|
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 September 30 2013 12:49 aksfjh wrote:Show nested quote +On September 30 2013 12:36 xDaunt wrote:On September 30 2013 12:27 aksfjh wrote:On September 30 2013 12:15 xDaunt wrote:On September 30 2013 11:39 aksfjh wrote:On September 30 2013 11:34 sc2superfan101 wrote:On September 30 2013 06:56 aksfjh wrote:On September 30 2013 05:48 sc2superfan101 wrote:On September 29 2013 14:24 aksfjh wrote:
superfan, no matter how much you type, all I see is some idiot that thinks the government being funded or debt ceiling being raised is the Democrat "ideal." Don't take what I say out of context. Having the government being funded is something both parties want. However, continuing the status quo is something the Democrats want. That is their ideal. The debt ceiling and the funding are cursory. Go read the Art of War and then look at what Cruz did again. He proved himself to be a master tactician. No, their ideal is a single payer healthcare system, Which Obamacare was designed to lead to. Hence, keeping the status quo would be the means to their end. Notice that most of this has been attempted through normal means, but has been blocked by the other party in the other house of Congress. The way Obamacare was passed was hardly "normal", and it was almost blocked despite them having heavy control of both houses. Also, it is the right and duty of the House of Representatives to be a check on the Senate and the President. The difference is that Democrats aren't throwing a fit and threatening to wreck people's lives and the economy to get their way. What do you call digging in your heels and refusing to compromise even slightly on a very unpopular bill while the country faces a defunded government and possibly a default? From the Republican point of view, it is the Democrats who are holding the country hostage. And it is their bill (Obamacare) that has already threatened people's lives and the economy. A bill, I should add, that is designed to fail. I'd call it a better move than taking the country into default or government shutdown out of spite. Where is it written that republicans are obliged to blindly fund the government for the democrats? Republicans are voted into office to, among other things, reduce government spending and eliminate Obamacare. They'd be idiots not to use this opportunity to get what their constituents want. The democrats are being ridiculous by refusing to even negotiate. It takes two sides to make a deal. Presuming that they are entitled to what they want with zero compromise is the height of arrogance, not that we should expect anything less from them after seeing what has happened over the past 4 years. It's written that Congress is obliged to provide funding for the government and its responsibilities, or did you miss that part in the Constitution. It's not the "Democrats' government," it's all of ours. Also, you don't negotiate with people that only have the power to destroy. That's all they (House Republicans) have been able to demonstrate since 2011. They sure as hell can't pass anything constructive between them, as seen by the vote on the funding bill earlier this month. As I have pointed out repeatedly before, Obama and the democrats poisoned the political well all the way back in 2009. Obama and the democrats have been horrific in their leadership capacities in terms of fostering any kind of negotiations with the opposition. Just compare the political climate now to what it was like during the Bush years. Show me Obama's equivalent of letting Ted Kennedy author No Child Left Behind. Not much else need to be said. Oh yea, I completely forgot that Obama pretty much screwed it up by not switching to Republican on his inauguration. Good point.
Don't be dense.
Just to put an exclamation point on what I am saying, here's the really sick joke of it all. Obama could have crushed the Republicans easily with just a few minor concessions. Hell, he can still do it now. The Republican Party is so fractured that Obama could rip it in half by dangling a few carrots in front of the moderates. Fortunately, he is too inept politically to do this, which makes it really easy for republicans to appear unified and tough on this budget impasse (and most other issues).
|
On September 30 2013 12:49 aksfjh wrote:Show nested quote +On September 30 2013 12:36 xDaunt wrote:On September 30 2013 12:27 aksfjh wrote:On September 30 2013 12:15 xDaunt wrote:On September 30 2013 11:39 aksfjh wrote:On September 30 2013 11:34 sc2superfan101 wrote:On September 30 2013 06:56 aksfjh wrote:On September 30 2013 05:48 sc2superfan101 wrote:On September 29 2013 14:24 aksfjh wrote:
superfan, no matter how much you type, all I see is some idiot that thinks the government being funded or debt ceiling being raised is the Democrat "ideal." Don't take what I say out of context. Having the government being funded is something both parties want. However, continuing the status quo is something the Democrats want. That is their ideal. The debt ceiling and the funding are cursory. Go read the Art of War and then look at what Cruz did again. He proved himself to be a master tactician. No, their ideal is a single payer healthcare system, Which Obamacare was designed to lead to. Hence, keeping the status quo would be the means to their end. Notice that most of this has been attempted through normal means, but has been blocked by the other party in the other house of Congress. The way Obamacare was passed was hardly "normal", and it was almost blocked despite them having heavy control of both houses. Also, it is the right and duty of the House of Representatives to be a check on the Senate and the President. The difference is that Democrats aren't throwing a fit and threatening to wreck people's lives and the economy to get their way. What do you call digging in your heels and refusing to compromise even slightly on a very unpopular bill while the country faces a defunded government and possibly a default? From the Republican point of view, it is the Democrats who are holding the country hostage. And it is their bill (Obamacare) that has already threatened people's lives and the economy. A bill, I should add, that is designed to fail. I'd call it a better move than taking the country into default or government shutdown out of spite. Where is it written that republicans are obliged to blindly fund the government for the democrats? Republicans are voted into office to, among other things, reduce government spending and eliminate Obamacare. They'd be idiots not to use this opportunity to get what their constituents want. The democrats are being ridiculous by refusing to even negotiate. It takes two sides to make a deal. Presuming that they are entitled to what they want with zero compromise is the height of arrogance, not that we should expect anything less from them after seeing what has happened over the past 4 years. It's written that Congress is obliged to provide funding for the government and its responsibilities, or did you miss that part in the Constitution. It's not the "Democrats' government," it's all of ours. Also, you don't negotiate with people that only have the power to destroy. That's all they (House Republicans) have been able to demonstrate since 2011. They sure as hell can't pass anything constructive between them, as seen by the vote on the funding bill earlier this month. As I have pointed out repeatedly before, Obama and the democrats poisoned the political well all the way back in 2009. Obama and the democrats have been horrific in their leadership capacities in terms of fostering any kind of negotiations with the opposition. Just compare the political climate now to what it was like during the Bush years. Show me Obama's equivalent of letting Ted Kennedy author No Child Left Behind. Not much else need to be said. Oh yea, I completely forgot that Obama pretty much screwed it up by not switching to Republican on his inauguration. Good point.
Well, if you try to ride roughshod over everyone on the opposition and make no attempt whatsoever to respect them or their position, then when they regain power they will have no interest in working with you. If Obama hadn't have acted like a tyrant during his first 2 years then it's very likely that Republicans would be way more willing to work with him.
It's hard for people who are left-leaning to see how completely arrogant Obama was during his first term because they were (and still are) too busy taking pleasure in the fact that Republicans got their faces ground into the dirt. However, if you look at dispassionately, you'll see how Obama, from day one, completely ignored anything Republicans had to say or any ideas that didn't 100% go along with his plan. He made no efforts to be conciliatory, made no effort to give concessions or to negotiate, and justified it all by saying that he had a mandate from the American people. Well... Republicans won big in 2010 and kept the House in 2012. By Obama's own logic, they have a mandate too.
Find me one issue where Obama actually reached across the aisle? And no, saying that he didn't go as far left as he wanted to due to political pressure from moderates in his own party and to pressure by the American people (the real reason single-payer didn't happen) does not count as being legitimately conciliatory. He basically told Republicans to become liberal Democrats or to shut up and be marginalized.
|
On September 30 2013 12:55 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On September 30 2013 12:49 aksfjh wrote:On September 30 2013 12:36 xDaunt wrote:On September 30 2013 12:27 aksfjh wrote:On September 30 2013 12:15 xDaunt wrote:On September 30 2013 11:39 aksfjh wrote:On September 30 2013 11:34 sc2superfan101 wrote:On September 30 2013 06:56 aksfjh wrote:On September 30 2013 05:48 sc2superfan101 wrote:On September 29 2013 14:24 aksfjh wrote:
superfan, no matter how much you type, all I see is some idiot that thinks the government being funded or debt ceiling being raised is the Democrat "ideal." Don't take what I say out of context. Having the government being funded is something both parties want. However, continuing the status quo is something the Democrats want. That is their ideal. The debt ceiling and the funding are cursory. Go read the Art of War and then look at what Cruz did again. He proved himself to be a master tactician. No, their ideal is a single payer healthcare system, Which Obamacare was designed to lead to. Hence, keeping the status quo would be the means to their end. Notice that most of this has been attempted through normal means, but has been blocked by the other party in the other house of Congress. The way Obamacare was passed was hardly "normal", and it was almost blocked despite them having heavy control of both houses. Also, it is the right and duty of the House of Representatives to be a check on the Senate and the President. The difference is that Democrats aren't throwing a fit and threatening to wreck people's lives and the economy to get their way. What do you call digging in your heels and refusing to compromise even slightly on a very unpopular bill while the country faces a defunded government and possibly a default? From the Republican point of view, it is the Democrats who are holding the country hostage. And it is their bill (Obamacare) that has already threatened people's lives and the economy. A bill, I should add, that is designed to fail. I'd call it a better move than taking the country into default or government shutdown out of spite. Where is it written that republicans are obliged to blindly fund the government for the democrats? Republicans are voted into office to, among other things, reduce government spending and eliminate Obamacare. They'd be idiots not to use this opportunity to get what their constituents want. The democrats are being ridiculous by refusing to even negotiate. It takes two sides to make a deal. Presuming that they are entitled to what they want with zero compromise is the height of arrogance, not that we should expect anything less from them after seeing what has happened over the past 4 years. It's written that Congress is obliged to provide funding for the government and its responsibilities, or did you miss that part in the Constitution. It's not the "Democrats' government," it's all of ours. Also, you don't negotiate with people that only have the power to destroy. That's all they (House Republicans) have been able to demonstrate since 2011. They sure as hell can't pass anything constructive between them, as seen by the vote on the funding bill earlier this month. As I have pointed out repeatedly before, Obama and the democrats poisoned the political well all the way back in 2009. Obama and the democrats have been horrific in their leadership capacities in terms of fostering any kind of negotiations with the opposition. Just compare the political climate now to what it was like during the Bush years. Show me Obama's equivalent of letting Ted Kennedy author No Child Left Behind. Not much else need to be said. Oh yea, I completely forgot that Obama pretty much screwed it up by not switching to Republican on his inauguration. Good point. Just to put an exclamation point on what I am saying, here's the really sick joke of it all. Obama could have crushed the Republicans easily with just a few minor concessions. Hell, he can still do it now. The Republican Party is so fractured that Obama could rip it in half by dangling a few carrots in front of the moderates.
This is so completely true that it's mind-boggling how he and the Democrats haven't done it. If he had at least given the appearance of being conciliatory then it is likely the Republicans would never have won the House in the first place. And now, if he had instructed the Senate to send back a real counter-proposal then Republicans would have caved and Cruz's strategy would have blown up in his face.
|
???
Obamacare is filled with republican proposals. The whole individual mandate was a conservative concession. The liberal policy is single payer.
Why the hell should Democrats have to always reach across the aisle? Republicans never fucking do. And why the hell should anyone be forced to reach across the aisle at the threat of wrecking the American economy? That's not politics. That's idiocy.
I don't know why I bother responding. The idea that Obama is no more liberal than centrist hasn't even penetrated that theocratic skull of yours.
|
On September 30 2013 12:36 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On September 30 2013 12:27 aksfjh wrote:On September 30 2013 12:15 xDaunt wrote:On September 30 2013 11:39 aksfjh wrote:On September 30 2013 11:34 sc2superfan101 wrote:On September 30 2013 06:56 aksfjh wrote:On September 30 2013 05:48 sc2superfan101 wrote:On September 29 2013 14:24 aksfjh wrote:
superfan, no matter how much you type, all I see is some idiot that thinks the government being funded or debt ceiling being raised is the Democrat "ideal." Don't take what I say out of context. Having the government being funded is something both parties want. However, continuing the status quo is something the Democrats want. That is their ideal. The debt ceiling and the funding are cursory. Go read the Art of War and then look at what Cruz did again. He proved himself to be a master tactician. No, their ideal is a single payer healthcare system, Which Obamacare was designed to lead to. Hence, keeping the status quo would be the means to their end. Notice that most of this has been attempted through normal means, but has been blocked by the other party in the other house of Congress. The way Obamacare was passed was hardly "normal", and it was almost blocked despite them having heavy control of both houses. Also, it is the right and duty of the House of Representatives to be a check on the Senate and the President. The difference is that Democrats aren't throwing a fit and threatening to wreck people's lives and the economy to get their way. What do you call digging in your heels and refusing to compromise even slightly on a very unpopular bill while the country faces a defunded government and possibly a default? From the Republican point of view, it is the Democrats who are holding the country hostage. And it is their bill (Obamacare) that has already threatened people's lives and the economy. A bill, I should add, that is designed to fail. I'd call it a better move than taking the country into default or government shutdown out of spite. Where is it written that republicans are obliged to blindly fund the government for the democrats? Republicans are voted into office to, among other things, reduce government spending and eliminate Obamacare. They'd be idiots not to use this opportunity to get what their constituents want. The democrats are being ridiculous by refusing to even negotiate. It takes two sides to make a deal. Presuming that they are entitled to what they want with zero compromise is the height of arrogance, not that we should expect anything less from them after seeing what has happened over the past 4 years. It's written that Congress is obliged to provide funding for the government and its responsibilities, or did you miss that part in the Constitution. It's not the "Democrats' government," it's all of ours. Also, you don't negotiate with people that only have the power to destroy. That's all they (House Republicans) have been able to demonstrate since 2011. They sure as hell can't pass anything constructive between them, as seen by the vote on the funding bill earlier this month. As I have pointed out repeatedly before, Obama and the democrats poisoned the political well all the way back in 2009. Obama and the democrats have been horrific in their leadership capacities in terms of fostering any kind of negotiations with the opposition. Just compare the political climate now to what it was like during the Bush years. Show me Obama's equivalent of letting Ted Kennedy author No Child Left Behind. Not much else need to be said.
I cant say this is the craziest statement in this thread because superfan keeps posting but this is pretty unhinged (hey superfan, the Democrats got a million+ more votes in the House of Reps in 2012, just because the Republicans were better at gerrymandering the electoral districts doesnt mean they represent the majority in any federally elected office)
The Obama equivalent of letting No Child Left Behind is taking Mitt Romney's/Heritage's healthcare plan and showing it down the throats of liberals who wanted a normal single payer system. Or the Obama equivalent is a 'Grand Bargain' with the Republicans in 2011 on keeping their tax cuts instead of letting them expire. Or the Obama equivalent is to continue the national security apparatus set up by the Bush admin.
The fact that you -- and the majority of the Republicans -- cant see that Obama has been running a moderate-center presidency speaks volumes of where Republicans define 'center'. And no, being right of Ronald Reagan is not it.
But you and superfan and the guy who is more worried that sometime in the future the federal courts will allow for fascism while being totally fine with oppression of minorities, women or gays on state levels because DEMOCRACY, keep talking in your echo chamber. At least its nice to known the White House and the Senate are a lock for the Democrats for at least another election cycle.
|
On September 30 2013 13:04 DoubleReed wrote:
???
Obamacare is filled with republican proposals. The whole individual mandate was a conservative concession. The liberal policy is single payer.
This is delusional. Obamacare was written by democrats and solely democrats. No republicans voted for it because they were frozen out of the process. Obamacare was framed on the Romney model with the individual mandate because democrats knew that their own moderates wouldn't go for single payer or a full-fledged public option. No republican considered the individual mandate to be a "concession" for their political benefit.
Why the hell should Democrats have to always reach across the aisle? Republicans never fucking do. And why the hell should anyone be forced to reach across the aisle at the threat of wrecking the American economy? That's not politics. That's idiocy.
I don't know why I bother responding. The idea that Obama is no more liberal than centrist hasn't even penetrated that theocratic skull of yours.
Please, not even the democratic party in its current state will go full blown socialist like you want it to. What you're asking for isn't even up for discussion in mainstream American politics.
And you are fucking nuts if you think that republicans never reach across the aisle. Go look at what happened during the Bush years, or even during the Clinton administration before that. There was plenty of real bipartisan negotiation on major pieces of legislation. That there hasn't been any during Obama's administration is a testament to how bad of a political leader Obama is. His political incompetence isn't just limited to fucking up American foreign policy.
|
On September 30 2013 13:04 DoubleReed wrote:
???
Obamacare is filled with republican proposals. The whole individual mandate was a conservative concession. The liberal policy is single payer.
Why the hell should Democrats have to always reach across the aisle? Republicans never fucking do. And why the hell should anyone be forced to reach across the aisle at the threat of wrecking the American economy? That's not politics. That's idiocy.
I don't know why I bother responding. The idea that Obama is no more liberal than centrist hasn't even penetrated that theocratic skull of yours.
See, the way xDaunt sees it, the individual mandate (and pretty much everything that made liberals dislike Obamacare) was just a cheap political ploy to make Republicans look foolish. It wasn't him reaching across the aisle, it was him goading them. By making it into law, it demonstrates the poor leadership skills of Obama for not actually forcing desired legislation on everybody.
Of course, sc2superfan is probably under the impression that Obamacare is everything Democrats wanted. Thus, they rammed it down the throats of Republicans who were standing up to the Tyrant Obama.
Never mind the ACTUAL story of events, where House Democrats wanted single payer and were willing to step over Republicans in the House to get it. However, since we have 2 houses of legislature, they bowed to the more compromising Senate.
|
On September 30 2013 13:04 DoubleReed wrote:
???
Obamacare is filled with republican proposals. The whole individual mandate was a conservative concession. The liberal policy is single payer.
Why the hell should Democrats have to always reach across the aisle? Republicans never fucking do. And why the hell should anyone be forced to reach across the aisle at the threat of wrecking the American economy? That's not politics. That's idiocy.
I don't know why I bother responding. The idea that Obama is no more liberal than centrist hasn't even penetrated that theocratic skull of yours.
Republicans asked for an individual mandate? I'm asking because it isn't a concession if it wasn't asked for or wanted by the opposition.
|
Have we already forgotten that Obamacare was passed in the House and Senate without a single republican vote? By definition, that means two things:
1) There were no concessions to republicans.
2) To whatever extent that liberal democrats didn't get what they wanted in Obamacare (ie single payer), that was a purely a consequence of dissension within the democrat party.
|
On September 30 2013 12:55 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On September 30 2013 12:49 aksfjh wrote:On September 30 2013 12:36 xDaunt wrote:On September 30 2013 12:27 aksfjh wrote:On September 30 2013 12:15 xDaunt wrote:On September 30 2013 11:39 aksfjh wrote:On September 30 2013 11:34 sc2superfan101 wrote:On September 30 2013 06:56 aksfjh wrote:On September 30 2013 05:48 sc2superfan101 wrote:On September 29 2013 14:24 aksfjh wrote:
superfan, no matter how much you type, all I see is some idiot that thinks the government being funded or debt ceiling being raised is the Democrat "ideal." Don't take what I say out of context. Having the government being funded is something both parties want. However, continuing the status quo is something the Democrats want. That is their ideal. The debt ceiling and the funding are cursory. Go read the Art of War and then look at what Cruz did again. He proved himself to be a master tactician. No, their ideal is a single payer healthcare system, Which Obamacare was designed to lead to. Hence, keeping the status quo would be the means to their end. Notice that most of this has been attempted through normal means, but has been blocked by the other party in the other house of Congress. The way Obamacare was passed was hardly "normal", and it was almost blocked despite them having heavy control of both houses. Also, it is the right and duty of the House of Representatives to be a check on the Senate and the President. The difference is that Democrats aren't throwing a fit and threatening to wreck people's lives and the economy to get their way. What do you call digging in your heels and refusing to compromise even slightly on a very unpopular bill while the country faces a defunded government and possibly a default? From the Republican point of view, it is the Democrats who are holding the country hostage. And it is their bill (Obamacare) that has already threatened people's lives and the economy. A bill, I should add, that is designed to fail. I'd call it a better move than taking the country into default or government shutdown out of spite. Where is it written that republicans are obliged to blindly fund the government for the democrats? Republicans are voted into office to, among other things, reduce government spending and eliminate Obamacare. They'd be idiots not to use this opportunity to get what their constituents want. The democrats are being ridiculous by refusing to even negotiate. It takes two sides to make a deal. Presuming that they are entitled to what they want with zero compromise is the height of arrogance, not that we should expect anything less from them after seeing what has happened over the past 4 years. It's written that Congress is obliged to provide funding for the government and its responsibilities, or did you miss that part in the Constitution. It's not the "Democrats' government," it's all of ours. Also, you don't negotiate with people that only have the power to destroy. That's all they (House Republicans) have been able to demonstrate since 2011. They sure as hell can't pass anything constructive between them, as seen by the vote on the funding bill earlier this month. As I have pointed out repeatedly before, Obama and the democrats poisoned the political well all the way back in 2009. Obama and the democrats have been horrific in their leadership capacities in terms of fostering any kind of negotiations with the opposition. Just compare the political climate now to what it was like during the Bush years. Show me Obama's equivalent of letting Ted Kennedy author No Child Left Behind. Not much else need to be said. Oh yea, I completely forgot that Obama pretty much screwed it up by not switching to Republican on his inauguration. Good point. Don't be dense. Just to put an exclamation point on what I am saying, here's the really sick joke of it all. Obama could have crushed the Republicans easily with just a few minor concessions. Hell, he can still do it now. The Republican Party is so fractured that Obama could rip it in half by dangling a few carrots in front of the moderates. Fortunately, he is too inept politically to do this, which makes it really easy for republicans to appear unified and tough on this budget impasse (and most other issues).
Inept or frenzied, you tell me. He has an easy road playing nice with the moderate Republican leadership and chooses partisanship instead. Boehner and McConnell would take terrible tradeoffs to appear bipartisan, and Boehner personally has engaged in many attacks against the right-wingers in his party, both personally and with his staff. Obama, previously with Pelosi, doubled down on PPACA and it went great politically until some of the economic overtones started surfacing. Crafted without Republicans, it's still being fought over without compromises to Republicans. For all their rhetoric about the GOP stick-in-the-muds, their behavior is the pot calling the kettle black.
I chuckle at the great multitude of historical revisionists in this thread. If Obama wanted to be a center-left politician like many who voted for him in 2008 believed, he should've spent the last 4 years behaving like a man of the center. His actions have shown him to be a resident of the left wing, as much as his speeches would try to prove otherwise.
|
On September 30 2013 13:19 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On September 30 2013 13:04 DoubleReed wrote:
???
Obamacare is filled with republican proposals. The whole individual mandate was a conservative concession. The liberal policy is single payer.
Why the hell should Democrats have to always reach across the aisle? Republicans never fucking do. And why the hell should anyone be forced to reach across the aisle at the threat of wrecking the American economy? That's not politics. That's idiocy.
I don't know why I bother responding. The idea that Obama is no more liberal than centrist hasn't even penetrated that theocratic skull of yours. Republicans asked for an individual mandate? I'm asking because it isn't a concession if it wasn't asked for or wanted by the opposition.
They asked for it back in the 1990s when Clinton tried to pass healthcare reform. You can argue that nobody asked for it in 2010, but to completely forget about the 90s is pretty disingenuous.
For example, if, in 4 years, Republicans control both branches of the government and throw in expanded background checks to ALL sales in legislation that increases gun/ammo accessibility, Democrats shouldn't be able to say that nothing was used to reach across the aisle in that situation.
|
I don't think anyone is stopping the GOP from proposing and introducing a bill to establish a single payer system. Except the remaining generation that tend to vote conservative, Generation X'ers and their parents who don't believe younger genersations deserve such "welfare". That and Socialism bla bla bla.
EDIT: Oh and the Lobbyists.
|
Canada11369 Posts
On September 30 2013 13:23 xDaunt wrote:
Have we already forgotten that Obamacare was passed in the House and Senate without a single republican vote? By definition, that means two things:
1) There were no concessions to republicans.
2) To whatever extent that liberal democrats didn't get what they wanted in Obamacare (ie single payer), that was a purely a consequence of dissension within the democrat party.
Or party politics and voting as a block has become much stronger over the years. In Canada a lot of votes are simply whipped votes. Majority government votes yes, opposition parties all vote no and the bill is passed. Four to five years later (less if it is a minority government) if Canadians think the government has done a poor job, they're turfed. Otherwise they're voted back in to rule. That was not always the case.
At Confederation, John A Macdonald talked about rounding up the fish- you couldn't count on your own party voting for your own bill, plus you needed to garner votes from the other side. For better or for worse that simply is not a fact of political life anymore as voting along party lines has become extremely important. (Now we do need to reform on how the Whip can control the Questions and we have some movement there, but that's another matter altogether.)
I understand the US system is supposed to prevent tyranny, but with stronger party politics it seems to prevent any sort of governing at all.
|
On September 30 2013 13:47 Falling wrote:Show nested quote +On September 30 2013 13:23 xDaunt wrote:
Have we already forgotten that Obamacare was passed in the House and Senate without a single republican vote? By definition, that means two things:
1) There were no concessions to republicans.
2) To whatever extent that liberal democrats didn't get what they wanted in Obamacare (ie single payer), that was a purely a consequence of dissension within the democrat party. Or party politics and voting as a block has become much stronger over the years. In Canada a lot of votes are simply whipped votes. Majority government votes yes, opposition parties all vote no and the bill is passed. Four to five years later (less if it is a minority government) if Canadians think the government has done a poor job, they're turfed. Otherwise they're voted back in to rule. That was not always the case. At Confederation, John A Macdonald talked about rounding up the fish- you couldn't count on your own party voting for your own bill, plus you needed to garner votes from the other side. For better or for worse that simply is not a fact of political life anymore as voting along party lines has become extremely important. (Now we do need to reform on how the Whip can control the Questions and we have some movement there, but that's another matter altogether.) I understand the US system is supposed to prevent tyranny, but with stronger party politics it seems to prevent any sort of governing at all.
It does if you actually compromise. Like the previous two administrations. I mean, both sides are polarized, at least within government. The Democrat party almost never breaks rank, and the conservatives (not necessarily the same as the Republicans) don't always make deals either. Mainly it's Democrats and moderate Republicans. I think Reagan was the last guy to really get a significant number of bipartisan votes. "Reagan Democrats" they were called.
|
On September 30 2013 13:23 xDaunt wrote:
Have we already forgotten that Obamacare was passed in the House and Senate without a single republican vote? By definition, that means two things:
1) There were no concessions to republicans.
2) To whatever extent that liberal democrats didn't get what they wanted in Obamacare (ie single payer), that was a purely a consequence of dissension within the democrat party.
What sort of things were republicans looking for? All I see them do is bitch and moan without proposing an alternative. The current system is expensive and ineffective. What is the republican replacement for the ACA?
|
On September 30 2013 13:47 Falling wrote:Show nested quote +On September 30 2013 13:23 xDaunt wrote:
Have we already forgotten that Obamacare was passed in the House and Senate without a single republican vote? By definition, that means two things:
1) There were no concessions to republicans.
2) To whatever extent that liberal democrats didn't get what they wanted in Obamacare (ie single payer), that was a purely a consequence of dissension within the democrat party. Or party politics and voting as a block has become much stronger over the years.
You can certainly add that as a third possibility. However, it doesn't change or exclude my original points. The Obama and the democrats had the votes in the house and senate to pass whatever bill that the democrat party could tolerate. Not one republican vote was needed. This is why it is so silly to frame the individual mandate or any other aspect of Obamacare as a "concession" to republicans. This is also why it is silly for democrats to blame anyone but themselves for not getting a more radical overhaul to health care. They got what their party would tolerate.
|
On September 30 2013 13:25 aksfjh wrote:Show nested quote +On September 30 2013 13:19 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On September 30 2013 13:04 DoubleReed wrote:
???
Obamacare is filled with republican proposals. The whole individual mandate was a conservative concession. The liberal policy is single payer.
Why the hell should Democrats have to always reach across the aisle? Republicans never fucking do. And why the hell should anyone be forced to reach across the aisle at the threat of wrecking the American economy? That's not politics. That's idiocy.
I don't know why I bother responding. The idea that Obama is no more liberal than centrist hasn't even penetrated that theocratic skull of yours. Republicans asked for an individual mandate? I'm asking because it isn't a concession if it wasn't asked for or wanted by the opposition. They asked for it back in the 1990s when Clinton tried to pass healthcare reform. You can argue that nobody asked for it in 2010, but to completely forget about the 90s is pretty disingenuous. For example, if, in 4 years, Republicans control both branches of the government and throw in expanded background checks to ALL sales in legislation that increases gun/ammo accessibility, Democrats shouldn't be able to say that nothing was used to reach across the aisle in that situation.
Well my understanding is that in the 90's the individual mandate wasn't something supported universally by Republicans / conservatives. Also, you can have different styles of mandates. IIRC Bush's proposed reforms offered a tax deduction for buying insurance, rather than a penalty for not buying (effectively similar, but the difference seems to matter to some).
I think your wording is fine - 'reaching across the aisle' - my issue was with calling it a concession.
Also, people can change their minds. Just because Dems supported DOMA back in the 90's doesn't mean they have to today.
|
On September 30 2013 13:52 SnipedSoul wrote:Show nested quote +On September 30 2013 13:23 xDaunt wrote:
Have we already forgotten that Obamacare was passed in the House and Senate without a single republican vote? By definition, that means two things:
1) There were no concessions to republicans.
2) To whatever extent that liberal democrats didn't get what they wanted in Obamacare (ie single payer), that was a purely a consequence of dissension within the democrat party. What sort of things were republicans looking for? All I see them do is bitch and moan without proposing an alternative. The current system is expensive and ineffective. What is the republican replacement for the ACA?
Just because you don't have a solution doesn't mean you pick at random. The democrats started by talking about single payer and then "backed off" to Obamacare. If you look at the way it passed it becomes clear that fixing the problem was not high on the list of priorities.
|
On September 30 2013 13:52 SnipedSoul wrote:Show nested quote +On September 30 2013 13:23 xDaunt wrote:
Have we already forgotten that Obamacare was passed in the House and Senate without a single republican vote? By definition, that means two things:
1) There were no concessions to republicans.
2) To whatever extent that liberal democrats didn't get what they wanted in Obamacare (ie single payer), that was a purely a consequence of dissension within the democrat party. What sort of things were republicans looking for? All I see them do is bitch and moan without proposing an alternative. The current system is expensive and ineffective. What is the republican replacement for the ACA?
Frankly, I don't even remember what the republicans wanted other than tort reform.
For my part, I'd provide a public option that has limited funding and only gives minimal coverage to everyone, which can be supplemented by purchasing optional, private plans.
|
Canada11369 Posts
On September 30 2013 13:51 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On September 30 2013 13:47 Falling wrote:On September 30 2013 13:23 xDaunt wrote:
Have we already forgotten that Obamacare was passed in the House and Senate without a single republican vote? By definition, that means two things:
1) There were no concessions to republicans.
2) To whatever extent that liberal democrats didn't get what they wanted in Obamacare (ie single payer), that was a purely a consequence of dissension within the democrat party. Or party politics and voting as a block has become much stronger over the years. In Canada a lot of votes are simply whipped votes. Majority government votes yes, opposition parties all vote no and the bill is passed. Four to five years later (less if it is a minority government) if Canadians think the government has done a poor job, they're turfed. Otherwise they're voted back in to rule. That was not always the case. At Confederation, John A Macdonald talked about rounding up the fish- you couldn't count on your own party voting for your own bill, plus you needed to garner votes from the other side. For better or for worse that simply is not a fact of political life anymore as voting along party lines has become extremely important. (Now we do need to reform on how the Whip can control the Questions and we have some movement there, but that's another matter altogether.) I understand the US system is supposed to prevent tyranny, but with stronger party politics it seems to prevent any sort of governing at all. It does if you actually compromise. Like the previous two administrations. I mean, both sides are polarized, at least within government. The Democrat party almost never breaks rank, and the conservatives (not necessarily the same as the Republicans) don't always make deals either. Mainly it's Democrats and moderate Republicans. I think Reagan was the last guy to really get a significant number of bipartisan votes. "Reagan Democrats" they were called.
That's the thing with party politics. The more it becomes entrenched, the less compromises with opposition work. To some extent anyways. You need to govern competently so that you can defend your actions come election time. But at least the government isn't threatening to shut down every couple of months or so. A little hard for government to do any sort of long term planning. If I understand you correctly, Bush & Clinton had some compromises, but you have to go back to the 80's to get real bi-partisan compromises? Sounds to me the party solidarity has grown in strength. No Clinton-Republicans, Bush-Democracts, and Obama-Republicans?
Of course minority governments are an entirely different matter, but you guys do not have to worry about that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
