|
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. |
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
On October 09 2013 07:58 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On October 09 2013 07:48 Souma wrote:On October 09 2013 07:31 xDaunt wrote:
I'll just throw out this challenge again: show me one instance where Obama invited republicans to author a signature piece of legislation like Bush did with No Child Left Behind or Clinton did with welfare reform. It just doesn't exist.
EDIT: Look, I'm not going to try to absolve republicans of all blame for the current political impasse in Washington. However, it is very obvious that Obama and the democrats bare significant responsibility for how dysfunctional the federal government is. What "signature" pieces of legislation has Obama passed aside from the ACA? He tried to make concessions on gun control and immigration reform, all of which Republicans shot down (even when bipartisan bills were in the works!). His only "signature" piece of legislation to date is the ACA, and I suppose you can argue the stimulus, on which he conceded by not going through with the full thing. Tax reform: Kept tax cuts for those making between 250K and 400K. Social security: Chained CPI. Just because Social Security needs fixing doesn't mean Democrats want chained CPI. That's the point. Obama hasn't been able to pass much in the way of signature legislation because he won't partner with republicans in drafting it. It's Obama's way or the highway. Bush NEVER did that with democrats. No president ever passed legislation like Obamacare on a strict, party line vote. Not Medicare. Not Medicaid. Not Social Security. Not Welfare Reform. The only exception is Obamacare. I've said it before and I'll say it again: Obama could absolutely devastate the Republicans politically and co-opt them by inviting the moderates to author some important legislation. It would be too easy. However, he won't do it because he's too much an ideologue and he is completely inept as a political leader. He has just one mode: demonize and destroy opposition. That's fine for campaigning, but it's not great for governing.
That's not true. Gun control and immigration reform had/have bipartisan parties drafting the bills. It was the Republican crazies who shot them all down.
|
For something a little different, here's a really well written piece on the Roberts Supreme Court and how it's brand of conservatism stands at a crossroads.
There can be no doubt that today’s Supreme Court is a confidently conservative institution. Last term it struck down a key provision of the fifty-year-old Voting Rights Act and reversed a lower-court decision upholding the University of Texas’s affirmative action plan. The term before, the Court came within a hair’s breadth of striking down the Affordable Care Act. And in 2010, in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, the Court reversed established precedent and rule that corporations have the right to spend unlimited amounts of money on political speech.
But eight years into Chief Justice John Roberts’ tenure, it still remains unclear just what kind of conservatives the Court’s majority justices are. The cases the Court will review in the 2013–2014 term, which begins this week, are likely to go some way toward answering this question. The Court has been invited to overrule precedents governing regulation of campaign finance, government support of religion, equal protection, abortion counseling, and the treaty power. In all of these cases, lawyers have argued that the Court can rule for them without questioning any prior precedent—what we might call conservatism with a lower-case “c.” But perhaps sensing a receptive audience, the lawyers in each case have also invited the Court to go further and overturn past precedents altogether—a dramatic step that would confirm a far more radical Court, or conservatism with a capital “C.”
The first of these bellwether cases, McCutcheon v. FEC, will be argued Tuesday. It challenges the constitutionality of longstanding federal limits on the total amount of money individuals can contribute to federal candidates and political action committees in a given year. The parties and several amici, including Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, have urged the Court to jettison the central rationale of the Court’s jurisprudence on campaign finance—the distinction between contributions and expenditures. In Buckley v. Valeo, decided in 1976, the Court found that Congress could not restrict independent expenditures on political speech, but allowed limits on direct contributions to a particular candidate or party. The Court reasoned that the First Amendment offers less protection for contributions than for independent spending, because contributions to candidates are effectively “speech by proxy” and have greater potential for corruption. The Buckley Court therefore upheld both ”base” limits on how much one can contribute to a given candidate, and an “aggregate” limit on the total contributions one can make in a given year. The aggregate limit, the Court reasoned, was warranted to deter circumvention of the base limits.
The line between expenditures and contributions has been under attack for years. Critics argue that people should be free to give money to their chosen candidate rather than spend it independently. And, they maintain, expenditures and contributions don’t carry significantly different risks for corruption. But while the Court has invalidated many restrictions on spending on political speech since Buckley, it has struck down contribution limits only once, in a case in which the limits in question were judged to be so low that they could undermine the effectiveness of campaign speech.
The plaintiffs in McCutcheon, the Court’s new case, challenge only “aggregate” limits. They argue that as long as a person abides by “base” limits on contributions, Congress has no legitimate interest in limiting how much money he or she contributes in toto to multiple candidates. And they argue that rules adopted since Buckley that limit the amounts that individuals can contribute to political action committees and that the committees can in turn contribute to candidates, largely eliminate the risk of circumvention that was cited in Buckley to justify the aggregate limit on individual donors.......
The Roberts Court: What Kind of Conservatives?
|
On October 09 2013 08:00 Souma wrote:Show nested quote +On October 09 2013 07:58 xDaunt wrote:On October 09 2013 07:48 Souma wrote:On October 09 2013 07:31 xDaunt wrote:
I'll just throw out this challenge again: show me one instance where Obama invited republicans to author a signature piece of legislation like Bush did with No Child Left Behind or Clinton did with welfare reform. It just doesn't exist.
EDIT: Look, I'm not going to try to absolve republicans of all blame for the current political impasse in Washington. However, it is very obvious that Obama and the democrats bare significant responsibility for how dysfunctional the federal government is. What "signature" pieces of legislation has Obama passed aside from the ACA? He tried to make concessions on gun control and immigration reform, all of which Republicans shot down (even when bipartisan bills were in the works!). His only "signature" piece of legislation to date is the ACA, and I suppose you can argue the stimulus, on which he conceded by not going through with the full thing. Tax reform: Kept tax cuts for those making between 250K and 400K. Social security: Chained CPI. Just because Social Security needs fixing doesn't mean Democrats want chained CPI. That's the point. Obama hasn't been able to pass much in the way of signature legislation because he won't partner with republicans in drafting it. It's Obama's way or the highway. Bush NEVER did that with democrats. No president ever passed legislation like Obamacare on a strict, party line vote. Not Medicare. Not Medicaid. Not Social Security. Not Welfare Reform. The only exception is Obamacare. I've said it before and I'll say it again: Obama could absolutely devastate the Republicans politically and co-opt them by inviting the moderates to author some important legislation. It would be too easy. However, he won't do it because he's too much an ideologue and he is completely inept as a political leader. He has just one mode: demonize and destroy opposition. That's fine for campaigning, but it's not great for governing. That's not true. Gun control and immigration reform had/have bipartisan parties drafting the bills. It was the Republican crazies who shot them all down.
Was there an immigration bill that republicans drafted that Obama supported? I don't seem to recall him or the democrats getting behind the Rubio bill.
EDIT: I'm leaving out gun control because 1) it's a small potatoes issue, and 2) it's one of those issues where there really isn't any room for compromise.
|
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
On October 09 2013 08:03 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On October 09 2013 08:00 Souma wrote:On October 09 2013 07:58 xDaunt wrote:On October 09 2013 07:48 Souma wrote:On October 09 2013 07:31 xDaunt wrote:
I'll just throw out this challenge again: show me one instance where Obama invited republicans to author a signature piece of legislation like Bush did with No Child Left Behind or Clinton did with welfare reform. It just doesn't exist.
EDIT: Look, I'm not going to try to absolve republicans of all blame for the current political impasse in Washington. However, it is very obvious that Obama and the democrats bare significant responsibility for how dysfunctional the federal government is. What "signature" pieces of legislation has Obama passed aside from the ACA? He tried to make concessions on gun control and immigration reform, all of which Republicans shot down (even when bipartisan bills were in the works!). His only "signature" piece of legislation to date is the ACA, and I suppose you can argue the stimulus, on which he conceded by not going through with the full thing. Tax reform: Kept tax cuts for those making between 250K and 400K. Social security: Chained CPI. Just because Social Security needs fixing doesn't mean Democrats want chained CPI. That's the point. Obama hasn't been able to pass much in the way of signature legislation because he won't partner with republicans in drafting it. It's Obama's way or the highway. Bush NEVER did that with democrats. No president ever passed legislation like Obamacare on a strict, party line vote. Not Medicare. Not Medicaid. Not Social Security. Not Welfare Reform. The only exception is Obamacare. I've said it before and I'll say it again: Obama could absolutely devastate the Republicans politically and co-opt them by inviting the moderates to author some important legislation. It would be too easy. However, he won't do it because he's too much an ideologue and he is completely inept as a political leader. He has just one mode: demonize and destroy opposition. That's fine for campaigning, but it's not great for governing. That's not true. Gun control and immigration reform had/have bipartisan parties drafting the bills. It was the Republican crazies who shot them all down. Was there an immigration bill that republicans drafted that Obama supported? I don't seem to recall him or the democrats getting behind the Rubio bill.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Border_Security,_Economic_Opportunity,_and_Immigration_Modernization_Act_of_2013
Rubio was a part of the Senate-passed comprehensive immigration reform bill.
|
http://www.whitehouse.gov/health-care-meeting/republican-ideas
"Throughout the debate on health insurance reform, Republican concepts and proposals have been included in legislation. In fact, hundreds of Republican amendments were adopted during the committee mark-up process. As a result, both the Senate and the House passed key Republican proposals that are incorporated into the President’s Proposal. "
Not to mention that most of the ideas behind the ACA were from Republican proposals a decade before.
|
On October 09 2013 08:08 Souma wrote:Show nested quote +On October 09 2013 08:03 xDaunt wrote:On October 09 2013 08:00 Souma wrote:On October 09 2013 07:58 xDaunt wrote:On October 09 2013 07:48 Souma wrote:On October 09 2013 07:31 xDaunt wrote:
I'll just throw out this challenge again: show me one instance where Obama invited republicans to author a signature piece of legislation like Bush did with No Child Left Behind or Clinton did with welfare reform. It just doesn't exist.
EDIT: Look, I'm not going to try to absolve republicans of all blame for the current political impasse in Washington. However, it is very obvious that Obama and the democrats bare significant responsibility for how dysfunctional the federal government is. What "signature" pieces of legislation has Obama passed aside from the ACA? He tried to make concessions on gun control and immigration reform, all of which Republicans shot down (even when bipartisan bills were in the works!). His only "signature" piece of legislation to date is the ACA, and I suppose you can argue the stimulus, on which he conceded by not going through with the full thing. Tax reform: Kept tax cuts for those making between 250K and 400K. Social security: Chained CPI. Just because Social Security needs fixing doesn't mean Democrats want chained CPI. That's the point. Obama hasn't been able to pass much in the way of signature legislation because he won't partner with republicans in drafting it. It's Obama's way or the highway. Bush NEVER did that with democrats. No president ever passed legislation like Obamacare on a strict, party line vote. Not Medicare. Not Medicaid. Not Social Security. Not Welfare Reform. The only exception is Obamacare. I've said it before and I'll say it again: Obama could absolutely devastate the Republicans politically and co-opt them by inviting the moderates to author some important legislation. It would be too easy. However, he won't do it because he's too much an ideologue and he is completely inept as a political leader. He has just one mode: demonize and destroy opposition. That's fine for campaigning, but it's not great for governing. That's not true. Gun control and immigration reform had/have bipartisan parties drafting the bills. It was the Republican crazies who shot them all down. Was there an immigration bill that republicans drafted that Obama supported? I don't seem to recall him or the democrats getting behind the Rubio bill. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Border_Security,_Economic_Opportunity,_and_Immigration_Modernization_Act_of_2013Rubio was a part of the Senate-passed comprehensive immigration reform bill.
I stand corrected. That definitely is a bipartisan bill.
|
President Barack Obama plans to announce his nomination of Federal Reserve Vice Chairwoman Janet Yellen for the central bank's leading role, the Wall Street Journal reported Tuesday.
Obama will be joined by Yellen and current Fed Chair Ben Bernanke for the announcement, which will occur at 3:00p.m. on Wednesday, a White House official told The Huffington Post.
If confirmed by the Senate, Yellen would be the first woman to serve as chair of the Federal Reserve, and would take over when Bernanke's term ends in January.
Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), who endorsed Yellen for the position last month, said he's confident about a Senate confirmation.
"She’s an excellent choice and I believe she’ll be confirmed by a wide margin," Schumer said in a statement.
Source
|
On October 09 2013 06:23 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On October 09 2013 06:13 Gorsameth wrote:On October 09 2013 06:03 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 09 2013 06:01 Lord Tolkien wrote:On October 09 2013 05:58 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 09 2013 05:42 Sub40APM wrote:On October 09 2013 05:37 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 09 2013 05:18 Gorsameth wrote:On October 09 2013 05:09 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 09 2013 04:51 Gorsameth wrote:
[quote]
Yes they said it and yes they might be lying but why does the American system have to be so damn difficult to get a bill up for voting in the first place? Why is the speaker the only person who can realistically bring a bill to vote?
Why cant the democrats propose the bill and call those Republicans to make there vote?
Why is your system designed to not follow a majority but require arbitrary restriction? And don't say it is to prevent abuse and time wasting because god knows there are to many ways to do that in the US congress already. Congress was designed to only do things that have a strong consensus around them. That way we don't pass sweeping legislation one year, and then try to change it back the next. Like we are now. Except that you also have the senate, the president and the supreme court around to keep things in check. This isn't about requiring a strong consensus . You could have all democrats and 49% republicans wanting something in the current house and you would be unable to bring it to a vote despite having a strong consensus. In theory, yes. In reality you rarely have a situation like that and (assuming this is something important) it would lead to a change in the next election unless the consensus shifts. since the Tea Party caucus is concentrated in the most gerrymandered districts thats impossible. Boehners need to preserve the appearance of Republic unity > American credit worthiness. Thats all this is. You can keep trying to pretend that the minority of a minority party holding hostage America's debt is a reasonable legislative maneuver all you want but it isnt. A few posts up says that a whopping 23 Reps are "willing" to vote for a clean CR. The vast majority of the majority party doesn't want it. In a public vote. Rep. King (R) stated that he was willing to bet a large majority (was it 150 or something?) would be willing to vote for one in an anonymous setting. Take his statement with a grain of salt, but I wouldn't be surprised at all. The majority of the Republican party is not economically suicidal. Sure, but there's a difference between wanting a clean CR and voting for one because there's a gun to your head. Who is holding the gun in the analogy? Both Reps and Dems. This is America, we all have guns  Seriously, both sides are forcing the other to accept something they don't want. If Reps don't give in and accept the ACA the economy explodes. If Dems don't give in and modify the ACA the economy explodes. Reps don't want to give in and accept the ACA, but they may anyways to prevent the economy from exploding. Similarly Dems don't want to change the ACA, but they may anyways to prevent the economy from exploding.
Seriously, Jonny? You're trying to paint both sides as equally responsible for the crisis again? Did our conversation never happen or something?
|
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
On October 09 2013 08:33 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On October 09 2013 08:08 Souma wrote:On October 09 2013 08:03 xDaunt wrote:On October 09 2013 08:00 Souma wrote:On October 09 2013 07:58 xDaunt wrote:On October 09 2013 07:48 Souma wrote:On October 09 2013 07:31 xDaunt wrote:
I'll just throw out this challenge again: show me one instance where Obama invited republicans to author a signature piece of legislation like Bush did with No Child Left Behind or Clinton did with welfare reform. It just doesn't exist.
EDIT: Look, I'm not going to try to absolve republicans of all blame for the current political impasse in Washington. However, it is very obvious that Obama and the democrats bare significant responsibility for how dysfunctional the federal government is. What "signature" pieces of legislation has Obama passed aside from the ACA? He tried to make concessions on gun control and immigration reform, all of which Republicans shot down (even when bipartisan bills were in the works!). His only "signature" piece of legislation to date is the ACA, and I suppose you can argue the stimulus, on which he conceded by not going through with the full thing. Tax reform: Kept tax cuts for those making between 250K and 400K. Social security: Chained CPI. Just because Social Security needs fixing doesn't mean Democrats want chained CPI. That's the point. Obama hasn't been able to pass much in the way of signature legislation because he won't partner with republicans in drafting it. It's Obama's way or the highway. Bush NEVER did that with democrats. No president ever passed legislation like Obamacare on a strict, party line vote. Not Medicare. Not Medicaid. Not Social Security. Not Welfare Reform. The only exception is Obamacare. I've said it before and I'll say it again: Obama could absolutely devastate the Republicans politically and co-opt them by inviting the moderates to author some important legislation. It would be too easy. However, he won't do it because he's too much an ideologue and he is completely inept as a political leader. He has just one mode: demonize and destroy opposition. That's fine for campaigning, but it's not great for governing. That's not true. Gun control and immigration reform had/have bipartisan parties drafting the bills. It was the Republican crazies who shot them all down. Was there an immigration bill that republicans drafted that Obama supported? I don't seem to recall him or the democrats getting behind the Rubio bill. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Border_Security,_Economic_Opportunity,_and_Immigration_Modernization_Act_of_2013Rubio was a part of the Senate-passed comprehensive immigration reform bill. I stand corrected. That definitely is a bipartisan bill.
Creepy.
|
The whole concept of Obamacare is that it's a free market alternative to single payer or public option systems, and the original proposal was made by the Heritage Foundation.
In general, Obama hasn't really played hardball whatosever, because of the consistent concessions he makes, under the assumption the Republicans will negotiate after he gives them what they want (for instance in the immigration arena, he agreed to ratchet up Bush-era border security before any form of desperately needed immigration reform [which remains elusive]).
I would consider national security issues relatively irrelevant to the conversation, given the "high" politic nature of such issues, but nonetheless Obama has more or less continued Bush-era securitization and foreign policy, albeit with a different tone/face. Not that I expected much, given how neorealist the US foreign policy institutions are, but eh.
|
On October 09 2013 08:03 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On October 09 2013 08:00 Souma wrote:On October 09 2013 07:58 xDaunt wrote:On October 09 2013 07:48 Souma wrote:On October 09 2013 07:31 xDaunt wrote:
I'll just throw out this challenge again: show me one instance where Obama invited republicans to author a signature piece of legislation like Bush did with No Child Left Behind or Clinton did with welfare reform. It just doesn't exist.
EDIT: Look, I'm not going to try to absolve republicans of all blame for the current political impasse in Washington. However, it is very obvious that Obama and the democrats bare significant responsibility for how dysfunctional the federal government is. What "signature" pieces of legislation has Obama passed aside from the ACA? He tried to make concessions on gun control and immigration reform, all of which Republicans shot down (even when bipartisan bills were in the works!). His only "signature" piece of legislation to date is the ACA, and I suppose you can argue the stimulus, on which he conceded by not going through with the full thing. Tax reform: Kept tax cuts for those making between 250K and 400K. Social security: Chained CPI. Just because Social Security needs fixing doesn't mean Democrats want chained CPI. That's the point. Obama hasn't been able to pass much in the way of signature legislation because he won't partner with republicans in drafting it. It's Obama's way or the highway. Bush NEVER did that with democrats. No president ever passed legislation like Obamacare on a strict, party line vote. Not Medicare. Not Medicaid. Not Social Security. Not Welfare Reform. The only exception is Obamacare. I've said it before and I'll say it again: Obama could absolutely devastate the Republicans politically and co-opt them by inviting the moderates to author some important legislation. It would be too easy. However, he won't do it because he's too much an ideologue and he is completely inept as a political leader. He has just one mode: demonize and destroy opposition. That's fine for campaigning, but it's not great for governing. That's not true. Gun control and immigration reform had/have bipartisan parties drafting the bills. It was the Republican crazies who shot them all down. Was there an immigration bill that republicans drafted that Obama supported? I don't seem to recall him or the democrats getting behind the Rubio bill. EDIT: I'm leaving out gun control because 1) it's a small potatoes issue, and 2) it's one of those issues where there really isn't any room for compromise.
That seems disingenuous to say there is no room for compromise on gun control... of course there is. You can control lots of things involving what is considered acceptable for firearms without banning guns.
|
On October 09 2013 09:56 Livelovedie wrote:Show nested quote +On October 09 2013 08:03 xDaunt wrote:On October 09 2013 08:00 Souma wrote:On October 09 2013 07:58 xDaunt wrote:On October 09 2013 07:48 Souma wrote:On October 09 2013 07:31 xDaunt wrote:
I'll just throw out this challenge again: show me one instance where Obama invited republicans to author a signature piece of legislation like Bush did with No Child Left Behind or Clinton did with welfare reform. It just doesn't exist.
EDIT: Look, I'm not going to try to absolve republicans of all blame for the current political impasse in Washington. However, it is very obvious that Obama and the democrats bare significant responsibility for how dysfunctional the federal government is. What "signature" pieces of legislation has Obama passed aside from the ACA? He tried to make concessions on gun control and immigration reform, all of which Republicans shot down (even when bipartisan bills were in the works!). His only "signature" piece of legislation to date is the ACA, and I suppose you can argue the stimulus, on which he conceded by not going through with the full thing. Tax reform: Kept tax cuts for those making between 250K and 400K. Social security: Chained CPI. Just because Social Security needs fixing doesn't mean Democrats want chained CPI. That's the point. Obama hasn't been able to pass much in the way of signature legislation because he won't partner with republicans in drafting it. It's Obama's way or the highway. Bush NEVER did that with democrats. No president ever passed legislation like Obamacare on a strict, party line vote. Not Medicare. Not Medicaid. Not Social Security. Not Welfare Reform. The only exception is Obamacare. I've said it before and I'll say it again: Obama could absolutely devastate the Republicans politically and co-opt them by inviting the moderates to author some important legislation. It would be too easy. However, he won't do it because he's too much an ideologue and he is completely inept as a political leader. He has just one mode: demonize and destroy opposition. That's fine for campaigning, but it's not great for governing. That's not true. Gun control and immigration reform had/have bipartisan parties drafting the bills. It was the Republican crazies who shot them all down. Was there an immigration bill that republicans drafted that Obama supported? I don't seem to recall him or the democrats getting behind the Rubio bill. EDIT: I'm leaving out gun control because 1) it's a small potatoes issue, and 2) it's one of those issues where there really isn't any room for compromise. That seems disingenuous to say there is no room for compromise on gun control... of course there is. You can control lots of things involving what is considered acceptable for firearms without banning guns.
Yeah it's preposterous!! Gun control highlights precisely what I've been saying.
Truth be damned
Anytime anything regarding even "small potatoes" Right wing wackadoos spread all sorts of propaganda and nonsense to try to shoot it down REGARDLESS of what the American people say
Americans support additional Background Checks
|
On October 09 2013 08:49 kwizach wrote:Show nested quote +On October 09 2013 06:23 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 09 2013 06:13 Gorsameth wrote:On October 09 2013 06:03 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 09 2013 06:01 Lord Tolkien wrote:On October 09 2013 05:58 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 09 2013 05:42 Sub40APM wrote:On October 09 2013 05:37 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 09 2013 05:18 Gorsameth wrote:On October 09 2013 05:09 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
[quote]
Congress was designed to only do things that have a strong consensus around them. That way we don't pass sweeping legislation one year, and then try to change it back the next. Like we are now. Except that you also have the senate, the president and the supreme court around to keep things in check. This isn't about requiring a strong consensus . You could have all democrats and 49% republicans wanting something in the current house and you would be unable to bring it to a vote despite having a strong consensus. In theory, yes. In reality you rarely have a situation like that and (assuming this is something important) it would lead to a change in the next election unless the consensus shifts. since the Tea Party caucus is concentrated in the most gerrymandered districts thats impossible. Boehners need to preserve the appearance of Republic unity > American credit worthiness. Thats all this is. You can keep trying to pretend that the minority of a minority party holding hostage America's debt is a reasonable legislative maneuver all you want but it isnt. A few posts up says that a whopping 23 Reps are "willing" to vote for a clean CR. The vast majority of the majority party doesn't want it. In a public vote. Rep. King (R) stated that he was willing to bet a large majority (was it 150 or something?) would be willing to vote for one in an anonymous setting. Take his statement with a grain of salt, but I wouldn't be surprised at all. The majority of the Republican party is not economically suicidal. Sure, but there's a difference between wanting a clean CR and voting for one because there's a gun to your head. Who is holding the gun in the analogy? Both Reps and Dems. This is America, we all have guns Seriously, both sides are forcing the other to accept something they don't want. If Reps don't give in and accept the ACA the economy explodes. If Dems don't give in and modify the ACA the economy explodes. Reps don't want to give in and accept the ACA, but they may anyways to prevent the economy from exploding. Similarly Dems don't want to change the ACA, but they may anyways to prevent the economy from exploding. Seriously, Jonny? You're trying to paint both sides as equally responsible for the crisis again? Did our conversation never happen or something?
The point wasn't "who is more or less responsible" the point was over what Republicans want vs what they are willing to vote for given the circumstances.
And yes, our conversation happened. Did you really want to continue it? You seemed to be stuck on the same points ad nauseam.
|
On October 09 2013 08:49 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Show nested quote +President Barack Obama plans to announce his nomination of Federal Reserve Vice Chairwoman Janet Yellen for the central bank's leading role, the Wall Street Journal reported Tuesday.
Obama will be joined by Yellen and current Fed Chair Ben Bernanke for the announcement, which will occur at 3:00p.m. on Wednesday, a White House official told The Huffington Post.
If confirmed by the Senate, Yellen would be the first woman to serve as chair of the Federal Reserve, and would take over when Bernanke's term ends in January.
Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), who endorsed Yellen for the position last month, said he's confident about a Senate confirmation.
"She’s an excellent choice and I believe she’ll be confirmed by a wide margin," Schumer said in a statement. Source
Great. And I'm not complaining if he's multitasking, but aren't there more important things for Obama to be dealing with right now?
|
On October 09 2013 07:58 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On October 09 2013 07:48 Souma wrote:On October 09 2013 07:31 xDaunt wrote:
I'll just throw out this challenge again: show me one instance where Obama invited republicans to author a signature piece of legislation like Bush did with No Child Left Behind or Clinton did with welfare reform. It just doesn't exist.
EDIT: Look, I'm not going to try to absolve republicans of all blame for the current political impasse in Washington. However, it is very obvious that Obama and the democrats bare significant responsibility for how dysfunctional the federal government is. What "signature" pieces of legislation has Obama passed aside from the ACA? He tried to make concessions on gun control and immigration reform, all of which Republicans shot down (even when bipartisan bills were in the works!). His only "signature" piece of legislation to date is the ACA, and I suppose you can argue the stimulus, on which he conceded by not going through with the full thing. Tax reform: Kept tax cuts for those making between 250K and 400K. Social security: Chained CPI. Just because Social Security needs fixing doesn't mean Democrats want chained CPI. That's the point. Obama hasn't been able to pass much in the way of signature legislation because he won't partner with republicans in drafting it. It's Obama's way or the highway. Bush NEVER did that with democrats. No president ever passed legislation like Obamacare on a strict, party line vote. Not Medicare. Not Medicaid. Not Social Security. Not Welfare Reform. The only exception is Obamacare. I've said it before and I'll say it again: Obama could absolutely devastate the Republicans politically and co-opt them by inviting the moderates to author some important legislation. It would be too easy. However, he won't do it because he's too much an ideologue and he is completely inept as a political leader. He has just one mode: demonize and destroy opposition. That's fine for campaigning, but it's not great for governing.
That's what I've been saying in my last couple of posts. The moderate wing has shown itself to be all too willing to give away the barn in negotiations. That wing has the numerical majority in both house and senate amongst Republicans. It also has the party leadership. I can't help but wonder why cooler heads in the Obama/Reid advising role haven't prevailed. It's only the clear game of chicken the props Republicans up for now. In the immigration bill passed by the Senate, there's even some agreement with the corporatist pressures for illegal workers, a middle ground for the moderates influenced by business interests of the Republican party and the Democrats love of open borders.
I'm looking at all the secondary reporting on Sebelius's interview on the Daily Show. CNN etc. From all those quotes I'm seeing presented, she looks silly up there. She dodges questions so obviously, artlessly spinned answers, and it looks like Stewart nails home the obvious reaction: Huh? I know in my local circle, my liberal friends watch that show religiously.
“If I’m an individual that doesn’t want this, it would be hard for me to look at a big business getting a waiver," Stewart said. "I would feel like you are favoring big business because they lobbied you ... but you’re not allowing individuals that same courtesy.”
Sebelius denied that was the case, but danced around answering the question directly, sticking instead to talking points.
After pressing her further on the issue to no avail, a somewhat exasperated Stewart finally smiled and asked, “Am I a stupid man?”
CNN
+ Show Spoiler [Political Fun] +
|
On October 09 2013 10:47 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On October 09 2013 08:49 kwizach wrote:On October 09 2013 06:23 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 09 2013 06:13 Gorsameth wrote:On October 09 2013 06:03 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 09 2013 06:01 Lord Tolkien wrote:On October 09 2013 05:58 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 09 2013 05:42 Sub40APM wrote:On October 09 2013 05:37 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 09 2013 05:18 Gorsameth wrote:
[quote]
Except that you also have the senate, the president and the supreme court around to keep things in check.
This isn't about requiring a strong consensus . You could have all democrats and 49% republicans wanting something in the current house and you would be unable to bring it to a vote despite having a strong consensus. In theory, yes. In reality you rarely have a situation like that and (assuming this is something important) it would lead to a change in the next election unless the consensus shifts. since the Tea Party caucus is concentrated in the most gerrymandered districts thats impossible. Boehners need to preserve the appearance of Republic unity > American credit worthiness. Thats all this is. You can keep trying to pretend that the minority of a minority party holding hostage America's debt is a reasonable legislative maneuver all you want but it isnt. A few posts up says that a whopping 23 Reps are "willing" to vote for a clean CR. The vast majority of the majority party doesn't want it. In a public vote. Rep. King (R) stated that he was willing to bet a large majority (was it 150 or something?) would be willing to vote for one in an anonymous setting. Take his statement with a grain of salt, but I wouldn't be surprised at all. The majority of the Republican party is not economically suicidal. Sure, but there's a difference between wanting a clean CR and voting for one because there's a gun to your head. Who is holding the gun in the analogy? Both Reps and Dems. This is America, we all have guns Seriously, both sides are forcing the other to accept something they don't want. If Reps don't give in and accept the ACA the economy explodes. If Dems don't give in and modify the ACA the economy explodes. Reps don't want to give in and accept the ACA, but they may anyways to prevent the economy from exploding. Similarly Dems don't want to change the ACA, but they may anyways to prevent the economy from exploding. Seriously, Jonny? You're trying to paint both sides as equally responsible for the crisis again? Did our conversation never happen or something? The point wasn't "who is more or less responsible" the point was over what Republicans want vs what they are willing to vote for given the circumstances. And yes, our conversation happened. Did you really want to continue it? You seemed to be stuck on the same points ad nauseam.
You were talking about who was holding a gun to whose head. If you want to talk about what Republicans want, fine, but then do we agree that they're responsible for the current crisis?
I don't see the need to continue it if you agree with me about who's to blame for the crisis, since I explained quite extensively why it was the Republicans. Do you agree based on what I wrote to you, yes or no?
|
On October 09 2013 10:27 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On October 09 2013 09:56 Livelovedie wrote:On October 09 2013 08:03 xDaunt wrote:On October 09 2013 08:00 Souma wrote:On October 09 2013 07:58 xDaunt wrote:On October 09 2013 07:48 Souma wrote:On October 09 2013 07:31 xDaunt wrote:
I'll just throw out this challenge again: show me one instance where Obama invited republicans to author a signature piece of legislation like Bush did with No Child Left Behind or Clinton did with welfare reform. It just doesn't exist.
EDIT: Look, I'm not going to try to absolve republicans of all blame for the current political impasse in Washington. However, it is very obvious that Obama and the democrats bare significant responsibility for how dysfunctional the federal government is. What "signature" pieces of legislation has Obama passed aside from the ACA? He tried to make concessions on gun control and immigration reform, all of which Republicans shot down (even when bipartisan bills were in the works!). His only "signature" piece of legislation to date is the ACA, and I suppose you can argue the stimulus, on which he conceded by not going through with the full thing. Tax reform: Kept tax cuts for those making between 250K and 400K. Social security: Chained CPI. Just because Social Security needs fixing doesn't mean Democrats want chained CPI. That's the point. Obama hasn't been able to pass much in the way of signature legislation because he won't partner with republicans in drafting it. It's Obama's way or the highway. Bush NEVER did that with democrats. No president ever passed legislation like Obamacare on a strict, party line vote. Not Medicare. Not Medicaid. Not Social Security. Not Welfare Reform. The only exception is Obamacare. I've said it before and I'll say it again: Obama could absolutely devastate the Republicans politically and co-opt them by inviting the moderates to author some important legislation. It would be too easy. However, he won't do it because he's too much an ideologue and he is completely inept as a political leader. He has just one mode: demonize and destroy opposition. That's fine for campaigning, but it's not great for governing. That's not true. Gun control and immigration reform had/have bipartisan parties drafting the bills. It was the Republican crazies who shot them all down. Was there an immigration bill that republicans drafted that Obama supported? I don't seem to recall him or the democrats getting behind the Rubio bill. EDIT: I'm leaving out gun control because 1) it's a small potatoes issue, and 2) it's one of those issues where there really isn't any room for compromise. That seems disingenuous to say there is no room for compromise on gun control... of course there is. You can control lots of things involving what is considered acceptable for firearms without banning guns. Yeah it's preposterous!! Gun control highlights precisely what I've been saying. Truth be damnedAnytime anything regarding even "small potatoes" Right wing wackadoos spread all sorts of propaganda and nonsense to try to shoot it down REGARDLESS of what the American people say Americans support additional Background Checks
Do we really have to do this again? Americans don't support a universal background check system that has the government recording every gun transaction in the country and thats what obama wanted. That is also the only way a universial background check system would work without being utterly useless. it wouldn't have even stopped any crime from happening and would have just caused more bloated government inconviencing people who are following the law. Just vaugly asking people if they want a functioning government will also get a pretty high "yes" answer while also not answering a fucking thing about whats important. It was a majority of democrats and republicans who shot down both the presidents assault weapon ban and the universal background check system.
At least have some dignity with your shitty ideas about people you don't agree with. People who broke the law before arn't going to magically start following some new law you want passed.
|
On October 09 2013 19:38 kwizach wrote:Show nested quote +On October 09 2013 10:47 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 09 2013 08:49 kwizach wrote:On October 09 2013 06:23 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 09 2013 06:13 Gorsameth wrote:On October 09 2013 06:03 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 09 2013 06:01 Lord Tolkien wrote:On October 09 2013 05:58 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 09 2013 05:42 Sub40APM wrote:On October 09 2013 05:37 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
[quote]
In theory, yes. In reality you rarely have a situation like that and (assuming this is something important) it would lead to a change in the next election unless the consensus shifts. since the Tea Party caucus is concentrated in the most gerrymandered districts thats impossible. Boehners need to preserve the appearance of Republic unity > American credit worthiness. Thats all this is. You can keep trying to pretend that the minority of a minority party holding hostage America's debt is a reasonable legislative maneuver all you want but it isnt. A few posts up says that a whopping 23 Reps are "willing" to vote for a clean CR. The vast majority of the majority party doesn't want it. In a public vote. Rep. King (R) stated that he was willing to bet a large majority (was it 150 or something?) would be willing to vote for one in an anonymous setting. Take his statement with a grain of salt, but I wouldn't be surprised at all. The majority of the Republican party is not economically suicidal. Sure, but there's a difference between wanting a clean CR and voting for one because there's a gun to your head. Who is holding the gun in the analogy? Both Reps and Dems. This is America, we all have guns Seriously, both sides are forcing the other to accept something they don't want. If Reps don't give in and accept the ACA the economy explodes. If Dems don't give in and modify the ACA the economy explodes. Reps don't want to give in and accept the ACA, but they may anyways to prevent the economy from exploding. Similarly Dems don't want to change the ACA, but they may anyways to prevent the economy from exploding. Seriously, Jonny? You're trying to paint both sides as equally responsible for the crisis again? Did our conversation never happen or something? The point wasn't "who is more or less responsible" the point was over what Republicans want vs what they are willing to vote for given the circumstances. And yes, our conversation happened. Did you really want to continue it? You seemed to be stuck on the same points ad nauseam. You were talking about who was holding a gun to whose head. If you want to talk about what Republicans want, fine, but then do we agree that they're responsible for the current crisis? I don't see the need to continue it if you agree with me about who's to blame for the crisis, since I explained quite extensively why it was the Republicans. Do you agree based on what I wrote to you, yes or no?
Yeah I made a holding a gun analogy. Did you copyright that phrase or something? It was apt. Deal with it.
And no we don't agree. All you've given is a partisan account of things Republicans have done that make you feel that they're responsible.
|
Canada11607 Posts
On October 09 2013 08:03 farvacola wrote:For something a little different, here's a really well written piece on the Roberts Supreme Court and how it's brand of conservatism stands at a crossroads. Show nested quote +There can be no doubt that today’s Supreme Court is a confidently conservative institution. Last term it struck down a key provision of the fifty-year-old Voting Rights Act and reversed a lower-court decision upholding the University of Texas’s affirmative action plan. The term before, the Court came within a hair’s breadth of striking down the Affordable Care Act. And in 2010, in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, the Court reversed established precedent and rule that corporations have the right to spend unlimited amounts of money on political speech.
But eight years into Chief Justice John Roberts’ tenure, it still remains unclear just what kind of conservatives the Court’s majority justices are. The cases the Court will review in the 2013–2014 term, which begins this week, are likely to go some way toward answering this question. The Court has been invited to overrule precedents governing regulation of campaign finance, government support of religion, equal protection, abortion counseling, and the treaty power. In all of these cases, lawyers have argued that the Court can rule for them without questioning any prior precedent—what we might call conservatism with a lower-case “c.” But perhaps sensing a receptive audience, the lawyers in each case have also invited the Court to go further and overturn past precedents altogether—a dramatic step that would confirm a far more radical Court, or conservatism with a capital “C.”
The first of these bellwether cases, McCutcheon v. FEC, will be argued Tuesday. It challenges the constitutionality of longstanding federal limits on the total amount of money individuals can contribute to federal candidates and political action committees in a given year. The parties and several amici, including Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, have urged the Court to jettison the central rationale of the Court’s jurisprudence on campaign finance—the distinction between contributions and expenditures. In Buckley v. Valeo, decided in 1976, the Court found that Congress could not restrict independent expenditures on political speech, but allowed limits on direct contributions to a particular candidate or party. The Court reasoned that the First Amendment offers less protection for contributions than for independent spending, because contributions to candidates are effectively “speech by proxy” and have greater potential for corruption. The Buckley Court therefore upheld both ”base” limits on how much one can contribute to a given candidate, and an “aggregate” limit on the total contributions one can make in a given year. The aggregate limit, the Court reasoned, was warranted to deter circumvention of the base limits.
The line between expenditures and contributions has been under attack for years. Critics argue that people should be free to give money to their chosen candidate rather than spend it independently. And, they maintain, expenditures and contributions don’t carry significantly different risks for corruption. But while the Court has invalidated many restrictions on spending on political speech since Buckley, it has struck down contribution limits only once, in a case in which the limits in question were judged to be so low that they could undermine the effectiveness of campaign speech.
The plaintiffs in McCutcheon, the Court’s new case, challenge only “aggregate” limits. They argue that as long as a person abides by “base” limits on contributions, Congress has no legitimate interest in limiting how much money he or she contributes in toto to multiple candidates. And they argue that rules adopted since Buckley that limit the amounts that individuals can contribute to political action committees and that the committees can in turn contribute to candidates, largely eliminate the risk of circumvention that was cited in Buckley to justify the aggregate limit on individual donors....... The Roberts Court: What Kind of Conservatives?
I hope that's not the case with campaign contributions. I strongly believe limitations on contributions is healthy for a democracy (or republic for those who counter with the pedantic distinction) because it forces politicians and parties to seek funds from a wide spectrum of people rather than hone in on a handful of special interest group with loads of money. I hate the idea of super pacs (whether for unions or corporations) and that would be yet another step in the wrong direction.
|
On October 09 2013 22:56 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On October 09 2013 19:38 kwizach wrote:On October 09 2013 10:47 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 09 2013 08:49 kwizach wrote:On October 09 2013 06:23 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 09 2013 06:13 Gorsameth wrote:On October 09 2013 06:03 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 09 2013 06:01 Lord Tolkien wrote:On October 09 2013 05:58 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 09 2013 05:42 Sub40APM wrote:
[quote]
since the Tea Party caucus is concentrated in the most gerrymandered districts thats impossible. Boehners need to preserve the appearance of Republic unity > American credit worthiness. Thats all this is. You can keep trying to pretend that the minority of a minority party holding hostage America's debt is a reasonable legislative maneuver all you want but it isnt. A few posts up says that a whopping 23 Reps are "willing" to vote for a clean CR. The vast majority of the majority party doesn't want it. In a public vote. Rep. King (R) stated that he was willing to bet a large majority (was it 150 or something?) would be willing to vote for one in an anonymous setting. Take his statement with a grain of salt, but I wouldn't be surprised at all. The majority of the Republican party is not economically suicidal. Sure, but there's a difference between wanting a clean CR and voting for one because there's a gun to your head. Who is holding the gun in the analogy? Both Reps and Dems. This is America, we all have guns Seriously, both sides are forcing the other to accept something they don't want. If Reps don't give in and accept the ACA the economy explodes. If Dems don't give in and modify the ACA the economy explodes. Reps don't want to give in and accept the ACA, but they may anyways to prevent the economy from exploding. Similarly Dems don't want to change the ACA, but they may anyways to prevent the economy from exploding. Seriously, Jonny? You're trying to paint both sides as equally responsible for the crisis again? Did our conversation never happen or something? The point wasn't "who is more or less responsible" the point was over what Republicans want vs what they are willing to vote for given the circumstances. And yes, our conversation happened. Did you really want to continue it? You seemed to be stuck on the same points ad nauseam. You were talking about who was holding a gun to whose head. If you want to talk about what Republicans want, fine, but then do we agree that they're responsible for the current crisis? I don't see the need to continue it if you agree with me about who's to blame for the crisis, since I explained quite extensively why it was the Republicans. Do you agree based on what I wrote to you, yes or no? Yeah I made a holding a gun analogy. Did you copyright that phrase or something? It was apt. Deal with it. And no we don't agree. All you've given is a partisan account of things Republicans have done that make you feel that they're responsible.
I'm not saying you can't make a gun holding analogy. I'm pointing out that it means someone is holding the gun, which implies responsibility, which is why I just replied on the topic of responsibility.
How the hell was my explanation to you partisan in any way?! The exact same analysis would still be valid if the roles were reversed and Democrats had adopted the strategy Republicans are currently using. My point is completely unrelated to the parties' positions on issues and completely centered on the way they've chosen to get what they want. Here is the latest post I wrote in our exchange - you're welcome to show me where my explanation of the difference between the Republicans' current strategy and normal negotiation processes is supposed to be partisan. You're also welcome to respond to the arguments I presented you with.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://www.investors.com/image/TOON101000000000000.gif.cms)
