the country over. At which point having anything help them would make you a rotten human being out to destroy the country. Which, shocker, is what most conservatives believe.
even if those dems are passing something you admit is good legislation?
The problem with that "strategic timing" is that you're willing to fuck plenty of people over (by not letting the policy take effect earlier) in order to get your own personal benefit. And that, sir, is fucking contemptible.
Unless you view having Democrats in power as fucking people over and fucking the country over. At which point having anything help them would make you a rotten human being out to destroy the country. Which, shocker, is what most conservatives believe.
Thats not whats being discussed, but rather the Republicans tendancy to delay legislation they actually like in hopes of not giving Obama a victory. See: Health care aid for 9/11 rescuers.
The problem with that "strategic timing" is that you're willing to fuck plenty of people over (by not letting the policy take effect earlier) in order to get your own personal benefit. And that, sir, is fucking contemptible.
Unless you view having Democrats in power as fucking people over and fucking the country over. At which point having anything help them would make you a rotten human being out to destroy the country. Which, shocker, is what most conservatives believe.
Thats not whats being discussed, but rather the Republicans tendancy to delay legislation they actually like in hopes of not giving Obama a victory. See: Health care aid for 9/11 rescuers.
In fairness, a lot of that was the rabid, unreasoning Republican hatred for raising taxes on anything in any way anywhere. Which apparently can't be sacrificed even to pay the medical bills of heroes.
The problem with that "strategic timing" is that you're willing to fuck plenty of people over (by not letting the policy take effect earlier) in order to get your own personal benefit. And that, sir, is fucking contemptible.
Unless you view having Democrats in power as fucking people over and fucking the country over. At which point having anything help them would make you a rotten human being out to destroy the country. Which, shocker, is what most conservatives believe.
Thats not whats being discussed, but rather the Republicans tendancy to delay legislation they actually like in hopes of not giving Obama a victory. See: Health care aid for 9/11 rescuers.
In fairness, a lot of that was the rabid, unreasoning Republican hatred for raising taxes on anything in any way anywhere. Which apparently can't be sacrificed even to pay the medical bills of heroes.
if by raise taxes you mean closing a barely legal loophole sure
The problem with that "strategic timing" is that you're willing to fuck plenty of people over (by not letting the policy take effect earlier) in order to get your own personal benefit. And that, sir, is fucking contemptible.
Unless you view having Democrats in power as fucking people over and fucking the country over. At which point having anything help them would make you a rotten human being out to destroy the country. Which, shocker, is what most conservatives believe.
Bear in mind that, before Clinton's presidency, in virtually every single goddamn Congress the majority would work with the minority, and vice versa. Because governing the country is more important than gaining points, even if you don't agree with a lot of what's being done.
The problem with that "strategic timing" is that you're willing to fuck plenty of people over (by not letting the policy take effect earlier) in order to get your own personal benefit. And that, sir, is fucking contemptible.
Unless you view having Democrats in power as fucking people over and fucking the country over. At which point having anything help them would make you a rotten human being out to destroy the country. Which, shocker, is what most conservatives believe.
Thats not whats being discussed, but rather the Republicans tendancy to delay legislation they actually like in hopes of not giving Obama a victory. See: Health care aid for 9/11 rescuers.
In fairness, a lot of that was the rabid, unreasoning Republican hatred for raising taxes on anything in any way anywhere. Which apparently can't be sacrificed even to pay the medical bills of heroes.
if by raise taxes you mean closing a barely legal loophole sure
Yes, that is what I mean, because that's the way they view it. Every single alteration to the IRS' revenue that does not result in the top bracket paying less is a job-killing tax hike.
The problem with that "strategic timing" is that you're willing to fuck plenty of people over (by not letting the policy take effect earlier) in order to get your own personal benefit. And that, sir, is fucking contemptible.
Unless you view having Democrats in power as fucking people over and fucking the country over. At which point having anything help them would make you a rotten human being out to destroy the country. Which, shocker, is what most conservatives believe.
Bear in mind that, before Clinton's presidency, in virtually every single goddamn Congress the majority would work with the minority, and vice versa. Because governing the country is more important than gaining points, even if you don't agree with a lot of what's being done.
And I agree that governing the country is more important than gaining points. Which is why I've ranted and attacked political party purists, ideologues, ect in just about every single thread here.
But my personal opinion doesn't matter here. What does matter is that the base of both parties is completely convinced that the other party is out to run everything into the ground.
And judging by the remarks entered into the Congressional record, the Democratic base is correct and the Republican base is not. During the debate on the bill to pay for 9/11 responders' health care, as mentioned earlier, one gentleman said, (paraphrased) "They didn't go into those towers to raise taxes!" He, and more than a hundred of his colleagues, was unwilling to close a loophole that allowed corporations to avoid paying taxes on some overseas income and use that tax revenue to pay the medical bills of the people who were first on the scene to help the victims of the collapse of the Twin Towers. Can you find anything comparable on the left?
The difference is that the republicans currently see running the country into the ground as a personal victory, because they would rather run on "Obama hasn't cleaned up the mess yet!" as opposed to running on their own strengths.
The problem with that "strategic timing" is that you're willing to fuck plenty of people over (by not letting the policy take effect earlier) in order to get your own personal benefit. And that, sir, is fucking contemptible.
It's a balancing act. If giving the Democrats a victory, and thereby letting them retain power, is worse for the country in the long-term, it makes sense to prevent them from claiming that victory, despite the pain it might cause in the short-term.
You're acting like each bill exists in a vacuum, and needs to be judged solely on its own merits. But that totally ignores the big picture. No one's talking about actively undermining the country here.
Of course, the number of bills that really fall into the category of "Republicans support the substantive bill, but don't want to give the Dems a victory" is pretty small. Support for most bills these days breaks down heavily among party lines. It wasn't like Republicans were in favor of the healthcare reform bill but voted against it to screw over the Democrats. They voted against it because they thought it was a bad idea.
Modern Man on
Aetian Jupiter - 41 Gunslinger - The Old Republic
Rigorous Scholarship
The problem with that "strategic timing" is that you're willing to fuck plenty of people over (by not letting the policy take effect earlier) in order to get your own personal benefit. And that, sir, is fucking contemptible.
It's a balancing act. If giving the Democrats a victory, and thereby letting them retain power, is worse for the country in the long-term, it makes sense to prevent them from claiming that victory, despite the pain it might cause in the short-term.
And yet, in the past, the minority regularly worked with the majority, regardless of which party held the majority, because they were responsible adults and not petulant children. In 1957, William Knowland didn't stick his tongue out at Lyndon Johnson on civil rights legislation so that Republicans might retake the Senate. The final product was crappy, but not because people were adopting your strategy.
The problem with that "strategic timing" is that you're willing to fuck plenty of people over (by not letting the policy take effect earlier) in order to get your own personal benefit. And that, sir, is fucking contemptible.
It's a balancing act. If giving the Democrats a victory, and thereby letting them retain power, is worse for the country in the long-term, it makes sense to prevent them from claiming that victory, despite the pain it might cause in the short-term.
You're acting like each bill exists in a vacuum, and needs to be judged solely on its own merits. But that totally ignores the big picture. No one's talking about actively undermining the country here.
Of course, the number of bills that really fall into the category of "Republicans support the substantive bill, but don't want to give the Dems a victory" is pretty small. Support for most bills these days breaks down heavily among party lines. It wasn't like Republicans were in favor of the healthcare reform bill but voted against it to screw over the Democrats. They voted against it because they thought it was a bad idea.
Then why do they vote against and oppose measures that they themselves propose in the first place? Like the amendments to Healthcare Reform or extending the Bush tax cuts or Small Business tax credits?
Why introduce the legislation now rather than wait until you're in power again?
The problem with that "strategic timing" is that you're willing to fuck plenty of people over (by not letting the policy take effect earlier) in order to get your own personal benefit. And that, sir, is fucking contemptible.
It's a balancing act. If giving the Democrats a victory, and thereby letting them retain power, is worse for the country in the long-term, it makes sense to prevent them from claiming that victory, despite the pain it might cause in the short-term.
You're acting like each bill exists in a vacuum, and needs to be judged solely on its own merits. But that totally ignores the big picture. No one's talking about actively undermining the country here.
Of course, the number of bills that really fall into the category of "Republicans support the substantive bill, but don't want to give the Dems a victory" is pretty small. Support for most bills these days breaks down heavily among party lines. It wasn't like Republicans were in favor of the healthcare reform bill but voted against it to screw over the Democrats. They voted against it because they thought it was a bad idea.
Then why do they vote against and oppose measures that they themselves propose in the first place? Like the amendments to Healthcare Reform or extending the Bush tax cuts or Small Business tax credits?
Why introduce the legislation now rather than wait until you're in power again?
Because prolonging our hardships is a wonderful political tool to be used in the advancement of their quest for personal power.
The problem with that "strategic timing" is that you're willing to fuck plenty of people over (by not letting the policy take effect earlier) in order to get your own personal benefit. And that, sir, is fucking contemptible.
It's a balancing act. If giving the Democrats a victory, and thereby letting them retain power, is worse for the country in the long-term, it makes sense to prevent them from claiming that victory, despite the pain it might cause in the short-term.
And yet, in the past, the minority regularly worked with the majority, regardless of which party held the majority, because they were responsible adults and not petulant children. In 1957, William Knowland didn't stick his tongue out at Lyndon Johnson on civil rights legislation so that Republicans might retake the Senate. The final product was crappy, but not because people were adopting your strategy.
Politics were different in the past, I suppose.
And, for a long time, the GOP didn't have much of a shot of taking control of Congress, so they had to compromise if they wanted to get anything. But that's not the case today. With Congress swinging back and forth fairly regularly, everyone gets a shot at running things. So, each party can afford to be difficult when it is not in power.
Modern Man on
Aetian Jupiter - 41 Gunslinger - The Old Republic
Rigorous Scholarship
Historically (recently or ever) have the Democrats thrown up anything resembling this size a stink during a Republican held House/Senate?
I've only paid closer attention to US politics over the past decade or so, but disagreements aside I don't recall anything like this during the Bush years when the Dem's weren't holding both as they had recently.
Forar on
First they came for the Muslims, and we said NOT TODAY, MOTHERFUCKER!
Historically (recently or ever) have the Democrats thrown up anything resembling this size a stink during a Republican held House/Senate?
I've only paid closer attention to US politics over the past decade or so, but disagreements aside I don't recall anything like this during the Bush years when the Dem's weren't holding both as they had recently.
Historically (recently or ever) have the Democrats thrown up anything resembling this size a stink during a Republican held House/Senate?
I've only paid closer attention to US politics over the past decade or so, but disagreements aside I don't recall anything like this during the Bush years when the Dem's weren't holding both as they had recently.
Nope, this is new, but so are ideologically consistent political parties.
enlightenedbum on
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
Historically (recently or ever) have the Democrats thrown up anything resembling this size a stink during a Republican held House/Senate?
I've only paid closer attention to US politics over the past decade or so, but disagreements aside I don't recall anything like this during the Bush years when the Dem's weren't holding both as they had recently.
Nope, this is new, but so are ideologically consistent political parties.
The ideological consistency of the Democrats is questionable.
Also, I find this trend worrisome. "Just let things go to shit for a couple years so we can get in power and hope we're better at not letting things go to shit with the other party being giant assholes" seems like a bad way to run an apartment complex, let alone one of the most powerful nations in the world.
I have sincere doubts that the politicians involved are suffering nearly the same hardships as a lot of people whom their decisions affect are, which makes that viewpoint crass. "For the greater good!" is a lot easier to say when you're not as likely to be barely making ends meet.
Forar on
First they came for the Muslims, and we said NOT TODAY, MOTHERFUCKER!
The problem with that "strategic timing" is that you're willing to fuck plenty of people over (by not letting the policy take effect earlier) in order to get your own personal benefit. And that, sir, is fucking contemptible.
It's a balancing act. If giving the Democrats a victory, and thereby letting them retain power, is worse for the country in the long-term, it makes sense to prevent them from claiming that victory, despite the pain it might cause in the short-term.
And yet, in the past, the minority regularly worked with the majority, regardless of which party held the majority, because they were responsible adults and not petulant children. In 1957, William Knowland didn't stick his tongue out at Lyndon Johnson on civil rights legislation so that Republicans might retake the Senate. The final product was crappy, but not because people were adopting your strategy.
Politics were different in the past, I suppose.
And, for a long time, the GOP didn't have much of a shot of taking control of Congress, so they had to compromise if they wanted to get anything. But that's not the case today. With Congress swinging back and forth fairly regularly, everyone gets a shot at running things. So, each party can afford to be difficult when it is not in power.
Don't you see how this could be a terrible thing? Because if the minority party always is obstructing the majority party, then important legislation will never get passed, or be delayed so badly that the window of opportunity has closed.
Or, to make this more concrete: Let's say the Republicans gain a slight majority in both the House and Senate in November. The Democrats then proceed to block health aid to 9/11 rescuers because, guess what, things could swing back next election cycle and they want credit! But when things do swing around, the Republicans block it because, hey, the next election is coming around soon! And the delay drags on and on and on. Meanwhile, people are suffering needlessly.
It might seem like a reasonable political strategy, but as a method of governance, it is fucking ABYSMAL.
The problem with that "strategic timing" is that you're willing to fuck plenty of people over (by not letting the policy take effect earlier) in order to get your own personal benefit. And that, sir, is fucking contemptible.
It's a balancing act. If giving the Democrats a victory, and thereby letting them retain power, is worse for the country in the long-term, it makes sense to prevent them from claiming that victory, despite the pain it might cause in the short-term.
And yet, in the past, the minority regularly worked with the majority, regardless of which party held the majority, because they were responsible adults and not petulant children. In 1957, William Knowland didn't stick his tongue out at Lyndon Johnson on civil rights legislation so that Republicans might retake the Senate. The final product was crappy, but not because people were adopting your strategy.
Politics were different in the past, I suppose.
And, for a long time, the GOP didn't have much of a shot of taking control of Congress, so they had to compromise if they wanted to get anything. But that's not the case today.
Except that in 1957, there were 49 Democrats and 47 Republicans in the Senate. Yet, somehow, the Republicans worked with the Democrats, for the most part, instead of being obstructionist cockbags to try to gain at least one seat in the next election!
With Congress swinging back and forth fairly regularly, everyone gets a shot at running things. So, each party can afford to be difficult when it is not in power.
The problem with that "strategic timing" is that you're willing to fuck plenty of people over (by not letting the policy take effect earlier) in order to get your own personal benefit. And that, sir, is fucking contemptible.
It's a balancing act. If giving the Democrats a victory, and thereby letting them retain power, is worse for the country in the long-term, it makes sense to prevent them from claiming that victory, despite the pain it might cause in the short-term.
And yet, in the past, the minority regularly worked with the majority, regardless of which party held the majority, because they were responsible adults and not petulant children. In 1957, William Knowland didn't stick his tongue out at Lyndon Johnson on civil rights legislation so that Republicans might retake the Senate. The final product was crappy, but not because people were adopting your strategy.
Politics were different in the past, I suppose.
And, for a long time, the GOP didn't have much of a shot of taking control of Congress, so they had to compromise if they wanted to get anything. But that's not the case today. With Congress swinging back and forth fairly regularly, everyone gets a shot at running things. So, each party can afford to be difficult when it is not in power.
Don't you see how this could be a terrible thing? Because if the minority party always is obstructing the majority party, then important legislation will never get passed, or be delayed so badly that the window of opportunity has closed.
Or, to make this more concrete: Let's say the Republicans gain a slight majority in both the House and Senate in November. The Democrats then proceed to block health aid to 9/11 rescuers because, guess what, things could swing back next election cycle and they want credit! But when things do swing around, the Republicans block it because, hey, the next election is coming around soon! And the delay drags on and on and on. Meanwhile, people are suffering needlessly.
It might seem like a reasonable political strategy, but as a method of governance, it is fucking ABYSMAL.
It's a reasonable strategy to gain power, however, as a strategy to try to run a country, it's pretty fucking horrifying and disgusting
BECK: What the history books can't deny is just nine years later, in spite of all the country had been through, progressive presidents, Herbert Hoover, FDR, following Woodrow Wilson's progressive playbook of bloated government, massive spending and sky-high taxes, led to us back to the brink, the Great Depression.
And, by the way, in another undeniable example of progressive revisionist history, you, me, our kids, have all been taught that FDR's New Deal proved to be the salvation of America. Nothing could be further from the truth. The New Deal expanded government to levels approaching a dictatorship, taxes reached obscene levels and the era of government entitlement, many of which are still choking our economy today, was born.
The New Deal prolonged the Great Depression in America. As other countries around the world rebounded years earlier, America suffered through a full decade of hardship. And yet, surprisingly, unexplainably, it's that very solution that serves as the model for our leaders today as America once again suffers through a crisis brought on by progressive leadership.
The forgotten depression forgotten no more. To know where you are, you've got to know your history, where we've been.
Ummmm, isn't the "New Dealwas the savior, blah blah blah" the standard and not the revisionist history? That isn't even getting into how most of the shit he says is, if not untrue, ignores context.
Shockingly, Glenn Beck is full of shit about history!
Various countries around the world started to recover from the Great Depression at different times. In most countries of the world, recovery from the Great Depression began in 1933.[1] In the U.S., recovery began in the spring of 1933.[1] However, the U.S. did not return to 1929 GNP for over a decade and still had an unemployment rate of about 15% in 1940, albeit down from the high of 25% in 1933.
There is no consensus among economists regarding the motive force for the U.S. economic expansion that continued through most of the Roosevelt years (and the 1937 recession that interrupted it).
The common view among mainstream economists is that Roosevelt's New Deal policies either caused or accelerated the recovery, although his policies were never aggressive enough to bring the economy completely out of recession. Some economists have also called attention to the positive effects from expectations of reflation and rising nominal interest rates that Roosevelt's words and actions portended.[34][35] However, opposition from the new Conservative Coalition caused a rollback of the New Deal policies in early 1937, which caused a setback in the recovery.[36]
Economic studies have indicated that just as the downturn was spread worldwide by the rigidities of the Gold Standard, it was suspending gold convertibility (or devaluing the currency in gold terms) that did most to make recovery possible.[43][44] What policies countries followed after casting off the gold standard, and what results followed varied widely.
Every major currency left the gold standard during the Great Depression. Great Britain was the first to do so. Facing speculative attacks on the pound and depleting gold reserves, in September 1931 the Bank of England ceased exchanging pound notes for gold and the pound was floated on foreign exchange markets.
Great Britain, Japan, and the Scandinavian countries left the gold standard in 1931. Other countries, such as Italy and the U.S., remained on the gold standard into 1932 or 1933, while a few countries in the so-called "gold bloc", led by France and including Poland, Belgium and Switzerland, stayed on the standard until 1935–1936.
According to later analysis, the earliness with which a country left the gold standard reliably predicted its economic recovery. For example, Great Britain and Scandinavia, which left the gold standard in 1931, recovered much earlier than France and Belgium, which remained on gold much longer. Countries such as China, which had a silver standard, almost avoided the depression entirely. The connection between leaving the gold standard as a strong predictor of that country's severity of its depression and the length of time of its recovery has been shown to be consistent for dozens of countries, including developing countries. This partly explains why the experience and length of the depression differed between national economies.[45]
The common view among economic historians is that the Great Depression ended with the advent of World War II. Many economists believe that government spending on the war caused or at least accelerated recovery from the Great Depression. However, some consider that it did not play a very large role in the recovery, although it did help in reducing unemployment.[1][46][47]
The massive rearmament policies leading up to World War II helped stimulate the economies of Europe in 1937–39. By 1937, unemployment in Britain had fallen to 1.5 million. The mobilization of manpower following the outbreak of war in 1939 finally ended unemployment.[8]
America's entry into the war in 1941 finally eliminated the last effects from the Great Depression and brought the unemployment rate down below 10%.[48] In the U.S., massive war spending doubled economic growth rates, either masking the effects of the Depression or essentially ending the Depression. Businessmen ignored the mounting national debt and heavy new taxes, redoubling their efforts for greater output to take advantage of generous government contracts.
In other words, it isn't revisionist history. It is the standard history. That has been taught since forever. That doesn't mean it is true, but it does mean that it isn't some revisionist thing. Not that revisionism is necessarily bad.
That raises an interesting question, though. If Republicans control legislature, and Obama is in the white house, then to whom will the public assign the credit/blame for the economy?
That depends on who does a better job of shifting the blame to the other side, basically.
The GOP will probably have an advantage in 2010-2012 if Obama starts vetoing their proposed bills to fix the economy. It's not tough to sell a message of "the President killed all our plans to fix the economy and we're still in the shit as a result" if unemployment remains high and economic growth remains low. If the economy in 2012 is anywhere near as bad as it is now, will be packing up his things come January 2013.
But we're all just speculating at this point. A lot of things can happen before the 2012 election. As much as I'd love to see Obama out of office, I'd rather see the economy pick up before then. This recession is just brutal.
I think what's really telling is that the Democrats should be able to do that now, but are unable to. I liked Obama specifically for his willingness to compromise and build consensus, but goddamn the Dems are just taking a beating with no answer. Sometimes, it is appropriate to assign blame.
Edit:
I mean to say that the Republican minority is already "vetoing" Democratic recovery bills through their obstructionism. Will it really be that different for Republicans to assign blame?
Late to the party, but I'd like to add my voice to those who have said that modern man's political philosophy is crap.
Congress and the senate are supposed to assist the people that they represent, not hold fast to partisan ideology or strangle legislation that can help people who are suffering in the immediate. This is particularly galling when the republicans beat the 9/11 drum for all it was worth for 7 years to bull through any stupid power grab they could, but refuse to acknowledge that hey: towers coming down is gonna shit out a ton of dust, and that's liable to fuck up everything with lungs.
Posts
You were saying?
The ideal is a recovering economy come election time, but one where the perception of recovery is lagging.
Rigorous Scholarship
i'm sure the 9/11 workers dying of lung cancer will be ok with just waiting a while
Unless you view having Democrats in power as fucking people over and fucking the country over. At which point having anything help them would make you a rotten human being out to destroy the country. Which, shocker, is what most conservatives believe.
Does conservative have any other meaning at this point?
even if those dems are passing something you admit is good legislation?
no you just want the credit for it
In fairness, a lot of that was the rabid, unreasoning Republican hatred for raising taxes on anything in any way anywhere. Which apparently can't be sacrificed even to pay the medical bills of heroes.
if by raise taxes you mean closing a barely legal loophole sure
Bear in mind that, before Clinton's presidency, in virtually every single goddamn Congress the majority would work with the minority, and vice versa. Because governing the country is more important than gaining points, even if you don't agree with a lot of what's being done.
Yes, that is what I mean, because that's the way they view it. Every single alteration to the IRS' revenue that does not result in the top bracket paying less is a job-killing tax hike.
And I agree that governing the country is more important than gaining points. Which is why I've ranted and attacked political party purists, ideologues, ect in just about every single thread here.
But my personal opinion doesn't matter here. What does matter is that the base of both parties is completely convinced that the other party is out to run everything into the ground.
You're acting like each bill exists in a vacuum, and needs to be judged solely on its own merits. But that totally ignores the big picture. No one's talking about actively undermining the country here.
Of course, the number of bills that really fall into the category of "Republicans support the substantive bill, but don't want to give the Dems a victory" is pretty small. Support for most bills these days breaks down heavily among party lines. It wasn't like Republicans were in favor of the healthcare reform bill but voted against it to screw over the Democrats. They voted against it because they thought it was a bad idea.
Rigorous Scholarship
Yes. That would be the grown up thing to do.
Then why do they vote against and oppose measures that they themselves propose in the first place? Like the amendments to Healthcare Reform or extending the Bush tax cuts or Small Business tax credits?
Why introduce the legislation now rather than wait until you're in power again?
twitch.tv/Taramoor
@TaramoorPlays
Taramoor on Youtube
Because prolonging our hardships is a wonderful political tool to be used in the advancement of their quest for personal power.
And, for a long time, the GOP didn't have much of a shot of taking control of Congress, so they had to compromise if they wanted to get anything. But that's not the case today. With Congress swinging back and forth fairly regularly, everyone gets a shot at running things. So, each party can afford to be difficult when it is not in power.
Rigorous Scholarship
I've only paid closer attention to US politics over the past decade or so, but disagreements aside I don't recall anything like this during the Bush years when the Dem's weren't holding both as they had recently.
Nope, this level of blocking is entirely new.
Nope, this is new, but so are ideologically consistent political parties.
The ideological consistency of the Democrats is questionable.
I have sincere doubts that the politicians involved are suffering nearly the same hardships as a lot of people whom their decisions affect are, which makes that viewpoint crass. "For the greater good!" is a lot easier to say when you're not as likely to be barely making ends meet.
Don't you see how this could be a terrible thing? Because if the minority party always is obstructing the majority party, then important legislation will never get passed, or be delayed so badly that the window of opportunity has closed.
Or, to make this more concrete: Let's say the Republicans gain a slight majority in both the House and Senate in November. The Democrats then proceed to block health aid to 9/11 rescuers because, guess what, things could swing back next election cycle and they want credit! But when things do swing around, the Republicans block it because, hey, the next election is coming around soon! And the delay drags on and on and on. Meanwhile, people are suffering needlessly.
It might seem like a reasonable political strategy, but as a method of governance, it is fucking ABYSMAL.
It's a reasonable strategy to gain power, however, as a strategy to try to run a country, it's pretty fucking horrifying and disgusting
I hate that man so much.
so much.
I think what's really telling is that the Democrats should be able to do that now, but are unable to. I liked Obama specifically for his willingness to compromise and build consensus, but goddamn the Dems are just taking a beating with no answer. Sometimes, it is appropriate to assign blame.
Edit:
I mean to say that the Republican minority is already "vetoing" Democratic recovery bills through their obstructionism. Will it really be that different for Republicans to assign blame?
So if I hand out signs at his rallies that say "Glenn Beck is the new Gold Standard", I could get rich AND be ironic?
twitch.tv/Taramoor
@TaramoorPlays
Taramoor on Youtube
Congress and the senate are supposed to assist the people that they represent, not hold fast to partisan ideology or strangle legislation that can help people who are suffering in the immediate. This is particularly galling when the republicans beat the 9/11 drum for all it was worth for 7 years to bull through any stupid power grab they could, but refuse to acknowledge that hey: towers coming down is gonna shit out a ton of dust, and that's liable to fuck up everything with lungs.
In media, I thought being a gold standard was a good thing. Like Walter Cronkite was the gold standard for integrity.