posted
I think it's a flaw in the human condition: the need to see responsibility as a balance-type scale that evens out as long as the weight on both sides is the same. In reality, each person (or party) has his own, individual scale that he should be accountable for.
Posts: 6367 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Both parties have completely mucked up congress, and whether one party is to blame for it MORE makes no difference.
I disagree. Let's use an analogy.
Two teams are playing football. One is doing a lot of holding; the other is chopping up opponents with axes. Fans of the first team point out that a lot of the holding that's happening is because players are trying to hold back the crazy men with axes, but fans of the second team are saying, "That's just an excuse! Holding is reprehensible! Both teams are committing a lot of fouls, so it's not like we could get this game back on track if we concentrated on punishing the ones who're killing players on the other team!"
Stabbing was used earlier, but we're not talking about two acts of equal severity; one of these two teams is being much worse for democracy, and it's not the Democrats. If we want to fix the problem, working on getting someone to admit more deliberately disruptive amendments is not the way to do it; getting Republicans to actually vote responsibly is.Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Both parties have completely mucked up congress, and whether one party is to blame for it MORE makes no difference.
I disagree. Let's use an analogy.
Two teams are playing football. One is doing a lot of holding; the other is chopping up opponents with axes. Fans of the first team point out that a lot of the holding that's happening is because players are trying to hold back the crazy men with axes, but fans of the second team are saying, "That's just an excuse! Holding is reprehensible! Both teams are committing a lot of fouls, so it's not like we could get this game back on track if we concentrated on punishing the ones who're killing players on the other team!"
Stabbing was used earlier, but we're not talking about two acts of equal severity; one of these two teams is being much worse for democracy, and it's not the Democrats. If we want to fix the problem, working on getting someone to admit more deliberately disruptive amendments is not the way to do it; getting Republicans to actually vote responsibly is.
I see your analogy a little differently. Both actions in Congress (filibustering AND not filling the tree) are negative actions. The REAL problem in your analogy are the fans. That is, those that see something wrong and instead just want to holler and shout about the opposite team instead of actually doing something to stop the behavior.
Which is what we do when we vote. We already know what CAN be done about it, but taking the easy way out (just having the president take over) is like the Football Commissioner just deciding who wins based on how he is feeling that day or how fans will react.
As for amendments, there have been NUMEROUS amendments that have been submitted that weren't just designed to throw a wrench in getting bills passed, and Reid still doesn't let them in.
If you want up or down votes on bills, give the same consideration to amendments. Neither side is right in this. Again, you may think one is worse than the other for the country, but all it adds up to is pointing fingers. You saying "Ok fine Democrats aren't doing everything perfect either but Republicans are worse!" doesn't solve anything.
People can bitch and moan all they want, but it doesn't change anything. Don't like it? Get involved in the midterms and help get your guy elected.
Posts: 1937 | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:If you want up or down votes on bills, give the same consideration to amendments.
Why?
quote:Get involved in the midterms and help get your guy elected.
My guy won in the House. Sadly, my guy was defeated in the Senate by an out-of-state influx of Koch money and the idiotic bobblehead they picked to sit on it.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:My point is assigning a percentage of blame is useless. Both parties have completely mucked up congress, and whether one party is to blame for it MORE makes no difference.
Bolding mine. I want you to sit back and really think about this statement. It's completely deluded.
It is also the easiest thing for the party primarily at fault to use as a hollow distraction. It's your old equivalence rhetoric given a new veneer.
It's completely invalid. Completely. I just have no idea how to de-habituate you from it. You're too reliant on it.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
candy crush is such the latest thing I cannot wait to be dead and/or on fire, as a collective entity
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
The 'u man br0' totally 1337s 4channer garbage speak doesn't work on him fyi.
The GOP and Republicans are quite literally heartless monsters who would literally hold the country hostage and let the poor starve to death; I have a hard time even figuring out which circle of hell would be appropriate.
Posts: 12931 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
Is it cynical that I think that instead of Congress fixing the holes in Obamacare that they themselves inserted into it when it was being passed, thus getting us all the same high quality care that only Congress was used to getting, that instead they will just find a way to exempt themselves again?
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think it was sort of a stupid gesture in the first place. They had perfectly good health insurance going into this. The last thing Obamacare was about was people who already had good insurance.
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by capaxinfiniti: You mad bro? If you're going to be a crusader at least pretend to be more thick-skinned.
ssh, ssh, I said quieter. louder simpering makes you seem like you're overcompensating for having to hide from our last tiff!
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:My point is assigning a percentage of blame is useless. Both parties have completely mucked up congress, and whether one party is to blame for it MORE makes no difference.
Bolding mine. I want you to sit back and really think about this statement. It's completely deluded.
It is also the easiest thing for the party primarily at fault to use as a hollow distraction. It's your old equivalence rhetoric given a new veneer.
It's completely invalid. Completely. I just have no idea how to de-habituate you from it. You're too reliant on it.
Well, I give up. You don't even address the issues with the Democratic party. I get it, you think they are not to blame at all for their actions. Instead you just resort to personal attacks.
Oh well, I tried. I suspect you will just respond with another personal attack instead of addressing the actual topic at hand. You just call it deflection and say I'm using some false equivalence argument. You may want to take a look at your last few posts and determine if perhaps you are projecting.
I've made no attempt to defend Republican actions, and have only pointed out that the democrats are part of the problem. You have attempted to bait me into saying the republicans are more to blame, and when I refuse to do so you act as though I am just being delusional. Excuse me for not playing right into your hands the way you were (presumably) expecting me to.
I urge you to go back and read that NYT article I linked earlier.
Posts: 1937 | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:I've made no attempt to defend Republican actions, and have only pointed out that the democrats are part of the problem.
Do you agree that the Republicans are in fact more of the problem?
I'm genuinely curious whether you will do so or not. Because if you're going to refuse to do so, you're at least as guilty as Sam of partisanship -- and he has the advantage of being correct.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Geraine, out of curiosity do you believe the Affordable Care Act to be an improvement over the previous status quo, a step in the right direction, prefer Single Payer/Universal Healthcare?
Posts: 12931 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:My point is assigning a percentage of blame is useless. Both parties have completely mucked up congress, and whether one party is to blame for it MORE makes no difference.
Bolding mine. I want you to sit back and really think about this statement. It's completely deluded.
It is also the easiest thing for the party primarily at fault to use as a hollow distraction. It's your old equivalence rhetoric given a new veneer.
It's completely invalid. Completely. I just have no idea how to de-habituate you from it. You're too reliant on it.
Well, I give up. You don't even address the issues with the Democratic party. I get it, you think they are not to blame at all for their actions. Instead you just resort to personal attacks.
Oh well, I tried. I suspect you will just respond with another personal attack instead of addressing the actual topic at hand. You just call it deflection and say I'm using some false equivalence argument. You may want to take a look at your last few posts and determine if perhaps you are projecting.
I've made no attempt to defend Republican actions, and have only pointed out that the democrats are part of the problem. You have attempted to bait me into saying the republicans are more to blame, and when I refuse to do so you act as though I am just being delusional. Excuse me for not playing right into your hands the way you were (presumably) expecting me to.
I urge you to go back and read that NYT article I linked earlier.
There are multiple problems here I need to address.
First: You are saying "you think they [the Democratic party] are not to blame at all for their actions" — this is an invented supposition. You're cramming things into my mouth wholesale at this point. It's a very complete misapprehension of my position. The issue is not that the democrats 'are not to blame for their actions' (which could be true regardless in terms of if we are deciding that their actions warrant blame in terms of criticism), it's that the republicans are principally and primarily responsible for the deadlock and degradation of congress, and you are attempting to assert, literally, that "whether one party is to blame for it more makes no difference" — the idea is absurd. My word for it is delusional. Of course it makes a difference, especially in terms of deconstructing the problem, assigning culpability, or talking about what problem elements have to be confronted if the country wants to reverse the profound problem that a deadlocked legislature represents. You can call that a personal attack all you want, but it's not an ad hom. You are presenting absurd logic. I can deconstruct it for you entirely, but you have to be willing to learn. One way or another, you have to abandon your persistent reliance on dismissing the greater culpability of republicans, in one way or another, following the same persistent routine.
Second: Do you understand what 'projection' is? What am I projecting on to you, a false equivalence argument? How can I be projecting a false equivalence argument from me onto you when my position manifestly asserts no equivalence in the culpability of republicans and democrats? Do I secretly think and suggest that they are equally to blame or that there's "no point in saying who's more to blame" and I'm thrusting that onto you?
Third: You have absolutely made attempts to defend republican actions. You are even suggesting that the continued record use of filibusters is in any way prompted or continued or kept at its current levels by the democrats unfairly blocking minority amendments. To post here that you've "made no attempts to defend Republican actions" is silly.
Fourth: you say I'm just resorting to personal attacks "instead of addressing the actual topic at hand." In what universe am I not addressing the actual topic at hand. What is the "actual topic at hand" that excludes what I'm saying from having any involvement on the topic at hand? This is important.
Fifth: you say "Excuse me for not playing right into your hands the way you were (presumably) expecting me to." Thank you for presuming what my Sinister Plot was, but it doesn't go further than picking apart the weakness of your position and, as tom said, calling you out. You haven't 'avoided' any plots by revealing that you mire yourself in an attitude which pathologically assumes there's no point in saying or trying to determine which party is more responsible for the current state of congress.
There's more, but I'll leave it on that until you've answered Tom's question.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:I've made no attempt to defend Republican actions, and have only pointed out that the democrats are part of the problem.
Do you agree that the Republicans are in fact more of the problem?
I'm genuinely curious whether you will do so or not. Because if you're going to refuse to do so, you're at least as guilty as Sam of partisanship -- and he has the advantage of being correct.
It isn't a simple answer.
Do I think on paper it looks like they are more to blame? Absolutely, if you just look at the numbers.
Do I think that the majority of filibustering they are doing likely has nothing to do with whether or not they agree with the bill or not? Yep, more than likely.
Do I think the filibuster has helped in some ways? I do, simply because of some of the atrocious legslislation that has been proposed.
Do I think Democrats are keeping the filibuster instead of changing the rules because they find it more politically advantageous to them? Yes.
My argument has nothing to do with Republican / Democrat. You can say I am defending one side or the other, but that isn't my intention. I'm pointing out that both sides are taking advantage over the situation and the gridlock is not solely the responsibility of one party. While I am sure BOTH sides intentions are to help the country in the way they think best, there is still a sense of self preservation that keeps them doing what they do. Republicans think that by filibustering they will appeal to their base, and Democrats are willing to let them do it and blame them for the gridlock.
And Sam, calm down and relax. I'll do the same.
Posts: 1937 | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Elison R. Salazar: Geraine, out of curiosity do you believe the Affordable Care Act to be an improvement over the previous status quo, a step in the right direction, prefer Single Payer/Universal Healthcare?
The answer is complex. There are numerous things in the ACA that are wonderful like no lifetime maximums, preventative care, deductible caps, etc. From 2010-2013, this was a massive step up over the status quo. From 2014 going forward however, I would (and I can't believe I am going to say this) prefer a Single Payer / Universal Healthcare system as opposed to the Affordable Care Act.
I argued against it quite a bit back when it was passed simply because it was backed by Democrats. Yeah, I know. Now however that we have had some time to digest it a bit more, I am torn. I think there are some VERY positive things in the bill that will genuinely help people. On the other hand, there are numerous parts of this bill that are downright horrible for job growth.
I work primarily with small businesses with 25-100 employees. What I have seen so far, at least here in Nevada, are that rates are skyrocketing. We are seeing increases as high as 70% from Aetna and Anthem Blue Cross Blue Shield. Many of my clients that have less than 50 employees are thinking about dropping their plans entirely and having their employees go through the exchanges, as it is becoming too cost prohibitive. Those employers teetering on 50 employees are cutting hours and changing employees to part time due to the Full Time Equivalency rule. Even if you have 60 employees, cutting 40 of them to 20 hours a week will keep you under 50, and you won't have to provide health insurance.
Employers now have to pay at least 50% of the employer only coverage of health insurance. If a plan was $400 a month, your employer had to pay $200. I just saw a client whose premiums jumped to over $650 a month, for an increase of about $175 a month to the employer. They currently have 40 full time employees, which means an increase of $84,000 in 2014 over 2013.
One of my clients has over 100 employees, and they are cutting 70 positions to part time. Even though they do have provide health insurance to their full time employees, you don't have to provide it to part time employees. The part time employees can still go to the exchange, and the company does not get penalized.
This is one of the reasons 90% of the new jobs that have been created over the past few years have been part time. Employers see these massive increases and are cutting wherever they can.
My brother worked for a pizza chain as an assistant manager, and the franchise owner cut every single person on his payroll, including managers, to 28 hours a week and classified them as part time. Yes, he has to provide health insurance since he has over 50 FTE employees, but since all of his employees are part time they don't qualify. Essentially he has a plan with nobody on it. Luckily he just got a full time job at Amazon. (Good thing too, he is getting married next month!)
Currently that loophole is there, and employers are taking advantage of it. The problem is there really isn't a good way to fix it.
I think part of the down trend in support for the bill is due in part to these cuts in full time positions.
Here is what I predict will happen:
1) Employers will continue to cut full time positions in favor of part time
2) The part time employees will go through the exchanges for their coverage.
3) The part time people in the exchanges will not be able to afford the premiums, resulting in their premiums being subsidized.
4) Legislation to ammend the bill to either raise taxes to fund the subsidies or force employers to hire more full time employees will be introduced. The tax bill will probably pass.
5) The exchanges will continue to grow and more and more people will be subsidized until it becomes too expensive to maintain again.
6) At this point, a Single Payer System will be introduced in order to "fix" everything. Republicans will argue that we should keep portions of the ACA but get rid fo the rest, which will give an incentive to employers to hire more full time employees. Democrats will argue that if we did that it will cause people to lose their insurance. Gridlock will commence but eventually we will get Single Payer.
Posts: 1937 | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:My argument has nothing to do with Republican / Democrat. You can say I am defending one side or the other, but that isn't my intention. I'm pointing out that both sides are taking advantage over the situation and the gridlock is not solely the responsibility of one party. While I am sure BOTH sides intentions are to help the country in the way they think best, there is still a sense of self preservation that keeps them doing what they do. Republicans think that by filibustering they will appeal to their base, and Democrats are willing to let them do it and blame them for the gridlock.
Well from within my own lens of bias-lifetime registered independent, don't much believe either party is primarily motivated by what is best for the country*, but is lately more frustrated and upset with Republicans than Democrats-it does sound very much like you're aiming to defend one side. That said though, I think you've gone a bit further than to simply reject that gridlock is the sole responsibility of either party-a proposition no one has made, by the way.
But here's the thing. In this paragraph what you've essentially said is that 'Republicans are willing to cause gridlock to appeal to their base, and Democrats are willing to 'let' them do it and blame them for the gridlock, therefore there is plenty of fault on both sides. I'm not sure how it can be made any more clear that that isn't actually an equivalent or even close to equivalent distribution of blame-and in this case, those are your words. Furthermore it's been plain to anyone listening for at least four years now that the GOP has as a policy causing government to do as little as possible and make the Obama Administration look as bad as possible as an end of itself. Factor in how much more built in to the GOP the notion of a gridlocked government being better than an active government is versus that same idea in their opposition and, well, on this particular issue it's a lost cause to argue that there's really much equivalence.
I'm not talking about which is worse or less moral or whatever. I'm talking only about gridlock and hamstringing government.
*I say this because while I think it's often the party line 'win the next election so x, y, & z may be accomplished for the good of the country' is often touted-or even believed-I think that it's important to note which comes first and how often that element is willing to be sacrificed versus the rest of it.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:My argument has nothing to do with Republican / Democrat. You can say I am defending one side or the other, but that isn't my intention. I'm pointing out that both sides are taking advantage over the situation and the gridlock is not solely the responsibility of one party. While I am sure BOTH sides intentions are to help the country in the way they think best, there is still a sense of self preservation that keeps them doing what they do. Republicans think that by filibustering they will appeal to their base, and Democrats are willing to let them do it and blame them for the gridlock.
Well from within my own lens of bias-lifetime registered independent, don't much believe either party is primarily motivated by what is best for the country*, but is lately more frustrated and upset with Republicans than Democrats-it does sound very much like you're aiming to defend one side. That said though, I think you've gone a bit further than to simply reject that gridlock is the sole responsibility of either party-a proposition no one has made, by the way.
But here's the thing. In this paragraph what you've essentially said is that 'Republicans are willing to cause gridlock to appeal to their base, and Democrats are willing to 'let' them do it and blame them for the gridlock, therefore there is plenty of fault on both sides. I'm not sure how it can be made any more clear that that isn't actually an equivalent or even close to equivalent distribution of blame-and in this case, those are your words. Furthermore it's been plain to anyone listening for at least four years now that the GOP has as a policy causing government to do as little as possible and make the Obama Administration look as bad as possible as an end of itself. Factor in how much more built in to the GOP the notion of a gridlocked government being better than an active government is versus that same idea in their opposition and, well, on this particular issue it's a lost cause to argue that there's really much equivalence.
I'm not talking about which is worse or less moral or whatever. I'm talking only about gridlock and hamstringing government.
*I say this because while I think it's often the party line 'win the next election so x, y, & z may be accomplished for the good of the country' is often touted-or even believed-I think that it's important to note which comes first and how often that element is willing to be sacrificed versus the rest of it.
I can see where you are coming from. There is a culture in the Republican party that the more gridlock that is caused the better off the country will be. In their eyes, the less legislation passed the less money the government spends.
If the only issue at hand was Democrats letting Republicans filibuster for their own gain, I would concede that there would be no equivalence. The problem isn't just that though. I don't know if you read my previous posts about Democrats blocking amendments or not. I completely understand Reid not wanting to allow bad Amendments in, but some consideration should be given to those amendments that would be of benefit, especially since he has the power to determine whether or not an amendment makes it to the floor.
If that means slowing down the passage of a bill in order to get it passed, do you feel it would be worth it?
Good points though Rakeesh. Gives me something to think about. I'm still trying to look at things from a different viewpoint, but it is still difficult sometimes. Posts: 1937 | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:I can see where you are coming from. There is a culture in the Republican party that the more gridlock that is caused the better off the country will be. In their eyes, the less legislation passed the less money the government spends.
I'm afraid I'd have to go further than describing this as just a culture. It's an openly stated goal of a very significant portion of the Republican party right now and it's not just a culture, it's a policy.
quote:If the only issue at hand was Democrats letting Republicans filibuster for their own gain, I would concede that there would be no equivalence. The problem isn't just that though. I don't know if you read my previous posts about Democrats blocking amendments or not. I completely understand Reid not wanting to allow bad Amendments in, but some consideration should be given to those amendments that would be of benefit, especially since he has the power to determine whether or not an amendment makes it to the floor.
Here's the thing: 'both sides have done bad things' doesn't equal equivalence. I'm really not sure why you're using that word in that way. I read your past posts about Congressional Reid shenanigans, and without a doubt that contributes to government gridlock. But let's think about this for a moment and consider which is more likely to be more responsible for gridlock: an open policy committment to gridlock for its own sake, or a committment to short-term politically advantageous tricks that slow things down?
Personally I think that's a no-brainer and that's why I (and I suspect many others) reject your argument of actual equivalence, but I'm happy to listen to why this might not be the case.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Rakeesh, I am of the opinion that Democrats WANT the obstruction. They will never come out and say it, but they want it just as much as Republicans do. It isn't only about short-term politically advantageous tricks, nor about legislation.
It is about cementing a win for the democrats in the mid-terms and the 2016 election. They could honestly care less what happens in Congress right now. There are 21 Democrats up for re-election in the senate next year as opposed to 13 republican seats. Seven of those seats are in states that went for Romney, and only one GOP seat is up in a state that went for Obama.
The more the democrats can blame the republicans for the gridlock in Congress, the more chance they have of keeping the senate. While it is predicted the democrats may pick up a few seats in the house, it won't be enough to regain the majority.
Republicans honestly look like they have no strategy. If they put up candidates that are un-electable like they did in 2012 (Todd Akin.... I mean come on) the democrats don't have to worry. If the Republicans put up more candidates like Ted Cruz though, the Democrats should start to worry.
I don't think the Republicans have a prayer to win the 2016 election no matter who they put up. If the democrats put up Hillary, which I am sure they will, it is over. The only hope Republicans would have would be a gimmick nomination like Condie. Other than that polling is showing that Christie would be their best bet against Clinton, and I'll tell you right now that if he is the nomination, they might as save their money.
Posts: 1937 | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm still not sure how one party finding and exploiting the weaknesses of another party's avowed policy means that the former is just as to blame for the latter.
Democrats wouldn't be able to exploit gridlock if it weren't a Republican policy-they would have to create it themselves and try then to pin it on the GOP. At this point it even sounds like you're tacitly agreeing on this question of equivalence.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Although I'm in full agreement that deadlock on some of the budgetary issues is bad news, it's not like this is all "undemocratic." If anything, the slow response of government and general indecision is a common feature of democracies.
People get angry at the Republicans because they won't pass the Democratic Party's legislation... think about that for a minute? Arguably they were elected on a platform that didn't include agreeing with the Democratic Party's platform. I wouldn't blame Republicans so much as voters across the country. Most Republican candidates were stumping on the premise that they would try and stop the Obama Administration's policies at every turn. Guess what? They have been! If you want to be pissed than be angry at the Democratic Party for not putting up candidates and a party platform that can win a majority in the House.
Posts: 1753 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
there must just be some kind of general Stockholm Syndrome thing i just don't understand with this. the republicans get to earnestly destroy Congress' functionality and cause power to naturally abrogate to the executive, as part of their commitment to prevent government from working whenever a working government system would be a credit to democrats, and there's this pathological seeming "blame anyone but the republicans" or "don't point fingers!!" defense of firmly republican problems
seriously, "you should be angry at the democrats!" from that last post, and geraine's "the democrats wanted this anyway" -
just wow. there's so much wrong here that it amazes me
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
How come other democracies like Britain, Germany and France can get shit down in a fraction of the time?
Posts: 12931 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
because our left wing is roughly equivalent to their right wing, leaving nationalist* parties like the BNP as an unrelated portion of the equation
* 'we don't like darkies' parties, basically
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: because our left wing is roughly equivalent to their right wing, leaving nationalist* parties like the BNP as an unrelated portion of the equation
* 'we don't like darkies' parties, basically
Yep!
There is really only one person left in Parliment that would be considered "conservative" by US standards. Most of the members of Parliament would be considered center-left by US standards.
Posts: 1937 | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: there must just be some kind of general Stockholm Syndrome thing i just don't understand with this. the republicans get to earnestly destroy Congress' functionality and cause power to naturally abrogate to the executive, as part of their commitment to prevent government from working whenever a working government system would be a credit to democrats, and there's this pathological seeming "blame anyone but the republicans" or "don't point fingers!!" defense of firmly republican problems
seriously, "you should be angry at the democrats!" from that last post, and geraine's "the democrats wanted this anyway" -
just wow. there's so much wrong here that it amazes me
So are you advocating the "Blame only republicans!" thing?
I'm not saying "The democrats wanted this anyways!" I'm saying that since it started happening, democrats see this as a political goldmine and don't want it to end.
Think about the make up in Congress, and then think about the filibuster and what it actually accomplishes. If the senate takes up a bill and it is not filibustered, it then goes to the House. Republicans in the House aren't going to vote for the bill, meaning it will most likely die.
If the rules were changed or if the republicans did not filibuster a liberal bill and it goes to the house where it is voted down, what would the consequences be for the democratic party?
Effectively this would put some of the more moderate Democrats such as Mary Landrieu and Kay Hagan in tough spots for the 2014 election, and for not a lot of political gain. They would face immense criticism in their states by the Republicans, and would have to defend their records. Mary Landrieu in particular looks like she is going to have a tough campaign ahead of her in Louisiana already.
The question I have is why Republicans are stupid enough to filibuster anything if they know the House will vote it down. I think by now they have to know they will get blamed for the obstruction no matter what their intentions are. They can't think it is beneficial politically.
Out of curiosity, if Republicans stopped filibustering Senate bills and they all eventually died in the House, would you still complain?
Posts: 1937 | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:So are you advocating the "Blame only republicans!" thing?
No. I'm advocating that "there's no sense/point in saying which party is more to blame!" is utterly ridiculous, especially in a situation in which one party is manifestly and profoundly more responsible for something. Again.
quote:The question I have is why Republicans are stupid enough to filibuster anything if they know the House will vote it down.
They don't want the ideas brought up for debate. They don't want the country receiving news that the Republicans directly voted against bills A, B, C. Because the bills that the Republicans would be forced to kill in the house if they were not filibustered would create news that would be of significant consequence to republicans nationwide, because it would show that much more clearly what things they are trying to obstruct.
Oh, and then the house wouldn't be able to waste everyone's time voting against the Obamacare that terrifies them, pointlessly and grandstandingly, for the 50th time.
If they use the filibuster, they can keep a bunch of smoke around their obstruction. Or, I guess, sell ideals like "well the democrats are obstructing things too! Look at this procedural thing they are doing to the party that is breaking government to save themselves!" or "Oh you know that the democrats want this anyway, they're just as complicit in it!"
quote:Out of curiosity, if Republicans stopped filibustering Senate bills and they all eventually died in the House, would you still complain?
If all the same bills that died in Congress that would have died in an up and down vote in the Senate went on to be blocked by Republicans in the House acting as a monolithic agency, then yes. But that wouldn't happen. Some would get through. There would be actual debate in both houses of congress on bills the republicans really, really don't want to debate any more beyond having someone stand up and say "60 votes or sit on it and spin, plox"
The Republican majority in the house is still problematic because it only exists because of how conservatives have gamed the system to create an unrepresentative majority (when in reality liberals received fully the majority of votes for house candidates nationwide). Without tricks, conservatives don't have the senate, the house, or the presidency anymore.
Anyway, where we were last I had posed several questions to you relating to important considerations for this discussion. I would prefer they be answered.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I just read your questions Sam, but I don't see how answering them contributes to the conversation or discussion. The questions you asked have nothing to do with the topic, but rather with beef you have with me. That's all well and good, but I'm not going to respond to them so you can try to get some smug sense of satisfaction or further a conversation that is neither healthy or productive on this board.
I will say after reading your last post that I agree with you that Republicans should take more responsibility. I do not believe they should filibuster and should let bills be voted on in the House.
As far as obstruction, I seriously wish you would look at history. There are numerous times in our nations history that this exact thing has happened with both parties. It IS happening now at a greater level than ever before, but we are also looking at just one time period. I could go on about how corrupt Democrats are right now due to the Weiner / Filner issues going on right now, but I would be doing the conversation a disservice, as I would only be looking at one time period.
And I don't really want to hear your "unrepresentative majority" argument. There have been studies on the 2012 election that show even without redistricting, Republicans would have still held onto the House, with only a few seats possibly going in favor of Democrats. Highly populated areas with narrow Republican victories combined with uncontested incumbents caused this. It isn't that hard to find this information.
Posts: 1937 | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote: I could go on about how corrupt Democrats are right now due to the Weiner / Filner issues going on right now, but I would be doing the conversation a disservice, as I would only be looking at one time period.
And you would be confusing sexual immorality with corruption, of course.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:I just read your questions Sam, but I don't see how answering them contributes to the conversation or discussion. The questions you asked have nothing to do with the topic, but rather with beef you have with me. That's all well and good, but I'm not going to respond to them so you can try to get some smug sense of satisfaction or further a conversation that is neither healthy or productive on this board.
So I can, in a discussion with you, have you say things to me, about my arguments or my statements, which aren't true, and when I ask you to clarify or reconsider them, you'll just tell me that you "don't see how answering them contributes to the conversation or discussion.
Like (seriously, now) you will tell me that I'm 'projecting,' I'll present why that doesn't make sense and ask you how in any sense you are using the word projection and how it applies, and this has "nothing to do with the topic" and could only be about me trying to get some "smug sense of satisfaction." You will tell me you have not defended republican actions, when in any sense of the idea you actually had, and bringing this up is somehow some completely unrelated thing unconnected to the topic — but you won't explain how it's not connected. Yes, that was one of the questions. Yes, it's still as important as befire.
I'll tell you this much: what I'm feeling sure isn't a smug sense of satisfaction. But I don't think justified annoyance helps you either.
quote: There are numerous times in our nations history that this exact thing has happened with both parties. It IS happening now at a greater level than ever before
You are directly contradicting yourself for me.
quote:And I don't really want to hear your "unrepresentative majority" argument.
Evidently.
quote:. There have been studies on the 2012 election that show even without redistricting, Republicans would have still held onto the House, with only a few seats possibly going in favor of Democrats.
And, as usual, I have to ask for the source. Please show me these studies.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
More people in this country voted for Democrats in Congress than Republicans. No matter how you draw the lines, you can't get away from that fact, which makes the current Congress unrepresentative.
I've seen studies that say that if the entire country was run by non-partisan committees, the House could have gone either way, it's difficult to guess exactly. But regardless, the system the Republicans created is ridiculously unrepresentative, instead of just a little unrepresentative. There's really no way to explain that away.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: And I don't really want to hear your "unrepresentative majority" argument. There have been studies on the 2012 election that show even without redistricting, Republicans would have still held onto the House, with only a few seats possibly going in favor of Democrats. Highly populated areas with narrow Republican victories combined with uncontested incumbents caused this. It isn't that hard to find this information.
Only maybe being generous, if you stuck to FPTP voting, if you had mixed-member proportional, bam, democrat majority.
quote: As far as obstruction, I seriously wish you would look at history. There are numerous times in our nations history that this exact thing has happened with both parties. It IS happening now at a greater level than ever before, but we are also looking at just one time period.
The "it's always been like this" fallacy, there's "always" been slavery, doesn't mean its okay or nothing should be done. Also "both parties" as we understand them now didn't exist before say the 1970's, whenever Nixon decided appealing to white racists is when the parties have changed.
Posts: 12931 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
More people in this country voted for Democrats in Congress than Republicans. No matter how you draw the lines, you can't get away from that fact, which makes the current Congress unrepresentative.
I've seen studies that say that if the entire country was run by non-partisan committees, the House could have gone either way, it's difficult to guess exactly. But regardless, the system the Republicans created is ridiculously unrepresentative, instead of just a little unrepresentative. There's really no way to explain that away.
"Yeah but still."
The current brand of sina quo non arguments boil down to the idea that the current representation in congress is fair *because* it's unfair. Like this: disproportionate Republican congressional representation is the *purpose* of the congress- and so preserving that level of representation somehow "balances" the nation, rather than retarding the growth of healthier, more reactive and more relevant offshoots of the democratic party, which at this point so overwhelms the Republican party in membership as to be bursting at the seems with would-be derivatives.
Funny that this is all very much contrary to the purpose of the congress, which is to give effective representation to a larger number of factions, not a smaller one. Right now the presence of the Republicans in such large numbers (and such generally stupid ones to boot), forces the democrats into coalitions with each other that they themselves are less than comfortable with. Meanwhile, the Republican message becomes so dumb and anachronistic, and so increasingly dependent on a shrinking and more extreme base, as to grind the congress's gears down into near total immobility. Nice work folks.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Reminds me of some idiots who felt it would be a good idea that the US constitution should be changed so passing laws took 3/4 majority but repealing only took 1/3.
Posts: 12931 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
