|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On July 17 2014 14:05 coverpunch wrote:Show nested quote +On July 17 2014 07:22 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 17 2014 06:58 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Senate Republicans voted to block legislation on Wednesday to overturn the Supreme Court's Hobby Lobby ruling and restore the legal right under Obamacare to cost-free contraceptive coverage for most female workers.
The procedural vote was 56 for, and 43 against, falling short of the needed 60 to defeat a filibuster. Three Republicans voted with Democrats on the bill: Sens. Susan Collins (ME), Mark Kirk (IL) and Lisa Murkowski (AK). Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) switched his vote to no at the end to reserve his right to bring up the bill again.
The bill, offered by Sen. Patty Murray (D-WA) and Mark Udall (D-CO), would narrow the Supreme Court's interpretation of the 1993 Religious Freedom Restoration Act and forbid employer-based insurance plans from opting out of providing health services required by federal law. Democrats call it the "Not My Boss's Business Act."
The partisan divide in the Senate largely reflected the partisan divide in the Supreme Court, where 5 Republican-appointed justices ruled in favor of Hobby Lobby, while 4 Democratic-appointed justices ruled against the Oklahoma-based retain chain's request for an exemption to the law on religious grounds.
The GOP filibuster prevents the legislation from coming up for an up-or-down vote. It clarifies the contrast between the two parties on the issue ahead of the 2014 midterm elections. Democrats are betting that the effort will mobilize their base, particularly single women who tend to vote less often in midterms.
Afterward, Reid promised he'd bring up the bill again for a vote this year. Source It's great how we have just accepted that 60 is the new 51 in the senate. These filibusters have gone way past reasonable. But you're okay with the political posturing, that Democrats knew Republicans would filibuster but made them do it anyways just so it might piss off some single women enough to vote? The last three sentences make it pretty clear this wasn't a sincere effort, just a move to score some talking points.
Calling a vote so the other side has to go on the record for it is pretty different than threatening to filibuster practically everything the other side does.
They shouldn't get away with these fake filibusters at all really. If they are demanding that discussion continue they should have to sit there and discuss it. When everyone is out of crap to say then hold the damn votes. Preventing voting from happening on practically everything you can, in order to prevent losing the votes, is about as childish as it gets. (I'm talking about the general constant nature not the most recent incident)
|
On July 17 2014 10:37 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On July 17 2014 05:22 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On July 16 2014 10:03 IgnE wrote:On July 16 2014 08:48 Danglars wrote:Rick Santelli on another epic rant, both sides captured on the nature of the fed and fed policy. I'll pull out some quotes, but the exchanges in context really get to the heart of the debate. It was supposed to be a nudger. Now it's embedded in a political, social type of financial engineering, not the least of which you would never go to an accountant on a personal level that treated your money in this kind of group feel-good setting.[...]
You don't have to worry. Those young demographics don't have money, they don't have jobs, they're living in their parent's basement ... and less than half of americans' own stock portfolios, so who exactly are we helping here? .... and you think easy money's gonna make them better educated to get a job?[...]
... because If I'm a bank, why would I lend to some person in a sub risk-reward rate just because the government subsidizes it so they can do it?
[on capital investment] The capital will come out if it can get a decent return
>>Decent return has very little to do with the cost of money, just a little bit ....
And Janet Yellen's personal feelings about social banking policy do [have something to do with the cost of money]?
No, [the Fed wasn't] created to be a feel-good institution.
I want the fed to be a banker, a banker, tweak rates a little up and down. I'm only quoting a few of the gems in there too. Behind all this consensus and popular wisdom on the fed pumping is the rarely made point: Would we be in the middle of a strong recovery without all these billions 'printed?' What are the net outcomes shifting wealth into the hands of stock-owners, boosting their assets? Should the fed even be playing social/financial engineer and not a banker's role? I honestly expected more of the inequality trumpeters to be on this, but sadly it seems that any kind of artificial wealth creation gets their nod. The obvious answer is that there is no recovery, man. It doesn't exist. American household wealth for the bottom 90% is below what it was in 1983. Source. That's right, the bottom 90% of households have less wealth than they did 30 years ago. The housing market "recovery" is a farce, as the bottom 90% of the housing market is below 2007 prices, while the very top of the housing market accounts for all of the supposed gains in the last 5 years. Stocks and asset prices are making a recovery, but that's because the only place left for investment dollars to go is into speculation. American, and world, demand has been saturated, which is what you would expect to happen when the vast majority of people in the country have lost wealth, while the top decile or the top 1% have accumulated more wealth to use in purely speculative or extractive investments. There's nowhere to go from here. The capital can't come out because there is nowhere for the capital to find a return. Nothing you've written here makes sense. First, according to your source median wealth is down, but the 90th percentile shows strong gains (as does the 75th percentile). So when you say "90% of households have less wealth than they did 30 years ago" that's false. The housing market recovery is about housing construction, not prices. Also, higher housing prices are not strictly a good thing. Higher prices are good if you're a seller and bad if you're a buyer. I wouldn't consider having more housing wealth to be particularly beneficial anyhow. Demand 'saturation' has little to do with wealth levels. Yes there is a wealth effect, but I wouldn't over-hype it. Not sure where you're getting the idea that capital has nowhere to go. Global GDP growth has been strong. Domestically there are a lot of opportunities out there, but we seem to still be suffering from economic PTSD - for one reason or another everything is 'too risky'. My bad. The bottom 90% has less than it did in 2003 ten years ago. I thought the table summarized the data back to 1983. The rest of your points are just a jonny-spin on what I said that amounts to nothing. In particular you are making a point about housing prices that is not relevant, and then tack on "I wouldn't consider having more housing wealth to be particularly beneficial anyhow." It's unclear what that even means in relation to the discussion. Sub 3% global GDP is pretty sick jonny. How could I be so wrong about the lack of growth opportunities?
What are you going to do with your housing wealth? Sell your house and buy a nice vacation? Housing wealth has limited relevance since housing is as much a consumption good as it is a store of wealth. Because of that, high house prices are not a given virtue. It relates to the discussion because you complained about housing prices not rising for the lower end of the market.
Also, the IMF is expecting something like 3.6% global growth for 2014 (link), and that isn't bad!
![[image loading]](http://www.worldeconomics.com/Images/CMS/LoadedContent/Papers/WE/7c66ffca-ff86-4e4c-979d-7c5d7a22ef21_201405_C02.jpg)
Source
Yes it's not as good in the rich world, but I don't think the idea that there are no investment opportunities carries much merit.
|
On July 17 2014 10:33 Adreme wrote:Show nested quote +On July 17 2014 08:53 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On July 17 2014 08:41 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 17 2014 08:04 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On July 17 2014 07:32 Simberto wrote:
Yeah, it seems exceedingly weird that you would need a 60% majority for any change of law. Especially in a two party system, that is pretty absurd. Does anything ever get done?
Here in germany, and i think in most other countries, you need >50% for normal laws, and a 2/3 majority only for changes to the constitution. Parties generally don't vote in unison and a 60% majority is only needed if one side really doesn't like the legislation (threatens filibuster). Or if the goal is just to obstruct regardless of results, which has been the standard since Obama was elected. I think we agree that the regular evoking of the 60 vote requirement is an irregularity unique to Obama's presidency. While I'm sure some of it can be explained away as legitimate opposition, significant portions were completely fruitless and totally wasteful (along with plenty of other not-nice adjectives). It became really common after the 2010 election, for sure. While I agree that it's gone too far, I do think Obama reached too far while Dems controlled Congress and some of the opposition is deserved. It had nothing to do with what Obama did. They had a meeting after the election and agreed they would oppose every single thing he did and then they did it. It didn't matter whose idea it was or if they previously supported it but if he put his name on it they would say no and do everything they can to fight it.
I disagree with that. If it was just a matter of a large number of people irrationally hating Obama he would have never been elected in the first place (let alone a second time). In Obama's first two years he did a lot, and a lot of that really irritated a lot of people leading to Reps taking the house in 2010.
|
On July 17 2014 14:33 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On July 17 2014 10:37 IgnE wrote:On July 17 2014 05:22 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On July 16 2014 10:03 IgnE wrote:On July 16 2014 08:48 Danglars wrote:Rick Santelli on another epic rant, both sides captured on the nature of the fed and fed policy. I'll pull out some quotes, but the exchanges in context really get to the heart of the debate. It was supposed to be a nudger. Now it's embedded in a political, social type of financial engineering, not the least of which you would never go to an accountant on a personal level that treated your money in this kind of group feel-good setting.[...]
You don't have to worry. Those young demographics don't have money, they don't have jobs, they're living in their parent's basement ... and less than half of americans' own stock portfolios, so who exactly are we helping here? .... and you think easy money's gonna make them better educated to get a job?[...]
... because If I'm a bank, why would I lend to some person in a sub risk-reward rate just because the government subsidizes it so they can do it?
[on capital investment] The capital will come out if it can get a decent return
>>Decent return has very little to do with the cost of money, just a little bit ....
And Janet Yellen's personal feelings about social banking policy do [have something to do with the cost of money]?
No, [the Fed wasn't] created to be a feel-good institution.
I want the fed to be a banker, a banker, tweak rates a little up and down. I'm only quoting a few of the gems in there too. Behind all this consensus and popular wisdom on the fed pumping is the rarely made point: Would we be in the middle of a strong recovery without all these billions 'printed?' What are the net outcomes shifting wealth into the hands of stock-owners, boosting their assets? Should the fed even be playing social/financial engineer and not a banker's role? I honestly expected more of the inequality trumpeters to be on this, but sadly it seems that any kind of artificial wealth creation gets their nod. The obvious answer is that there is no recovery, man. It doesn't exist. American household wealth for the bottom 90% is below what it was in 1983. Source. That's right, the bottom 90% of households have less wealth than they did 30 years ago. The housing market "recovery" is a farce, as the bottom 90% of the housing market is below 2007 prices, while the very top of the housing market accounts for all of the supposed gains in the last 5 years. Stocks and asset prices are making a recovery, but that's because the only place left for investment dollars to go is into speculation. American, and world, demand has been saturated, which is what you would expect to happen when the vast majority of people in the country have lost wealth, while the top decile or the top 1% have accumulated more wealth to use in purely speculative or extractive investments. There's nowhere to go from here. The capital can't come out because there is nowhere for the capital to find a return. Nothing you've written here makes sense. First, according to your source median wealth is down, but the 90th percentile shows strong gains (as does the 75th percentile). So when you say "90% of households have less wealth than they did 30 years ago" that's false. The housing market recovery is about housing construction, not prices. Also, higher housing prices are not strictly a good thing. Higher prices are good if you're a seller and bad if you're a buyer. I wouldn't consider having more housing wealth to be particularly beneficial anyhow. Demand 'saturation' has little to do with wealth levels. Yes there is a wealth effect, but I wouldn't over-hype it. Not sure where you're getting the idea that capital has nowhere to go. Global GDP growth has been strong. Domestically there are a lot of opportunities out there, but we seem to still be suffering from economic PTSD - for one reason or another everything is 'too risky'. My bad. The bottom 90% has less than it did in 2003 ten years ago. I thought the table summarized the data back to 1983. The rest of your points are just a jonny-spin on what I said that amounts to nothing. In particular you are making a point about housing prices that is not relevant, and then tack on "I wouldn't consider having more housing wealth to be particularly beneficial anyhow." It's unclear what that even means in relation to the discussion. Sub 3% global GDP is pretty sick jonny. How could I be so wrong about the lack of growth opportunities? What are you going to do with your housing wealth? Sell your house and buy a nice vacation? Housing wealth has limited relevance since housing is as much a consumption good as it is a store of wealth. Because of that, high house prices are not a given virtue. It relates to the discussion because you complained about housing prices not rising for the lower end of the market. Also, the IMF is expecting something like 3.6% global growth for 2014 ( link), and that isn't bad! SourceYes it's not as good in the rich world, but I don't think the idea that there are no investment opportunities carries much merit.
So you are counting your chickens before they hatch? 2014 is half over. You can't claim GDP is growing and then point to expected growth. Talk to me in a couple months when they release the stats indicating that we've been in a recession since January. At best 0% growth for the year through the first 6 months.
So why should we care about house prices then? Here's some gems of yours from a while back:
This post linking to this blog which says
And an important point worth repeating every month: Housing is historically the best leading indicator for the economy, and this is one of the reasons I think The future's so bright, I gotta wear shades.
There are your repeated assertions that the new house inventory is too low and that we are under-investing in houses. Yet . . . prices aren't going up. How does supply and demand work again? Why might people not be investing more in housing? Lack of opportunities to make money?
"Recent bubble being an exception, house prices tend to move along with income." Post
"High commodity prices mean great investment potential in that space, and we're under-investing in housing now." Post
But here you are making an argument that housing prices don't matter and are therefore irrelevant to my larger argument. I don't follow your logic here. Are we supposed to ignore the housing market or is it a legitimate indicator of economic health?
|
On July 17 2014 14:39 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On July 17 2014 10:33 Adreme wrote:On July 17 2014 08:53 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On July 17 2014 08:41 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 17 2014 08:04 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On July 17 2014 07:32 Simberto wrote:
Yeah, it seems exceedingly weird that you would need a 60% majority for any change of law. Especially in a two party system, that is pretty absurd. Does anything ever get done?
Here in germany, and i think in most other countries, you need >50% for normal laws, and a 2/3 majority only for changes to the constitution. Parties generally don't vote in unison and a 60% majority is only needed if one side really doesn't like the legislation (threatens filibuster). Or if the goal is just to obstruct regardless of results, which has been the standard since Obama was elected. I think we agree that the regular evoking of the 60 vote requirement is an irregularity unique to Obama's presidency. While I'm sure some of it can be explained away as legitimate opposition, significant portions were completely fruitless and totally wasteful (along with plenty of other not-nice adjectives). It became really common after the 2010 election, for sure. While I agree that it's gone too far, I do think Obama reached too far while Dems controlled Congress and some of the opposition is deserved. It had nothing to do with what Obama did. They had a meeting after the election and agreed they would oppose every single thing he did and then they did it. It didn't matter whose idea it was or if they previously supported it but if he put his name on it they would say no and do everything they can to fight it. I disagree with that. If it was just a matter of a large number of people irrationally hating Obama he would have never been elected in the first place (let alone a second time). In Obama's first two years he did a lot, and a lot of that really irritated a lot of people leading to Reps taking the house in 2010.
I don't even really know what that has to do with the constant filibustering, or it's abuse?
Just because sometimes the filibuster's coincidentally matched up with something they actually opposed, isn't fooling anyone into thinking they were going to not filibuster it anyway.
Republicans cheered as their candidates said they would refuse deals where they got 10 : 1... and people are supposed to take seriously the meme that they had any intention on any reasonable sort of compromise?
They have literally accomplished less than any congress in recent history, yet they say they are too busy to impeach Obama for his obvious impeachable offenses. Democrats do plenty of crappy political things but the most recent obstructionism/witch hunting is just pathetic.
|
On July 17 2014 14:18 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On July 17 2014 14:05 coverpunch wrote:On July 17 2014 07:22 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 17 2014 06:58 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Senate Republicans voted to block legislation on Wednesday to overturn the Supreme Court's Hobby Lobby ruling and restore the legal right under Obamacare to cost-free contraceptive coverage for most female workers.
The procedural vote was 56 for, and 43 against, falling short of the needed 60 to defeat a filibuster. Three Republicans voted with Democrats on the bill: Sens. Susan Collins (ME), Mark Kirk (IL) and Lisa Murkowski (AK). Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) switched his vote to no at the end to reserve his right to bring up the bill again.
The bill, offered by Sen. Patty Murray (D-WA) and Mark Udall (D-CO), would narrow the Supreme Court's interpretation of the 1993 Religious Freedom Restoration Act and forbid employer-based insurance plans from opting out of providing health services required by federal law. Democrats call it the "Not My Boss's Business Act."
The partisan divide in the Senate largely reflected the partisan divide in the Supreme Court, where 5 Republican-appointed justices ruled in favor of Hobby Lobby, while 4 Democratic-appointed justices ruled against the Oklahoma-based retain chain's request for an exemption to the law on religious grounds.
The GOP filibuster prevents the legislation from coming up for an up-or-down vote. It clarifies the contrast between the two parties on the issue ahead of the 2014 midterm elections. Democrats are betting that the effort will mobilize their base, particularly single women who tend to vote less often in midterms.
Afterward, Reid promised he'd bring up the bill again for a vote this year. Source It's great how we have just accepted that 60 is the new 51 in the senate. These filibusters have gone way past reasonable. But you're okay with the political posturing, that Democrats knew Republicans would filibuster but made them do it anyways just so it might piss off some single women enough to vote? The last three sentences make it pretty clear this wasn't a sincere effort, just a move to score some talking points. Calling a vote so the other side has to go on the record for it is pretty different than threatening to filibuster practically everything the other side does. They shouldn't get away with these fake filibusters at all really. If they are demanding that discussion continue they should have to sit there and discuss it. When everyone is out of crap to say then hold the damn votes. Preventing voting from happening on practically everything you can, in order to prevent losing the votes, is about as childish as it gets. (I'm talking about the general constant nature not the most recent incident)
I think you're getting into some dicey territory by generalizing filibusters as "fake". Some number of them may be a sincere feeling that Republicans don't believe the Democrats have taken their objections into account or they have not been willing to compromise to make a deal. Of course some are politics, avoiding putting their name to a straight up or down vote or being scared that a policy they don't like will pass, which you might or might not support.
And it is an interesting development of politics that a mere threat of filibuster has usually been enough to defeat a bill, that the majority party won't even try if they don't have the votes. This seems to be a rare instance where the Democrats actually made them vote it away, which is why I think they're playing politics here, not the Republicans (along with the three Republicans who voted for cloture). Note the GOP still doesn't have to actually do a filibuster and talk all night, they just vote and it's over.
|
They really need to stop letting threat of a filibuster stop things; require ACTUAL filibusters. Dems were really dumb to not at least force that.
I'd also add the rule that filibusters need to be on topic.
|
So basically, you have a political system where you have two parties. None of these parties can ever realistically get more than a slight majority. And to get anything done, you need a 60% majority. So it is basically irrelevant what you vote for, since to get anything done both parties need to agree on it anyways?
And just because in the past parties sometimes didn't use all the powers they had doesn't mean that this system is not fundamentally broken. A 60% majority could work in a multiparty system, though i still think it has a very high chance of just grinding to a standstill. In a two party system it is just pointless. A working political system needs some way to make sure it stays operational. In your case, it seems to have been some sort of gentlemans agreement "Yeah, we could block everything you do, but we are not going to" which then obviously stopped at some point.
|
On July 17 2014 16:18 zlefin wrote:
They really need to stop letting threat of a filibuster stop things; require ACTUAL filibusters. Dems were really dumb to not at least force that.
I'd also add the rule that filibusters need to be on topic.
But that's work. God forbid anyone in Washington actually has to try to get shit done.
Less facetiously, this is a game and both sides know how to play. Sooner or later, Democrats will be the minority and they'll want to filibuster too, and Republicans will let things go if Democrats just raise the threat. Especially for something like this, which everyone knows is just political posturing to energize the base. Some powerful Democrats are hoping their female constituents get angry that the bill was filibustered and vote in larger numbers. Some powerful Republicans are hoping their religious constituents are outraged that the bill was pushed forward and vote in larger numbers.
In short, it's good for incumbents on both sides. That's how the game works in midterm elections. Nobody, Democrat or Republican, wants to be the next Eric Cantor, and they should all be rightfully scared that it could happen.
|
On July 17 2014 20:37 coverpunch wrote:Show nested quote +On July 17 2014 16:18 zlefin wrote:
They really need to stop letting threat of a filibuster stop things; require ACTUAL filibusters. Dems were really dumb to not at least force that.
I'd also add the rule that filibusters need to be on topic. But that's work. God forbid anyone in Washington actually has to try to get shit done. Less facetiously, this is a game and both sides know how to play. Sooner or later, Democrats will be the minority and they'll want to filibuster too, and Republicans will let things go if Democrats just raise the threat. Especially for something like this, which everyone knows is just political posturing to energize the base. Some powerful Democrats are hoping their female constituents get angry that the bill was filibustered and vote in larger numbers. Some powerful Republicans are hoping their religious constituents are outraged that the bill was pushed forward and vote in larger numbers. In short, it's good for incumbents on both sides. That's how the game works in midterm elections. Nobody, Democrat or Republican, wants to be the next Eric Cantor, and they should all be rightfully scared that it could happen.
There are reasons no one has done this to this extent before. When people look at the history of the first black President it's not him who is going to look bad, it's the guys constantly complaining about how he's doing his job while they accomplish practically nothing, measuring their success by how much they can prevent him from accomplishing. Setting out before he does anything to focus more on removing him than doing anything for the country.
|
On July 17 2014 22:05 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On July 17 2014 20:37 coverpunch wrote:On July 17 2014 16:18 zlefin wrote:
They really need to stop letting threat of a filibuster stop things; require ACTUAL filibusters. Dems were really dumb to not at least force that.
I'd also add the rule that filibusters need to be on topic. But that's work. God forbid anyone in Washington actually has to try to get shit done. Less facetiously, this is a game and both sides know how to play. Sooner or later, Democrats will be the minority and they'll want to filibuster too, and Republicans will let things go if Democrats just raise the threat. Especially for something like this, which everyone knows is just political posturing to energize the base. Some powerful Democrats are hoping their female constituents get angry that the bill was filibustered and vote in larger numbers. Some powerful Republicans are hoping their religious constituents are outraged that the bill was pushed forward and vote in larger numbers. In short, it's good for incumbents on both sides. That's how the game works in midterm elections. Nobody, Democrat or Republican, wants to be the next Eric Cantor, and they should all be rightfully scared that it could happen. There are reasons no one has done this to this extent before. When people look at the history of the first black President it's not him who is going to look bad, it's the guys constantly complaining about how he's doing his job while they accomplish practically nothing, measuring their success by how much they can prevent him from accomplishing. Setting out before he does anything to focus more on removing him than doing anything for the country.
I think your understating the limited viewpoint of the average American and the enormous media bias, to Republicans it will all be Obama's fault and to Democrats it will all be Congress's fault and that situation is unlikely to change as time passes.
|
while there is quite a bit of foolishness and confirmation bias tainting the accuracy of people's views; there's still more than enough numbers and moderates to establish the truth.
And the approval ratings speak for themselves.
|
A defiant Todd Akin on Thursday conceded he “misspoke some words” regarding his infamous 2012 comments on rape, but cast blame on those in both parties for politicizing them.
In an interview on MSNBC, the 2012 Missouri Republican Senate nominee didn’t spare anyone criticism, calling out by name Bill and Hillary Clinton, the Democratic Party, Karl Rove, Senate Republican leadership and the political media.
“I misspoke some words,” Akin conceded to host Chuck Todd.
That’s as far as his remorse went, though, as the conservative firebrand continues his re-emergence to promote his new book and rail against the political establishment that largely abandoned him after his controversial comments.
On Thursday, Akin addressed his remarks right off the bat, saying “Legitimate rape is a law enforcement term, and it’s an abbreviation for legitimate case of rape. Do you know anybody who thinks rape is legitimate? That doesn’t even make sense. I know no conservatives who think rape is legitimate,” he said.
Source
|
On July 17 2014 23:16 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On July 17 2014 22:05 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 17 2014 20:37 coverpunch wrote:On July 17 2014 16:18 zlefin wrote:
They really need to stop letting threat of a filibuster stop things; require ACTUAL filibusters. Dems were really dumb to not at least force that.
I'd also add the rule that filibusters need to be on topic. But that's work. God forbid anyone in Washington actually has to try to get shit done. Less facetiously, this is a game and both sides know how to play. Sooner or later, Democrats will be the minority and they'll want to filibuster too, and Republicans will let things go if Democrats just raise the threat. Especially for something like this, which everyone knows is just political posturing to energize the base. Some powerful Democrats are hoping their female constituents get angry that the bill was filibustered and vote in larger numbers. Some powerful Republicans are hoping their religious constituents are outraged that the bill was pushed forward and vote in larger numbers. In short, it's good for incumbents on both sides. That's how the game works in midterm elections. Nobody, Democrat or Republican, wants to be the next Eric Cantor, and they should all be rightfully scared that it could happen. There are reasons no one has done this to this extent before. When people look at the history of the first black President it's not him who is going to look bad, it's the guys constantly complaining about how he's doing his job while they accomplish practically nothing, measuring their success by how much they can prevent him from accomplishing. Setting out before he does anything to focus more on removing him than doing anything for the country. I think your understating the limited viewpoint of the average American and the enormous media bias, to Republicans it will all be Obama's fault and to Democrats it will all be Congress's fault and that situation is unlikely to change as time passes.
The media bias is overstated. It's largely a construct of the conservative media. The truth is something very specific has changed in the Republican party that has caused this government standstill. Recent redistricting combined with a surge in right wing populism (a surge that has very much to do with Obama's race) has made it so the moderate wing of the republican party has lost much of its influence. Obstructionism is only the policy of the relative extremes, but the relative extremes have taken over the Republican party. If you lived here, it's pretty clear this is not partisan politics as usual. This is very much the Republican's fault and has little to do with anything Obama has actually done (other than get elected). Your implication that there is equal blame to be given to both Congress and Obama is just wrong. It's mostly Congress. That's the broad viewpoint.
|
On July 18 2014 00:11 sc2isnotdying wrote:Show nested quote +On July 17 2014 23:16 Gorsameth wrote:On July 17 2014 22:05 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 17 2014 20:37 coverpunch wrote:On July 17 2014 16:18 zlefin wrote:
They really need to stop letting threat of a filibuster stop things; require ACTUAL filibusters. Dems were really dumb to not at least force that.
I'd also add the rule that filibusters need to be on topic. But that's work. God forbid anyone in Washington actually has to try to get shit done. Less facetiously, this is a game and both sides know how to play. Sooner or later, Democrats will be the minority and they'll want to filibuster too, and Republicans will let things go if Democrats just raise the threat. Especially for something like this, which everyone knows is just political posturing to energize the base. Some powerful Democrats are hoping their female constituents get angry that the bill was filibustered and vote in larger numbers. Some powerful Republicans are hoping their religious constituents are outraged that the bill was pushed forward and vote in larger numbers. In short, it's good for incumbents on both sides. That's how the game works in midterm elections. Nobody, Democrat or Republican, wants to be the next Eric Cantor, and they should all be rightfully scared that it could happen. There are reasons no one has done this to this extent before. When people look at the history of the first black President it's not him who is going to look bad, it's the guys constantly complaining about how he's doing his job while they accomplish practically nothing, measuring their success by how much they can prevent him from accomplishing. Setting out before he does anything to focus more on removing him than doing anything for the country. I think your understating the limited viewpoint of the average American and the enormous media bias, to Republicans it will all be Obama's fault and to Democrats it will all be Congress's fault and that situation is unlikely to change as time passes. The media bias is overstated. It's largely a construct of the conservative media. The truth is something very specific has changed in the Republican party that has caused this government standstill. Recent redistricting combined with a surge in right wing populism (a surge that has very much to do with Obama's race) has made it so the moderate wing of the republican party has lost much of its influence. Obstructionism is only the policy of the relative extremes, but the relative extremes have taken over the Republican party. If you lived here, it's pretty clear this is not partisan politics as usual. This is very much the Republican's fault and has little to do with anything Obama has actually done (other than get elected). Your implication that there is equal blame to be given to both Congress and Obama is just wrong. It's mostly Congress. That's the broad viewpoint.
The narrative that Obama bares no blame for the current state of affairs in domestic politics is ridiculous. He's the most politically inept leader that we've ever had. All he can do is campaign. When it comes to actual governance, he has accomplished nothing. He has gone out of his way to marginalize and alienate republicans when he very easily could have co-opted a huge chunk of the republican establishment by letting them draft his major legislation, such as Obamacare. All one has to do to see that Obama shares a large portion of the blame domestically is look at his impotence in foreign affairs where he basically has plenary authority to conduct foreign policy. Good luck arguing that Obama has strengthened relations with more countries than those that he has weakened. Obama has had an abysmal presidency will be remembered less fondly than even Carter.
|
On July 18 2014 00:32 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On July 18 2014 00:11 sc2isnotdying wrote:On July 17 2014 23:16 Gorsameth wrote:On July 17 2014 22:05 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 17 2014 20:37 coverpunch wrote:On July 17 2014 16:18 zlefin wrote:
They really need to stop letting threat of a filibuster stop things; require ACTUAL filibusters. Dems were really dumb to not at least force that.
I'd also add the rule that filibusters need to be on topic. But that's work. God forbid anyone in Washington actually has to try to get shit done. Less facetiously, this is a game and both sides know how to play. Sooner or later, Democrats will be the minority and they'll want to filibuster too, and Republicans will let things go if Democrats just raise the threat. Especially for something like this, which everyone knows is just political posturing to energize the base. Some powerful Democrats are hoping their female constituents get angry that the bill was filibustered and vote in larger numbers. Some powerful Republicans are hoping their religious constituents are outraged that the bill was pushed forward and vote in larger numbers. In short, it's good for incumbents on both sides. That's how the game works in midterm elections. Nobody, Democrat or Republican, wants to be the next Eric Cantor, and they should all be rightfully scared that it could happen. There are reasons no one has done this to this extent before. When people look at the history of the first black President it's not him who is going to look bad, it's the guys constantly complaining about how he's doing his job while they accomplish practically nothing, measuring their success by how much they can prevent him from accomplishing. Setting out before he does anything to focus more on removing him than doing anything for the country. I think your understating the limited viewpoint of the average American and the enormous media bias, to Republicans it will all be Obama's fault and to Democrats it will all be Congress's fault and that situation is unlikely to change as time passes. The media bias is overstated. It's largely a construct of the conservative media. The truth is something very specific has changed in the Republican party that has caused this government standstill. Recent redistricting combined with a surge in right wing populism (a surge that has very much to do with Obama's race) has made it so the moderate wing of the republican party has lost much of its influence. Obstructionism is only the policy of the relative extremes, but the relative extremes have taken over the Republican party. If you lived here, it's pretty clear this is not partisan politics as usual. This is very much the Republican's fault and has little to do with anything Obama has actually done (other than get elected). Your implication that there is equal blame to be given to both Congress and Obama is just wrong. It's mostly Congress. That's the broad viewpoint. The narrative that Obama bares no blame for the current state of affairs in domestic politics is ridiculous. He's the most politically inept leader that we've ever had. All he can do is campaign. When it comes to actual governance, he has accomplished nothing. He has gone out of his way to marginalize and alienate republicans when he very easily could have co-opted a huge chunk of the republican establishment by letting them draft his major legislation, such as Obamacare. All one has to do to see that Obama shares a large portion of the blame domestically is look at his impotence in foreign affairs where he basically has plenary authority to conduct foreign policy. Good luck arguing that Obama has strengthened relations with more countries than those that he has weakened. Obama has had an abysmal presidency will be remembered less fondly than even Carter.
Luckily, the annals of history aren't written solely by hawkish conservatives who were oh so certain that Romney had the election clinched. That Republicans would have worked alongside Obama in the creation of Obamacare is pure delusion.
|
On July 18 2014 00:32 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On July 18 2014 00:11 sc2isnotdying wrote:On July 17 2014 23:16 Gorsameth wrote:On July 17 2014 22:05 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 17 2014 20:37 coverpunch wrote:On July 17 2014 16:18 zlefin wrote:
They really need to stop letting threat of a filibuster stop things; require ACTUAL filibusters. Dems were really dumb to not at least force that.
I'd also add the rule that filibusters need to be on topic. But that's work. God forbid anyone in Washington actually has to try to get shit done. Less facetiously, this is a game and both sides know how to play. Sooner or later, Democrats will be the minority and they'll want to filibuster too, and Republicans will let things go if Democrats just raise the threat. Especially for something like this, which everyone knows is just political posturing to energize the base. Some powerful Democrats are hoping their female constituents get angry that the bill was filibustered and vote in larger numbers. Some powerful Republicans are hoping their religious constituents are outraged that the bill was pushed forward and vote in larger numbers. In short, it's good for incumbents on both sides. That's how the game works in midterm elections. Nobody, Democrat or Republican, wants to be the next Eric Cantor, and they should all be rightfully scared that it could happen. There are reasons no one has done this to this extent before. When people look at the history of the first black President it's not him who is going to look bad, it's the guys constantly complaining about how he's doing his job while they accomplish practically nothing, measuring their success by how much they can prevent him from accomplishing. Setting out before he does anything to focus more on removing him than doing anything for the country. I think your understating the limited viewpoint of the average American and the enormous media bias, to Republicans it will all be Obama's fault and to Democrats it will all be Congress's fault and that situation is unlikely to change as time passes. The media bias is overstated. It's largely a construct of the conservative media. The truth is something very specific has changed in the Republican party that has caused this government standstill. Recent redistricting combined with a surge in right wing populism (a surge that has very much to do with Obama's race) has made it so the moderate wing of the republican party has lost much of its influence. Obstructionism is only the policy of the relative extremes, but the relative extremes have taken over the Republican party. If you lived here, it's pretty clear this is not partisan politics as usual. This is very much the Republican's fault and has little to do with anything Obama has actually done (other than get elected). Your implication that there is equal blame to be given to both Congress and Obama is just wrong. It's mostly Congress. That's the broad viewpoint. The narrative that Obama bares no blame for the current state of affairs in domestic politics is ridiculous. He's the most politically inept leader that we've ever had. All he can do is campaign. When it comes to actual governance, he has accomplished nothing. He has gone out of his way to marginalize and alienate republicans when he very easily could have co-opted a huge chunk of the republican establishment by letting them draft his major legislation, such as Obamacare. All one has to do to see that Obama shares a large portion of the blame domestically is look at his impotence in foreign affairs where he basically has plenary authority to conduct foreign policy. Good luck arguing that Obama has strengthened relations with more countries than those that he has weakened. Obama has had an abysmal presidency will be remembered less fondly than even Carter.
Wait, then why are Republicans so upset about his executive actions?
|
Some few million people have healthcare now which is at least something I guess. At least it's better then starting two wars and being unable to spell the word nuclear
|
On July 18 2014 00:32 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On July 18 2014 00:11 sc2isnotdying wrote:On July 17 2014 23:16 Gorsameth wrote:On July 17 2014 22:05 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 17 2014 20:37 coverpunch wrote:On July 17 2014 16:18 zlefin wrote:
They really need to stop letting threat of a filibuster stop things; require ACTUAL filibusters. Dems were really dumb to not at least force that.
I'd also add the rule that filibusters need to be on topic. But that's work. God forbid anyone in Washington actually has to try to get shit done. Less facetiously, this is a game and both sides know how to play. Sooner or later, Democrats will be the minority and they'll want to filibuster too, and Republicans will let things go if Democrats just raise the threat. Especially for something like this, which everyone knows is just political posturing to energize the base. Some powerful Democrats are hoping their female constituents get angry that the bill was filibustered and vote in larger numbers. Some powerful Republicans are hoping their religious constituents are outraged that the bill was pushed forward and vote in larger numbers. In short, it's good for incumbents on both sides. That's how the game works in midterm elections. Nobody, Democrat or Republican, wants to be the next Eric Cantor, and they should all be rightfully scared that it could happen. There are reasons no one has done this to this extent before. When people look at the history of the first black President it's not him who is going to look bad, it's the guys constantly complaining about how he's doing his job while they accomplish practically nothing, measuring their success by how much they can prevent him from accomplishing. Setting out before he does anything to focus more on removing him than doing anything for the country. I think your understating the limited viewpoint of the average American and the enormous media bias, to Republicans it will all be Obama's fault and to Democrats it will all be Congress's fault and that situation is unlikely to change as time passes. The media bias is overstated. It's largely a construct of the conservative media. The truth is something very specific has changed in the Republican party that has caused this government standstill. Recent redistricting combined with a surge in right wing populism (a surge that has very much to do with Obama's race) has made it so the moderate wing of the republican party has lost much of its influence. Obstructionism is only the policy of the relative extremes, but the relative extremes have taken over the Republican party. If you lived here, it's pretty clear this is not partisan politics as usual. This is very much the Republican's fault and has little to do with anything Obama has actually done (other than get elected). Your implication that there is equal blame to be given to both Congress and Obama is just wrong. It's mostly Congress. That's the broad viewpoint. The narrative that Obama bares no blame for the current state of affairs in domestic politics is ridiculous. He's the most politically inept leader that we've ever had. All he can do is campaign. When it comes to actual governance, he has accomplished nothing. He has gone out of his way to marginalize and alienate republicans when he very easily could have co-opted a huge chunk of the republican establishment by letting them draft his major legislation, such as Obamacare. All one has to do to see that Obama shares a large portion of the blame domestically is look at his impotence in foreign affairs where he basically has plenary authority to conduct foreign policy. Good luck arguing that Obama has strengthened relations with more countries than those that he has weakened. Obama has had an abysmal presidency will be remembered less fondly than even Carter.
I'm not here to defend Obama's every move. I'm merely pointing out that Republican electoral politics has shifted to the right. That's not a controversial statement. It's this shift which is responsible for the current policy of Republican obstructionism. You could argue that Obama's specific policies are directly responsible for this shift, but honestly that's pretty far-fetched. Voters tend not to pay that close attention. Anyways, I didn't say Obama bares no blame at all, that is indeed kind of ridiculous. I said he bares little blame in relation to Congress (and the redistricting that has made primaries more important than general elections). People with strong policy opinions tend to place far too much emphasis on policy. Electoral politics is far more dependent on rhetoric and demographics.
|
On July 18 2014 00:42 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On July 18 2014 00:32 xDaunt wrote:On July 18 2014 00:11 sc2isnotdying wrote:On July 17 2014 23:16 Gorsameth wrote:On July 17 2014 22:05 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 17 2014 20:37 coverpunch wrote:On July 17 2014 16:18 zlefin wrote:
They really need to stop letting threat of a filibuster stop things; require ACTUAL filibusters. Dems were really dumb to not at least force that.
I'd also add the rule that filibusters need to be on topic. But that's work. God forbid anyone in Washington actually has to try to get shit done. Less facetiously, this is a game and both sides know how to play. Sooner or later, Democrats will be the minority and they'll want to filibuster too, and Republicans will let things go if Democrats just raise the threat. Especially for something like this, which everyone knows is just political posturing to energize the base. Some powerful Democrats are hoping their female constituents get angry that the bill was filibustered and vote in larger numbers. Some powerful Republicans are hoping their religious constituents are outraged that the bill was pushed forward and vote in larger numbers. In short, it's good for incumbents on both sides. That's how the game works in midterm elections. Nobody, Democrat or Republican, wants to be the next Eric Cantor, and they should all be rightfully scared that it could happen. There are reasons no one has done this to this extent before. When people look at the history of the first black President it's not him who is going to look bad, it's the guys constantly complaining about how he's doing his job while they accomplish practically nothing, measuring their success by how much they can prevent him from accomplishing. Setting out before he does anything to focus more on removing him than doing anything for the country. I think your understating the limited viewpoint of the average American and the enormous media bias, to Republicans it will all be Obama's fault and to Democrats it will all be Congress's fault and that situation is unlikely to change as time passes. The media bias is overstated. It's largely a construct of the conservative media. The truth is something very specific has changed in the Republican party that has caused this government standstill. Recent redistricting combined with a surge in right wing populism (a surge that has very much to do with Obama's race) has made it so the moderate wing of the republican party has lost much of its influence. Obstructionism is only the policy of the relative extremes, but the relative extremes have taken over the Republican party. If you lived here, it's pretty clear this is not partisan politics as usual. This is very much the Republican's fault and has little to do with anything Obama has actually done (other than get elected). Your implication that there is equal blame to be given to both Congress and Obama is just wrong. It's mostly Congress. That's the broad viewpoint. The narrative that Obama bares no blame for the current state of affairs in domestic politics is ridiculous. He's the most politically inept leader that we've ever had. All he can do is campaign. When it comes to actual governance, he has accomplished nothing. He has gone out of his way to marginalize and alienate republicans when he very easily could have co-opted a huge chunk of the republican establishment by letting them draft his major legislation, such as Obamacare. All one has to do to see that Obama shares a large portion of the blame domestically is look at his impotence in foreign affairs where he basically has plenary authority to conduct foreign policy. Good luck arguing that Obama has strengthened relations with more countries than those that he has weakened. Obama has had an abysmal presidency will be remembered less fondly than even Carter. Luckily, the annals of history aren't written solely by hawkish conservatives who were oh so certain that Romney had the election clinched. That Republicans would have worked alongside Obama in the creation of Obamacare is pure delusion.
Ofc the republicans could have helped, but Obamacare would not have been so drastic, healthcare reform has been an issue for a long time. But 1 american soldier for 5 top terrorists is always a good trade, black hawk down, (leave no man behind.)
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
