Support NeoGAF

[TacticalFox88]

Obama and members of his administration have consistently and explicitly ruled out using the 14th amendment as a means to resolve the debt ceiling, dudes.

They say that now. But when shit hits the fan, they'll do what they have to do.

 

[ClovingWestbrook]

They say that now. But when shit hits the fan, they'll do what they have to do.

Doubt it.

 

[adamsappel]

Ron Paul didn't vote at all. What a principled man!

 

[ClovingWestbrook]

Show One New Comment

Swamp_Yankee • a few seconds ago −
And if we go over the edge....

Taxes are raised on all the same people... and John Doe... and Jane Doe... and Joe Six-Pack... and every right leaning, hard working, Patriotic American who doesnt get all this, but will just know that the GOP had a chance to stop middle class tax hikes and said no.The GOP will be looked at as the party that helped raised taxes on working class folks.

You complain a lot, but what is you solution? Plan B looks grat right now. Even if shot down the GOP has all the leverage and talking points.

Now the Tea Party has sank into the big "L" Libertarian abyss, all platitudes and principles, nothing real. If the GOp does what these yahoos want, we are as relevant as the Liberarians.

Anyone can win arguments on principle. The Libertarians do it all the time, which is why they suck, cant win, and are pathetic, and are now trying to infest the GOP.

Tom Coburn, Pat Toomey, Ron Johnson, John Barrasso, Jim Inhofe, Kelly Ayotte, Jim Sessions, Mike Enzi, John Hoevan, Dean Heller, David Vitter... blah, blah, blah.. all traitors now.

The yahoos lost. They cant face it.
Plan B was a good strategy when you have one half of Congress and the enemy the POTUS. Make THEM turn down a comprensive bill. Show theit true colors. But no. We want to emulate the Libertarians. Real Principle! And just as oblivious!

Losing it. Just losing it.
Liberals never fought these battles on their way to the top. They always rallied around leadership even when it didnt suit them. They fought in a ademia, schools, media, Hollywood, courts... only idiots conservatives seek instant gratification and live the lie that the only reason our imaginary majority loses is because of failed leadership. Dummies. Fools.

The long war, the real war, the culture war... all that and them some will not be won by tearing down our own in poltics, who MUST compromise as part of their jobs.... the Let compromises all the time in IL, MA, NY and CA... it doesnt stop their march.
Becaust hey are more intelligent then us.... We are losing!!! It must be the House Speaker!!!! What a bucnh of blithering idiots.

Start figuring this crap out and start fighting the real wars.

Heh. He gets it.

 

[PhoenixDark]

The Politico behind-the-scenes is interesting, and does show Obama played a major role throughout the talks. So I was wrong about that.
http://www.politico.com/story/2013/01/the-fiscal-cliff-deal-that-almost-wasnt-85663.html

By early December, with talks barely moving, Obama was using his bully pulpit to win the public opinion fight, holding campaign-style events in key states and aggravating Republicans. Privately, he began calling moderate Republican senators he kept on a list in an effort aimed at raising pressure on their leaders.

Republicans began to fret about losing the P.R. fight. In a closed-door meeting, some GOP House lawmakers suggested that each member kick in $5,000 to hire a big Madison Avenue advertising firm to craft a communications strategy for them. But Boehner and other party leaders quickly shot down the idea.

I guess they wanted to call the Mad Men geniuses that created Romney's ads. What a fucking joke lol

In a phone call Dec. 21, Boehner told Obama that his game plan all along was to pass the bill setting the $1 million threshold, send it to the Senate to drop it down to $500,000 or so, and ship it back to the House for approval.

Obama, perplexed by the secret strategy, asked Boehner if he had shared it with Reid or House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), suggesting that they might have helped him. Boehner said he had not.

We often talk about Boehner having to pretend to be insane to appease his caucus, but I honestly thought he was being serious with the 1mil demand; instead he was using it to get a deal similar to what passed tonight.

 

[bodyofanamerican]

So, if we go over the debt limit, what are some real, tangible economic consequences? I assume borrowing costs go through the roof, yes?

 

[el retorno]

So I was wrong about that.

whats new?

 

[Gotchaye]

We often talk about Boehner having to pretend to be insane to appease his caucus, but I honestly thought he was being serious with the 1mil demand; instead he was using it to get a deal similar to what passed tonight.

So you were wrong, but also there's just more Boehner-incompetence in there. Why let anyone else know what he's doing? Some signalling from Reid might have actually helped it pass, if it was ever achievable.

 

[Chichikov]

The US defaulted in the 90s?

I was talking about a shutdown and I have misread your post.

As for defaulting on the debt, it really depends on how it's done.
If we say "we stop making payments on all our debt, all your t-bills are null and void"?
Yeah, fucking Armageddon.

 

[PhoenixDark]

So you were wrong, but also there's just more Boehner-incompetence in there. Why let anyone else know what he's doing? Some signalling from Reid might have actually helped it pass, if it was ever achievable.

At the least, it would have made sense to tell Obama privately. It seems like Obama knew quite early that he'd ultimately settle for around 400-500k, so he would have been receptive to the idea.

The article makes it sound like Reid didn't like any of this initially, and agreed with me on waiting things out. It also reinforces the idea that McConnell sounds like the smartest, most cunning dude in the fucking room and I'm glad House republicans are too stupid to listen to him.

 

[gcubed]

This is such a bad time to be 6 hours ahead. I miss all the good stuff

 

[j_k_redtail]

There is so much comedy tonight

“Go fuck yourself,” Boehner sniped as he pointed his finger at Reid, according to multiple sources present.

Reid, a bit startled, replied: “What are you talking about?”

Boehner repeated: “Go fuck yourself.”

http://www.politico.com/story/2013/01/the-fiscal-cliff-deal-that-almost-wasnt-85663.html

Children. The house is run by children

Bolded: The 112th Congress, in a nutshell.

[edit] Boehner has a point by the way. He is not a "dictator." He really has no control over the nuttery that 2010 unleashed.

 

[bodyofanamerican]

And (I know this is a dumb question, but bear with me), if we stop t-bill payments, then no one buys them anymore, and we're just royally fucked, correct? As in, we cannot finance our existing debt anymore?

Also, Ezra's wrap up just went up too.

The final moments of the fiscal cliff offered evidence that both sides see how this is going to go. In his remarks tonight, President Obama signaled he would hold firm on the debt ceiling. “While I will negotiate over many things, I will not have another debate with this Congress over whether or not they should pay the bills they’ve already racked up through the laws they have passed,” he said. And Boehner signaled that he knows tax reform will have to be part of the next deal. The post-deal press release his office sent out had the headline, “2013 Must Be About Cutting Spending and Reforming the Tax Code.”

 

[GaimeGuy]

So, if we go over the debt limit, what are some real, tangible economic consequences? I assume borrowing costs go through the roof, yes?

I'm going to simplify things to make you understand what the debt ceiling is:

Let's say for the year, you have budgeted $1.5 trillion in expenses, and project $1 trillion in revenues.

The country's current debt is $10 trillion, and current debt ceiling of 10.25 trillion.

That means that approximately halfway through the year, the debt will reach the ceiling of 10.25 trillion, after you've burned through ~$750B of the allocated expenses and ~$500B of the projected revenues. At that point, even though you passed a budget which specifies you will spend $750B, since you have hit the debt ceiling, the executive branch must halt any activitiies which add to the debt. In other words, the $750B Congress authorized suddenly drops to $500B, since that's the break even point. This has to be reflected on the day to day operations. Budgeted activities are brought to a grinding halt on a day to day basis (or weekly, depending on the financing schedule)


The proper time for battling over the debt ceiling is when passing a budget, not this brinksmanship bullshit we have going on.

 

[bodyofanamerican]

Thanks. I get what the debt ceiling is, I just meant like, if tomorrow that $750B turns into $500B, I wanted to know what tangible consequences normal day to day people would feel and/or notice, that's all.

 

[GaimeGuy]

Thanks. I get what the debt ceiling is, I just meant like, if tomorrow that $750B turns into $500B, I wanted to know what tangible consequences normal day to day people would feel and/or notice, that's all.

Executive Branch suddenly cuts 33% of operations. That means programs get brought to a halt, things get delayed, people work less hours, anything to decrease expenses by 33% total, and it's up to finance and management within the executive branch and the individual program offices to make it work.

 

[BobTheFork]

I really love the line under Cnn's main headline:


"The president blasts Congress, then heads back to his family vacation in Hawaii"

Maybe just the mental image.

"Finally done? Thanks assholes" then back to vacation.

 

[watershed]

I'm confused by this Matt Drudge tweet:

SOBER New Year: First it was Chief Justice doing the dirty. Now Republicans raising taxes on ON 77% OF HOUSEHOLDS! Surrender guns next...

What is this number referring to?

 

[PhoenixDark]

I'm confused by this Matt Drudge tweet:

What is this number referring to?

payroll tax cut expiring. Funny, when Obama first tried to pass the payroll tax they said it was a gimmick. Now they're blaming Obama for raising taxes because apparently no one in Washington wants to renew it

 

[Link]

I'm confused by this Matt Drudge tweet:

What is this number referring to?

Ironic that he would start that tweet with "sober," because it sounds anything but.

 

[Basileus777]

I'm confused by this Matt Drudge tweet:

What is this number referring to?

Probably the payroll tax.

 

[watershed]

I see, thanks for the answers. I just saw this and it made me chuckle:

 

[Rocket Scientist]

Is Boehner going to lose his seat? When is the vote?

 

[PhoenixDark]

Is Boehner going to lose his seat? When is the vote?

Not his seat, he may lose the speakership. Twitter is full of talk about there now being enough republicans to oust him. The Sandy thing was also an apparent "fuck you" to Cantor, although contradicting reports suggest Cantor is the one who fucked it up; I tend to believe it was Boehner considering the house's Sandy bill was largely negotiated and written by Cantor. Why would he kill his own bill.

I'd rather have Boehner as speaker than Cantor...

 

[Black Mamba]

Not his seat, he may lose the speakership. Twitter is full of talk about there now being enough republicans to oust him. The Sandy thing was also an apparent "fuck you" to Cantor, although contradicting reports suggest Cantor is the one who fucked it up; I tend to believe it was Boehner considering the house's Sandy bill was largely negotiated and written by Cantor. Why would he kill his own bill.

If rather have Boehner as speaker than Cantor...

I actually don't think Boehner is that bad. He just has the worst job in the world right now. I don't even know why he wants to be Speaker. If I were him I'd retire.

Boehner can't control his caucus any more than Nurse Ratchett.

You could say Boehner's cacus uncontrollable.

 

[Oblivion]

Jon Chait is the blogosphere's premiere Obama tongue bather, and even he can't defend him regarding the tax issue:

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2012/12/why-is-obama-caving-on-taxes.html

 

[Black Mamba]

Jon Chait is the blogosphere's premiere Obama tongue bather, and even he can't defend him regarding the tax issue:

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2012/12/why-is-obama-caving-on-taxes.html

Who cares? Obama did fine.

Obama cut no entitlements.

He extended UE benefits.

He got what will probably end up at $700 billion in revenue (bottom of $620 billion) all from the wealthy.


I'm fine with it. he also built up massive capital with the public. liberals starting to sound as bad as the conservatives. WAAAAH I DIDN'T GET EVERYTHING WAAAH,

 

[Rocket Scientist]

Not his seat, he may lose the speakership. Twitter is full of talk about there now being enough republicans to oust him. The Sandy thing was also an apparent "fuck you" to Cantor, although contradicting reports suggest Cantor is the one who fucked it up; I tend to believe it was Boehner considering the house's Sandy bill was largely negotiated and written by Cantor. Why would he kill his own bill.

If rather have Boehner as speaker than Cantor...

Ah yes, that's what I mean to write, speakership. I haven't read up on the Sandy thing yet, but that sounds like it would definitely motivate Cantor even more. The country would spiral out of control beyond anything we've seen so far if he won.

 

[Aaron Strife]

Who cares? Obama did fine.

Obama cut no entitlements.

He extended UE benefits.

He got what will probably end up at $700 billion in revenue (bottom of $620 billion) all from the wealthy.

I'm fine with it. he also built up massive capital with the public. liberals starting to sound as bad as the conservatives. WAAAAH I DIDN'T GET EVERYTHING WAAAH,

Seriously. Obama's starting position was $250k - Boehner's was a million. Obama ceded far less ground than the Republicans did. Perhaps Boehner's original offer was too far out to begin with, but before the election every Republican wanted to extend everything, so even the million represents a coming down.

There's also the complaint that Obama's starting position on revenue was 1.6 trillion, but that was in the context of a grand bargain. This bill explicitly only dealt with the fiscal cliff hoohah.

In my ideal West Wing-driven world, Boehner will take a caucus of 50 or so Republicans with him and form a coalition with Pelosi with a few set agreements, a clean debt ceiling vote being a top priority. I feel like Democrats would rather have Boehner be Speaker than Cantor, but we'll see how the chips fall I suppose.

 

[AniHawk]

i'd much rather a cantor house go down in flames in 2014 or 2016 than one run by boehner though.

 

[ClovingWestbrook]

Who cares? Obama did fine.

Obama cut no entitlements.

He extended UE benefits.

He got what will probably end up at $700 billion in revenue (bottom of $620 billion) all from the wealthy.


I'm fine with it. he also built up massive capital with the public. liberals starting to sound as bad as the conservatives. WAAAAH I DIDN'T GET EVERYTHING WAAAH,

Starting? Liberals have been just as bad his entire term.

 

[Aaron Strife]

i'd much rather a cantor house go down in flames in 2014 or 2016 than one run by boehner though.

I don't want to underestimate the power of the gerrymander. It's the only reason Boehner had any say in these fiscal cliff talks to begin with.

But yeah, having Cantor in charge would give Democrats an easier sell in 2014.

 

[Oblivion]

Who cares? Obama did fine.

Obama cut no entitlements.

He extended UE benefits.

He got what will probably end up at $700 billion in revenue (bottom of $620 billion) all from the wealthy.


I'm fine with it. he also built up massive capital with the public. liberals starting to sound as bad as the conservatives. WAAAAH I DIDN'T GET EVERYTHING WAAAH,

Noam Schreiber sums it up:

Having said that, I disagree with my colleague Tim Noah a bit: I think a reasonable person can defend the bill on its own terms. The fact is that nudging up the tax threshold to $450,000 only sacrifices $100-200 billion in revenue over the next decade (against the $700-800 billion the administration would have secured with its original threshold), while allowing unemployment benefits to lapse would cause real pain to both the 2 million people directly affected and, indirectly, to the economy. Yes, Obama could have gotten the latter without giving up the former had he just waited another few days—at which point what the GOP considers a tax increase suddenly becomes a tax cut. But these things are always easier to pull the trigger on when you, er, don’t actually have to pull the trigger. I can’t begrudge Obama his wanting to avoid some downside risk for only a marginally better deal.

My far bigger gripe with the whole fiscal-cliff exercise has always been the strategic dimension—how it affects the next showdown with the GOP, and the one after that. Coming into the negotiation, Obama had two big problems: First, no matter how tough he talked, Republicans always assumed he’d blink in the end, for the simple reason that he pretty much always had.

...

Instead, the emerging deal will reinforce the convictions that have made the GOP such a toxic presence in Washington. If Obama will cave even when he’s got all the leverage, when won’t he cave? Never, the Republicans will assume. If Obama’s too scared to stop bargaining and let the public decide who’s right in this instance, when the polls appear to back him, then he must think our position is more popular than he lets on. Suffice it to say, these are not sentiments you want at the front of Republicans’ mind as they prepare to shake him down over the debt limit in another two months. The White House continues to maintain that it simply won't negotiate over the limit. After this deal, why would any Republican ever believe this? I certainly don’t, and I desperately want to.

 

[Bam Bam Baklava]

Noam Schreiber sums it up:

Everything that I'm reading is exactly why we have a problem in the first place. No elected official should have to answer to the type of ideologue that thinks the difference between 250 and 400k is the end of the world. The right and left wings are driving this country nuts.

 

[PhoenixDark]

Jon Chait is the blogosphere's premiere Obama tongue bather, and even he can't defend him regarding the tax issue:

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2012/12/why-is-obama-caving-on-taxes.html

I agree with Chait, and would have preferred a longer battle focused on getting the 250k rates, UE benefits, and the tax credits (plus a one year AMT fix instead of permanent). That would pass the senate and given the GOP caving tonight, I think it could pass the house if voted on. If not there would be a week to storm the country/tv demanding a vote (which would be easier on Thursday with the new congress).

That being said, I'm no longer mad as fuck over the deal we ultimately got. It has torn the GOP apart and exposed them to the country, plus led to the Sandy relieft being delayed*. Whereas my plan would open democrats up to "both sides won't compromise" charges and perhaps lead to losing political capital if played poorly. Obama gets to claim victory although clearly Biden was the closer; still, Obama set this in motion.

*While it sucks it didn't pass, it's good politically. FEMA still has funds, and flood insurance doesn't expire for another week. I'm sure a new bill will quickly pass on Thursday or Friday. Meanwhile The House GOP looks like heartless fools for all to see, and for Christie to lampoon. Still not convinced dems can win in 2014 but this helps

 

[ISOM]

Noam Schreiber sums it up:

Didn't republicans want obama to cave severly on entitlement spending? Aren't most conservatives mad at the deal that was made? I don't exactly see the point he is making.

I don't think you will be able to get a single conservative in the conservative entertainment complex to say that the fiscal cliff deal was a good one, I think in fact they believe that they loss.

 

[ISOM]

Everything that I'm reading is exactly why we have a problem in the first place. No elected official should have to answer to the type of ideologue that thinks the difference between 250 and 400k is the end of the world. The right and left wings are driving this country nuts.

This is the problem I'm having if the left is angry that he just caved on 400k.. good lord, they dont want a president. They want an idealogue.

 

[PhoenixDark]

The other problem here is that Obama has once again validated obstruction. Republicans know if they hold firm, Obama will fold regardless of his hand. With that in mind I don't see why anyone would believe he won't negotiate on the debt ceiling. As I said I don't like the deal but am less mad. But the constant, predictable caves are beyond worrying.

 

[Black Mamba]

Noam Schreiber sums it up:

Obama didn't cave and painting it like this is ridiculous. Obama traded a little bit to get UE benefits. He even still raised taxes on the $250k due to the phaseouts of PEP and itemized deductions cap.

And I actually think Obama gained leverage for the fight in 2 months. As of right now, Obama's image is someone who compromises and dictated terms. He's in charge and he's also fair. If the GOP won't play ball, they're fucked.

I honestly think Obama's in a stronger position now without the tax cuts and UE benefits up for debate. He gave a little extra now for it. Obama also did not want a long battle. What you have to understand is once we're over the cliff and once the GOP dig their heels in, sides tend to stay dug in for a while. It's what we're seeing in the NHL now and saw in the NBA and see with teacher unions strikes, etc. Once you cross a certain point, both sides need lots of pain to come back. They won't move for a while. Not making this deal now would have been very painful for the 2 million unemployed and that leverage was strong for the GOP. Obama, not being a fuckup, understood this and wanted to ensure their benefits now and if it meant giving up a bit more than he'd like, it was worth it. This would have been a month long issue if it wasn't resolved this month.

The other problem here is that Obama has once again validated obstruction. Republicans know if they hold firm, Obama will fold regardless of his hand. With that in mind I don't see why anyone would believe he won't negotiate on the debt ceiling. As I said I don't like the deal but am less mad. But the constant, predictable caves are beyond worrying.

If anyone folded it was the GOP. Obama never folded. Obama, from the very beginning, never said he would never move from $250. In fact, he explicitly said he was open to moving off it on day 1.

Obama made a trade, a fair trade, and threw in a little sweetener to gain some capital for the next fight. He's playing a longer game and once again you're too short-sighted to see it. Just like the election.


Republicans just voted for an increase in taxes for the first time in forever (don't give me some semantics bullshit) and extension of UE benefits and somehow it's Obama who caved??? GTFO.

 

[Officerrob]

Morning Joe has only been on two minutes, and it's already amazing

 

[Basileus777]

I can't wait for the Republicans to blame Obama for raising the payroll tax and use that to campaign on in 2014.

 

[Oblivion]

This is the problem I'm having if the left is angry that he just caved on 400k.. good lord, they dont want a president. They want an idealogue.

Not at all. I'm not angry that Obama made some compromises, it's that, as usual, he compromised more than he needed to.

 

[Mgoblue201]

Noam Schreiber sums it up:

I can think of a few criticisms of this argument:

1) I don't think Obama had as much leverage as everyone assumed. In fact, there was more pressure on Obama to get a deal done than there was on any one House member or even the House GOP collectively, because the radicals to whom the GOP is in thrall could always agitate against compromise. The GOP may have tarnished their image on a national level, but that doesn't matter much in the House.

2) Consequently, the GOP could always remain united in opposition against a fiscal cliff deal as long as they didn't have to choose. Forcing them to govern, however, has shattered their sense of unanimity.

3) It is still Obama's role to govern. Only an ideologue would mistake compromise for weakness. If the Republicans actually think that they can bend Obama to their legislative goals, then they're idiots. In four years, what have they accomplished by forcing Obama to "cave"? Nothing. Meanwhile, Obama has accomplished several important, if not fully-fledged, victories.

And as Black Mamba said, the GOP folded far more than Obama on this issue. They'd have to be deluded to think that they won anything from all this.

 

[Oblivion]

If anyone folded it was the GOP.

And as Black Mamba said, the GOP folded far more than Obama on this issue. They'd have to be deluded to think that they won anything from all this.

Really? Yes, it's true that some higher income brackets got their taxes hiked but in exchange the Dems lost the estate tax, and the capital gains/dividends tax, permanently. The latter in particular are huge wins for the Republicans.

 

[Oblivion]

Oh, also. Can someone explain how tax credits differ from tax cuts?

 

[Officerrob]

Tom Brokaw: "This congress is the worst congress in the history of this country", just now on Morning Joe

Damn

 

[dabig2]

I'm disappointed in the fact that UE benefits were only extended for 1 year (another thing for republicans to hold hostage for spending cuts) and the sequestration delayed 2 months right in time for debt ceiling shenanigans.

Unlike some here, I'm not too confident that Obama and Dems won't accommodate the Republicans in getting at least some of their pounds of flesh, especially since republicans "gave up so much" in this bill, so obviously they deserve something, right? Because fairness.

 

[Basileus777]

I'm disappointed in the fact that UE benefits were only extended for 1 year (another thing for republicans to hold hostage for spending cuts) and the sequestration delayed 2 months right in time for debt ceiling shenanigans.

Unlike some here, I'm not too confident that Obama and Dems won't accommodate the Republicans in getting at least some of their pounds of flesh, especially since republicans "gave up so much" in this bill, so obviously they deserve something, right? Because fairness.

Let's just hope the signals Obama sent out that he's not opposed to increasing the eligibility age for Medicare and going to the chained CPI for SS and vets benefits weren't real. I don't want to see that back on the table in two months.

 

[CyclopsRock]

Surely you would agree that the president sets the agenda for the country. When that president gets re-elected, he gains political capital in order to implement that agenda. Or at least in theory, he should. The Republicans decide to throw hissy fits and refuse to acknowledge that their guy to set their agenda only received 47% support. Welcome to democracy.

That deal proposed is a turd wrapped inside another smellier turd. No military cuts, minimal tax increases, and another sequester fight two years from now. Does nothing to address the debt ceiling, and forces another unemployment benefits fight a year from now.

I don't really understand, if I'm honest. The American people have elected a President from one party, and a House from the other. I don't really agree that "the president sets the agenda for the country" - why? He's elected to fulfil an executive function, the House is elected to fulfil a legislative one. The American People were entirely capable of voting for a Democratic House, and they didn't. Where you see 'throwing a hissy fit', I imagine they see 'representing the wishes of those that have just elected us'. I don't think one needs to read any more into it, or declare upon "setting the agenda" - they have separate roles, and they're executing those roles as they were meant to be executed. Otherwise, why not just elect a president and be done with it? "Welcome to Democracy" indeed.

If the people voting for you and electing you yet again as you run on your plan doesn't strengthen your position in an elected democracy, then what in hell does?

Electing a House that agrees with the President? "Strength of position" is not defined by some public perception, it's defined at the ballot box.

 

[The Librarian]

I don't really understand, if I'm honest. The American people have elected a President from one party, and a House from the other. I don't really agree that "the president sets the agenda for the country" - why? He's elected to fulfil an executive function, the House is elected to fulfil a legislative one. The American People were entirely capable of voting for a Democratic House, and they didn't. Where you see 'throwing a hissy fit', I imagine they see 'representing the wishes of those that have just elected us'. I don't think one needs to read any more into it, or declare upon "setting the agenda" - they have separate roles, and they're executing those roles as they were meant to be executed. Otherwise, why not just elect a president and be done with it? "Welcome to Democracy" indeed.



Electing a House that agrees with the President? "Strength of position" is not defined by some public perception, it's defined at the ballot box.

Actually Americas elected a Democratic House, but due to gerrymandering the Republicans held it. I think this has been explained to you before.