14 reasons why this is the worst Congress ever

[carlfense]

Ah. Did the supreme court rule on the constitutionality of the ACA back in March of 2010?

 

That ruling is why I expect instability. I'm interested to see how the polls shift from the decision on. It's a more difficult argument for the GOP to make when the law is conclusively constitutional.

[AR Husker Fan]

What's interesting is that, rather consistently, voters have indicated that they like most of the provisions in the Affordable Care Act - including those that identified themselves as Republican. Remove the individual mandate, and the American people (including Republicans) would support it. In short, then, the majority of Americans think the problem with the Act is the manner in which it is financed.

 

That being the case, Republicans could score a huge victory with public perception if they could put forth a credible financing alternative and let the remainder of the Act stand. Come to think of it, so could Democrats. Wonder if we'll see that from either party in time to matter for the election?

[huKSer]

What's interesting is that, rather consistently, voters have indicated that they like most of the provisions in the Affordable Care Act - including those that identified themselves as Republican. Remove the individual mandate, and the American people (including Republicans) would support it. In short, then, the majority of Americans think the problem with the Act is the manner in which it is financed.

 

That being the case, Republicans could score a huge victory with public perception if they could put forth a credible financing alternative and let the remainder of the Act stand. Come to think of it, so could Democrats. Wonder if we'll see that from either party in time to matter for the election?

Gawd, you should run for supreme leader.

[Sargon]

1. Because it's nearly half filled with Democrats.

 

/end

[carlfense]

Remove the individual mandate, and the American people (including Republicans) would support it.

Not if it was proposed by President Obama or a member of the Democratic Party. The record on this sort of issue is clear. Modern day Republicans oppose their own policies when they are proposed by the other party.

 

The ACA (including the individual mandate) is probably the biggest example.

 

The filibuster last week of tax cuts for small business is another.

 

 

 

The problem is that they are currently more concerned with winning political victories than in enacting policies that they support.

[zoogs]

You know, I don't remember things being too different with Democrats in at least Bush's second term. I recall not having a ton of respect for the Democratic Party in those days. It goes back to the unproductive political landscape, always in a state of standoff. Part of that is by design and part of it is good: two parties in conflict > one party in control. Inefficiency is one of the tradeoffs we get for democracy in exchange for stability. Still, some of it is extreme and all of it is hard to cheer for when it happens.

 

I'm posting this "let's be circumspect" reminder because I know on more than one occasion recently, I have been irked by posters who, in response to others pointing out the problems of political standoff, say things like "yeah, it's because Democrats make up half of Congress." The flip side, just blaming it all on the Republican party, strikes me as similarly unproductive.

 

Even if it's true, blame gets us nowhere. The root problem is that a great many people firmly want to loath one party (and one 'ideology' with which they associate roughly half of America). A great many other people want the same for the other party. Anything that encourages this sentiment in either direction, is just damaging. It's part of the problem, isn't it?

[knapplc]

You know, I don't remember things being too different with Democrats in at least Bush's second term. I recall not having a ton of respect for the Democratic Party in those days. It goes back to the unproductive political landscape, always in a state of standoff. Part of that is by design and part of it is good: two parties in conflict > one party in control. Inefficiency is one of the tradeoffs we get for democracy in exchange for stability. Still, some of it is extreme and all of it is hard to cheer for when it happens.

 

I'm posting this "let's be circumspect" reminder because I know on more than one occasion recently, I have been irked by posters who, in response to others pointing out the problems of political standoff, say things like "yeah, it's because Democrats make up half of Congress." The flip side, just blaming it all on the Republican party, strikes me as similarly unproductive.

 

Even if it's true, blame gets us nowhere. The root problem is that a great many people firmly want to loath one party (and one 'ideology' with which they associate roughly half of America). A great many other people want the same for the other party. Anything that encourages this sentiment in either direction, is just damaging. It's part of the problem, isn't it?

 

I just posted something like this in another thread, just before I read this. Good job, zoogies. The moderates need to band together, and make our voices heard.

[Yossarian]

I have now come to the conclusion that Barack Obama will win a second term - enough people are probably going to vote for him for the same reasons they did in 2008 and he will likely win. In past elections, calling your opponent a likely felon would have drawn the ridicule of the media - just as claims that the President wasn't a U.S. citizen drew laughter back in 2008, and rightly so. I also believe that the Republicans will take back the Senate and increase their seats in the House just as they did in 2010. The reasons people will vote for President Obama (Government handouts, class warfare, white guilt) will not translate into coat-tail votes for the Senate and House. I believe the result will be continued deadlock, a back-lash against the growth of Government, and a double-dip recession. You will not end a recession through increased taxes and crony capitalism disguised as stimulus. We are in for another four years of Amateur Night at the White House.

[carlfense]

<snip> calling your opponent a likely felon would have drawn the ridicule of the media <snip>

I wonder what the media would say if Obama's campaign had called Romney a "likely felon."

 

I wouldn't expect the media to ridicule a campaign for something that it didn't say. I guess your opinion differs.

[carlfense]

You know, I don't remember things being too different with Democrats in at least Bush's second term.

It wasn't. I remember people introducing themselves at mandatory ice breakers with lines like "My name is Jody and something interesting about me is that I hate George W. Bush."

 

That's obnoxious.

[Yossarian]

Oh, there were worse things said about GWB.

 

 

Fortunately no more than ten people saw it.

[carlfense]

Oh, there were worse things said about GWB.

 

 

Fortunately no more than ten people saw it.

Did you find that elusive video where the Obama campaign calls Romney a "likely felon?"

 

I'm so upset with the liberal media for not being more outraged at that non-existent statement.