Repubs Agenda

[zoogs]

I really don't think that compromise is coming. They have enough hardliners who have a direct line of communication with the base (Cruz, among others) that they really can't move to the center.

 

Plus the American public just rewarded their unprecedented obstruction. They shut down the government . . . they filibustered everything . . . and they were just handed the Senate.

 

That doesn't sound like a recipe for compromise.

The hardliners part could be problematic. But I think they would behave very differently as the party in control vs as the minority party. I think they see this as a victory (though not the victory) and to secure it, they have to say, "You voted us in, then things changed."

 

To be honest, holding us hostage over this is a very effective tactic for a party that isn't in control. People hate gridlock more than most things and "both parties do it!" is a very, very easy sell.

[carlfense]

The hardliners part could be problematic. But I think they would behave very differently as the party in control vs as the minority party. I think they see this as a victory (though not the victory) and to secure it, they have to say, "You voted us in, then things changed."

 

To be honest, holding us hostage over this is a very effective tactic for a party that isn't in control. People hate gridlock more than most things and "both parties do it!" is a very, very easy sell.

I'm a bit more cynical than that . . . I see the Republicans winning more elections when people see that government isn't working. Republicans can make sure that the government doesn't work . . . and the media will still play the "both sides" game.

 

So the GOP short circuits the government and then campaigns on the claim that the government doesn't (and can't!) work. The Democrats have a more difficult path in that they actually have to make the government work.

 

It's rather ingenious actually.

[BigRedBuster]

 

The hardliners part could be problematic. But I think they would behave very differently as the party in control vs as the minority party. I think they see this as a victory (though not the victory) and to secure it, they have to say, "You voted us in, then things changed."

 

To be honest, holding us hostage over this is a very effective tactic for a party that isn't in control. People hate gridlock more than most things and "both parties do it!" is a very, very easy sell.

I'm a bit more cynical than that . . . I see the Republicans winning more elections when people see that government isn't working. Republicans can make sure that the government doesn't work . . . and the media will still play the "both sides" game.

 

So the GOP short circuits the government and then campaigns on the claim that the government doesn't (and can't!) work. The Democrats have a more difficult path in that they actually have to make the government work.

 

It's rather ingenious actually.

 

Similar things can be said about many issues.

 

The Dems win the more poor people their are if they can convince everyone it's republican's fault they are poor.

 

The Dems win if racism is still front and center in the media and they can convince everyone it's those mean conservatives that are keeping them down.

 

The Dems win if there are major problems in the environment when they point to the Republicans supporting those big evil corporations.

 

The Dems win on these issues even though when they are in office, nothing ever really gets accomplished to make them much better. When it doesn't happen, they just cry and point to the other side as the big meanies that prevents them from doing anything. The poor, black, environmentalists then race out to the polls to vote for them and the Dem politicians laugh all the way to the bank.

 

There will always be poor people. There will always be black people who are affected by racism. There will always be an environmental issue somewhere. The Dems love it.

[carlfense]

 

 

The hardliners part could be problematic. But I think they would behave very differently as the party in control vs as the minority party. I think they see this as a victory (though not the victory) and to secure it, they have to say, "You voted us in, then things changed."

 

To be honest, holding us hostage over this is a very effective tactic for a party that isn't in control. People hate gridlock more than most things and "both parties do it!" is a very, very easy sell.

I'm a bit more cynical than that . . . I see the Republicans winning more elections when people see that government isn't working. Republicans can make sure that the government doesn't work . . . and the media will still play the "both sides" game.

 

So the GOP short circuits the government and then campaigns on the claim that the government doesn't (and can't!) work. The Democrats have a more difficult path in that they actually have to make the government work.

 

It's rather ingenious actually.

 

Similar things can be said about many issues.

 

The Dems win the more poor people their are if they can convince everyone it's republican's fault they are poor.

 

The Dems win if racism is still front and center in the media and they can convince everyone it's those mean conservatives that are keeping them down.

 

The Dems win if there are major problems in the environment when they point to the Republicans supporting those big evil corporations.

 

The Dems win on these issues even though when they are in office, nothing ever really gets accomplished to make them much better. When it doesn't happen, they just cry and point to the other side as the big meanies that prevents them from doing anything. The poor, black, environmentalists then race out to the polls to vote for them and the Dem politicians laugh all the way to the bank.

 

There will always be poor people. There will always be black people who are affected by racism. There will always be an environmental issue somewhere. The Dems love it.

 

Each of those things requires more effort/cooperation than just throwing a wrench in the gears of government.

[Junior]

 

 

The hardliners part could be problematic. But I think they would behave very differently as the party in control vs as the minority party. I think they see this as a victory (though not the victory) and to secure it, they have to say, "You voted us in, then things changed."

 

To be honest, holding us hostage over this is a very effective tactic for a party that isn't in control. People hate gridlock more than most things and "both parties do it!" is a very, very easy sell.

I'm a bit more cynical than that . . . I see the Republicans winning more elections when people see that government isn't working. Republicans can make sure that the government doesn't work . . . and the media will still play the "both sides" game.

 

So the GOP short circuits the government and then campaigns on the claim that the government doesn't (and can't!) work. The Democrats have a more difficult path in that they actually have to make the government work.

 

It's rather ingenious actually.

 

Similar things can be said about many issues.

 

The Dems win the more poor people their are if they can convince everyone it's republican's fault they are poor.

 

The Dems win if racism is still front and center in the media and they can convince everyone it's those mean conservatives that are keeping them down.

 

The Dems win if there are major problems in the environment when they point to the Republicans supporting those big evil corporations.

 

The Dems win on these issues even though when they are in office, nothing ever really gets accomplished to make them much better. When it doesn't happen, they just cry and point to the other side as the big meanies that prevents them from doing anything. The poor, black, environmentalists then race out to the polls to vote for them and the Dem politicians laugh all the way to the bank.

 

There will always be poor people. There will always be black people who are affected by racism. There will always be an environmental issue somewhere. The Dems love it.

 

 

 

Why do you think that is? Is it because the Dems didn't try to do anything? Or is it because, for example, the GOP and their propaganda television station make the EPA seem like it is headed by Hitler himself? Or, as another example, the GOP will block Obama's appointment of non-cabinet level positions when the NRA tells them not to?

[BigRedBuster]

 

 

 

The hardliners part could be problematic. But I think they would behave very differently as the party in control vs as the minority party. I think they see this as a victory (though not the victory) and to secure it, they have to say, "You voted us in, then things changed."

 

To be honest, holding us hostage over this is a very effective tactic for a party that isn't in control. People hate gridlock more than most things and "both parties do it!" is a very, very easy sell.

I'm a bit more cynical than that . . . I see the Republicans winning more elections when people see that government isn't working. Republicans can make sure that the government doesn't work . . . and the media will still play the "both sides" game.

 

So the GOP short circuits the government and then campaigns on the claim that the government doesn't (and can't!) work. The Democrats have a more difficult path in that they actually have to make the government work.

 

It's rather ingenious actually.

 

Similar things can be said about many issues.

 

The Dems win the more poor people their are if they can convince everyone it's republican's fault they are poor.

 

The Dems win if racism is still front and center in the media and they can convince everyone it's those mean conservatives that are keeping them down.

 

The Dems win if there are major problems in the environment when they point to the Republicans supporting those big evil corporations.

 

The Dems win on these issues even though when they are in office, nothing ever really gets accomplished to make them much better. When it doesn't happen, they just cry and point to the other side as the big meanies that prevents them from doing anything. The poor, black, environmentalists then race out to the polls to vote for them and the Dem politicians laugh all the way to the bank.

 

There will always be poor people. There will always be black people who are affected by racism. There will always be an environmental issue somewhere. The Dems love it.

 

 

 

Why do you think that is? Is it because the Dems didn't try to do anything? Or is it because, for example, the GOP and their propaganda television station make the EPA seem like it is headed by Hitler himself?

 

Hey....I didn't say the Republicans don't make it easy for them.

[Junior]

 

Hey....I didn't say the Republicans don't make it easy for them.

 

 

 

It's not that the GOP won't make it easy for them... it's that they make it damned impossible for anything to get done. Obstructionism is their sole goal, and then you seem surprised that the Democrats didn't get more done.

[TGHusker]

 

To your list I'd add ACA reform. Per reports - premiums are going to jump and there are other issues (besides the website). I doubt we see a repeal and replace due to an Obama veto but I can see the Congress tweaking it.

What other issues? Also, premiums are coming in lower than predicted. Everything predicted by Republicans about the ACA (with the possible exception of the website rollout and that was promptly fixed) has been proven incorrect. Why should we trust them now?

 

Also, they've been promising a replacement for what? 6 years now? When are they going to get around to passing that? I'd take repeal and replace a lot more seriously if they would take care of the part that is under their authority first.

 

Rate increases (some declines) 7.5% - 8.2% on average per these articles:

http://www.hfma.org/Content.aspx?id=24139

http://www.aasmnet.org/articles.aspx?id=4931

http://www.latinpost.com/articles/19096/20140813/affordable-care-act-premiums-rate-increase-averages-7-5-percent.htm

supported by:

http://www.pwc.com/us/en/health-industries/health-research-institute/aca-state-exchanges.jhtml

 

Regarding the bold above, I do agree wt you. The Repubs thus far have talked the talk but they haven't walked it - no specific plan. Their strategy during the midterm was to speak in generalities to cast the biggest net wtout turning off voters. Time to get down to specifics - if none are forthcoming, then we know we've been played in order to get a majority.

[tschu]

Rates have increased at similar percentages every year and will continue to do so (and would have continued to do so regardless of whether Obamacare had been passed or not)

 

[carlfense]

Rate increases (some declines) 7.5% - 8.2% on average per these articles:

http://www.hfma.org/Content.aspx?id=24139

http://www.aasmnet.org/articles.aspx?id=4931

http://www.latinpost.com/articles/19096/20140813/affordable-care-act-premiums-rate-increase-averages-7-5-percent.htm

supported by:

http://www.pwc.com/us/en/health-industries/health-research-institute/aca-state-exchanges.jhtml

Premium average increased by 9.9% in 2008.

Premium average increased by 10.8% in 2009.

 

So . . .

[carlfense]

Rates have increased at similar percentages every year and will continue to do so (and would have continued to do so regardless of whether Obamacare had been passed or not)

 

But . . . DOOM.

[tschu]

[BigRedBuster]

 

 

Hey....I didn't say the Republicans don't make it easy for them.

 

 

 

It's not that the GOP won't make it easy for them... it's that they make it damned impossible for anything to get done. Obstructionism is their sole goal, and then you seem surprised that the Democrats didn't get more done.

 

I'm talking about more than just the last 3-4 election cycles. I'm talking long term. Neither side really wants to "fix" anything. It is all wedge issues that both sides really really want to keep going to motivate their base and get votes.

[carlfense]

I'm talking about more than just the last 3-4 election cycles. I'm talking long term. Neither side really wants to "fix" anything. It is all wedge issues that both sides really really want to keep going to motivate their base and get votes.

I don't know . . . I think that the ACA or No Child Left Behind (for example) were legitimate attempts at fixing things. We can argue about whether they improved the situations (or made things worse) but I do think that both of those examples had the right intentions.

[Comish]

 

Perhaps you might comment on the 360+ bills passed by the House that died on Harry Reid's desk without seeing the light of day for discussion, debate or merit.

A significant percentage of those bills are attempts to repeal the Affordable Care Act . . . which is not an issue where the GOP is actually interested in debate, merit, or discussion.

 

Senator Reid (undoubtedly the most vile and partisan man in Washington) . . .

Oh boy. That's hilarious.

 

Yes Carl, I specifically pointed out that many of the bills certainly are just that. But as usual, you fail to acknowledge the salient point about those that have merit.

And, by the way, since you defend the indefensible Reid, how about you list anyone you consider worse.......