Walker won that narrative. We're now on to pretending he is going to prison.
Get with the talking points!
The problem with "going nuclear" is the ramifications when you're eventually on the other side.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
PoliGAF 2012 Community Thread
- Thread starter AlteredBeast
- Start date
- Status
Get with the talking points!
The problem with "going nuclear" is the ramifications when you're eventually on the other side.
The Librarian
Banned
And this somehow would've made the Republicans cooperate? I always chuckle whenever someone said "they should've just rammed it through" or "just force the Republicans to cooperate!". So the magic "focus dust" would've somehow compelled the Republicans in Congress -- of which one of their leaders said their number one stated goal is to make Obama a one-term president -- would've gone along with it. Okay.
Edit:
You're not making any sense. Nothing could've passed without Republican votes!
No, it removes the need for their cooperation. This isn't rocket science.
empty vessel
Member
That grand compromise would have hurt the economy, so both we and Obama's reelection prospects are better off without it.
I think Veronique de Rugy doesn't understand what a spending cut is.
I see five large spending cuts in her graph. This is a classic example of manipulation. When you take into account the rise in spending in the normal course as well as the additional spending that should have been the policy response to sagging aggregate demand, the difference between that number and the number spent is, indeed, large.
Byakuya769
Member
I know, I'm just saying pinning it all on Obama ignores the thinking of those senators.
True, just wish that a congress would choose democracy over procedure someday.
Obama was the originator, not Walker - "jobs created or saved."
Invisible_Insane
Member
Not as badly as EGTRRA, AMT expiration/Sequestration/Tax Holiday expiration will.
I really don't want to say "fiscal cliff." ick.
I'm sticking by my prediction that we'll see a full extension of EGTRRA, though.
Obama's first Congress (111th) had the votes to pass any economic measure he wanted. They focused on health care instead. ARRA passed with 61 votes in the Senate and like 244 in the House.
PhoenixDark
Banned
It's as if the super majority never happened, I swear. Jesus
If you can't get 60 members of your party to pass some basic, popular economic items you shouldn't be president, end of story. Fixing roads, building schools, an infrastructure bank, tax credits for hiring vets, etc are not controversial topics. Something could have been done, instead Obama decided a small stimulus would last four years, despite multiple people arguing it wouldn't be enough.
In short he got what he deserved. And if healthcare is overturned, what will have been the point of his entire presidency? What a disaster
Sirpopopop
Member
Hilary would have had the same level of luck as Obama.
The Democrats strategy of going for the big tent is what doomed them. They were willing to take anyone in so long as they were not Republicans.
The Democrats strategy of going for the big tent is what doomed them. They were willing to take anyone in so long as they were not Republicans.
el retorno
Member
They had the votes on their economic packages, they just abandoned them after ARRA.
The Librarian
Banned
ARRA only passed because a few Republican voted for it because of the politics of the time, and no Republican votes in the House. You're forgetting this.
Invisible_Insane
Member
The historical revisionism in this post is amazing. Initial proposals for stimulus were on the order of $200B. Getting 700B was massive. Getting something on the order of the 1.2T suggested by Romer and others was a political impossibility. You keep saying super majority as if it means that Ben Nelson behaves indistinguishably from Sherrod Brown. You're being ridiculous.
That would be PD's MO lately.
Yeah....that's my point? Prior to obamacare, they were able to find enough people to compromise and they needed no House votes ever.
Byakuya769
Member
But it also ended up smaller and more tax cut heavy that the administrations original proposal. I don't know if that level of compromise would have continued for additional spending.
If it had been passed exactly as the administration proposed it would hardly be considered a compromise, right?
America isn't a parliamentary system with near-unlimited power to those in power, we're a vetocracy plain and simple. There's so many veto points, checks and balances, bottlenecks and choke points that a strong minority party has just as much power in Congress as any large majority whose newest members won in districts that are far from liberal havens.
Health Care reform is an economic measure, this was pointed out in the last page. I get that notion of squandered goodwill and momentum by the dems, but to make it seem that health care and economy are mutually exclusive is disingenuous.
Rocket Scientist
Member
If you're going to claim that things could have been passed, you're going to have to show the numbers and names of votes. otherwise you're just talking bullshit.
^ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Recovery_and_Reinvestment_Act_of_2009
244-188
61-36
I'm not listing all the names.
Granted that is one of the purported aims, but it's a long term measure. The important provisions are still two years off. We are (at least I think we are) talking about more immediate spending bills and the jobs act and the like.
244-188
61-36
I'm not listing all the names.
Granted that is one of the purported aims, but it's a long term measure. The important provisions are still two years off. We are (at least I think we are) talking about more immediate spending bills and the jobs act and the like.
Byakuya769
Member
I only say that to show that the compromise entailed it being SMALLER and geared towards less efficient allocations (tax cuts), so suggesting that continued compromise could have netted more material fiscal stimulus is tenuous at best.
The Librarian
Banned
Go ahead and continue thinking that focusing on economic issues would've somehow made the Republicans bend over.
No, ARRA passed fine. It was getting over the fillibuster hurdle that was close.
You need 60 votes for cloture, which ends debate on a bill. You can't bring a bill that is currently open to debate on the floor to a vote without cloture.
The actual vote on the bill requires 50+1 (VP tiebreaker) to pass. But you need cloture before you can bring hte bill to a vote. So if you don't want a bill to pass, you know what you can do? Abuse the process and say "You know what? I don't think we've debated this bill enough to come to a conclusion yet.
"As long as everyone who opposes the bill does that, and there are at least 40 of them, you can kill a bill even if it has enough votes to pass the Senate
I believe the cloture vote had 61 for.
Fuck Harry Reid for not getting rid of the fillibuster.
I think had health care been tabled until the second term, the GOP would have continued to negotiate in good faith. Remember, this was before the huge tea party uprising.
Without the tea party GOP people, the Dems could have kept sending pork to appease the lifelong Washington types like McConnell and Boehner.
Wolfgunblood Garopa
Member
Is it even possible for a Republican to work with Democrats anymore?
The Librarian
Banned
:lol They weren't negotiating in good faith to begin with. The only Republicans to vote with the Democrats for ARRA were the two Maine "moderates." There was even an article recently how Republicans got together before Obama was inaugurated to figure out to best derail his agenda. Oh my, that's a good one.
And barely passing a filibuster is not "passing just fine."
Good lord, it's like you don't remember politics prior to the health care debate.
Invisible_Insane
Member
If the only Republicans to vote for ARRA were Snowe, Collins, and Specter, I don't know that that's a good basis for asserting that Republicans would have "continued" to work in good faith with the Administration.
eBay Huckster
Member
Welp, America, it was a good run, at least I should be out of here before the second year of a Romney presidency
So the only Republicans (in either chamber) to vote for the ARRA were Snowe (now retiring), Collins, and Specter (who later switched parties)... and you're making the case that the Republicans "would've continued to work in good faith"? They didn't even start!
So the only Republicans (in either chamber) to vote for the ARRA were Snowe (now retiring), Collins, and Specter (who later switched parties)... and you're making the case that the Republicans "would've continued to work in good faith"? They didn't even start!
You guys know that part of any good minority compromise is the minority party allowing something to pass without giving more support than is necessary. Maybe the daily show should do a segment on political strategy so you guys would pay attention.
That said, even if you don't think the GOP would have bargained going forward, the Dems didn't need them. They had the votes for their make work and stimulus programs. The administration simply chose to go another direction and birthed the tea party as a result.
That said, even if you don't think the GOP would have bargained going forward, the Dems didn't need them. They had the votes for their make work and stimulus programs. The administration simply chose to go another direction and birthed the tea party as a result.
eBay Huckster
Member
Outside of ARRA and the 2010 lame duck session I can't think of one instance where any "good minority compromise" actually happened (kind of damning given that the three Republican senators named were possibly to the left of, if not precisely ideologically in line with, the Democratic senators who guaranteed Reid didn't have the votes for half of the House's bills in the 111th)
Good is facetious, especially when talking compromise
eBay Huckster
Member
Remove "good" and "minority" from the equation, then, doesn't really change the post
teruterubozu
Member
Allowing? Snowe and Collins got ripped by their own party.
Snowe has been a GOP punching bag since she took office in 95 . It's going to be interesting to see who the leadership chooses to be the bridge vote on those types of issues in the future, when necessary.
Byakuya769
Member
Haha, this discussion is like a microcosm of political relations. We try to hold a discussion in good faith with the minority view point (you), and you talk down to us because we disagree with your unprovable and unsupported assertion.
Awesome.
That was honestly meant to be a joke, sorry if it came across as condescending.
teruterubozu
Member
And she was ripping the leadership. Sorry, it's not this intelligently calculated maneuver you're trying to make it out to be.
I think people are already forgetting a huge chunk of time/goodwill that was ruined by the Obama administration during the cap and trade bill that was being pushed through Senate.
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2010/10/11/101011fa_fact_lizza
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2010/10/11/101011fa_fact_lizza
Ok, we're getting mired in minutiae. I'll continue thinking slimy GOP politicians are smarter than they are, you keep thinking they are dumber than they are, and we can agree to disagree.
That ignores the point that ARRA passed in February in the 111th Congress. That same group had months to enact similar legislation and chose not to.
eBay Huckster
Member
Probably would've been easier if Kennedy hadn't died so soon
teruterubozu
Member
LOL. I'm just reiterating Snowe's actual situation/position in relation to her party. Take it however you want it.
eBay Huckster
Member
Also I swear to God if S. 2343 doesn't pass and youth turnout isn't up as a result I'm punching every college student I hear complaining about politics in 2013.
Byakuya769
Member
Well, it was funny. It's all good.
Particle Physicist
between a quark and a baryon
I distinctly remember reading right after Obama was elected about several top GOP members saying that the strategy against Obama and the Democrats was to oppose everything he put forth. It doesn't matter what agenda he set, the GOP would have been against it. It seems their strategy has completely paid off, to the detriment of the American people.
Aaron Strife
Banned
Wow, those jobs numbers are terrible.
What's immensely frustrating though is how every indicator is positive and then the numbers arrive and are shit.
Has there ever been a month where manufacturing claims, initial unemployment claims, etc. were all good and then we actually had a decent jobs number? Because that statistic seems to operate in cuckoo crazy land where it's completely the opposite of what you'd expect.
What's immensely frustrating though is how every indicator is positive and then the numbers arrive and are shit.
Has there ever been a month where manufacturing claims, initial unemployment claims, etc. were all good and then we actually had a decent jobs number? Because that statistic seems to operate in cuckoo crazy land where it's completely the opposite of what you'd expect.
The goodwill-got-squandered theory implies republicans were willing to cooperate. What's sad is that--at least in regard to health care reform--republicans are cooperating more now then when Obama was first elected. The reason is simple, people actually like some of things the bill does and republicans can't be seen as being against those things.
Yup. If it wasn't healthcare, it would've been something else. The GOP made it clear they had no intention of working with Obama. And this notion that a hypothetical Pres. Romney will works alongside Dems is delusional. The Tea Party won't stand for it, and Romney will bend over backwards to appease them.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked