A Serious Question About "Obstruction"

[Sactowndog]

The opposition party always tries to obstruct the current president, they're usually a little more discrete about saying so. That quote from McConnell, he later says in the same interview that if Obama would actually compromise with the repubs that he and they would work with him. Funny how the left always leaves that part out.

snippet:

NJ: What’s the job?

McConnell: The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president.

NJ: Does that mean endless, or at least frequent, confrontation with the president?

McConnell: If President Obama does a Clintonian backflip, if he’s willing to meet us halfway on some of the biggest issues, it’s not inappropriate for us to do business with him.

NJ: What are the big issues?

McConnell: It is possible the president’s advisers will tell him he has to do something to get right with the public on his levels of spending and [on] lowering the national debt. If he were to heed that advice, he would, I image, [sic] find more support among our conference than he would among some in the Senate in his own party. I don’t want the president to fail; I want him to change. So, we’ll see. The next move is going to be up to him.

Read more: Woodward Gets Scarborough to Apologize for Misreporting McConnell's 'Make Obama One-Term President' Remark | NewsBusters.org

But in fact the actions did not follow the words. The Republican leadership did want him to fail to the point of when he adopted Republican ideas they promptly opposed them.

A perfect example is the mandate in health care. The simple fact is this a Republican concept stated by the Heritage Foundation. Nor does it violate Republican principles because in fact without it people freeload off the system by gaining catastrophic health care insurance free of charge. But once it was included in the Obama health care plan Republican's attacked it.

Simply put Republicans are not willing to move at all and despite what they think, the vast majority of American's don't think they have the monopoly on good ideas.

I don't see the democrats as willing to address the problems with our entitlement programs or cut spending at all, except defense spending. Democrats are no more willing to budge than the repubs are.

About the ACA, too bad the democrats didn't try to include the repubs in the creation of the bill. But no, they completely shut them out and then expected their support. Fuck that.

This is simply not factually correct. The grand bargin Obama sought and still seeks is to raise taxes in exchange for addressing Medicare which everyone agrees is out of control. The death of this was due solely to Boehner's refusal to raise income taxes.

Now personally I agree it is a bad idea. Their whole campaign pointed out that Romney invested in China and only paid 14% in income taxes. Raise the personal income tax rate and Romney will still be paying 14% because most of his income derived from outsourcing comes in the form of Capital Gains.

 

[P@triot]

There's a difference between promoting policies or an ideology as an opposition voice and making it your goal as a salaried employee of the United States to sabotage the President.

When the President has vowed to sabotage the United States, I demand that "salaried employees" sabotage him.

 

[P@triot]

I think all politiians in both house should respect democracy.

I understand that opposition parties do not support the vision of the party that defeated them at the polls, but they should respect that the people voted for that vision.

I'd rather see opposition parties try to get amendments made rather than jut set out to block and sabtoage.

Excuse me, but the American people voted for Obama based on lies and him hiding his agenda. Once the American people saw who he really was, the GOP slaughtered the dumbocrats during the November 2010 mid-term elections.

So the question is, why aren't you calling for Barack Obama to respect the wishes of the American people and reverse course?

 

[Katzndogz]

Those salaried employees don't work for the presidebt. They really work for the people who are the employers not only of those employees but of the presidebt too.

 

[P@triot]

Most Obama opponents both in Washington and civilian in my opinion are no smarter than the pebbles of the Grand Canyon. My think to Obama haters is "you hate Obama but would rather elect a president that gives tax cuts to the rich?"

Yes, because the "rich" are the people who create jobs. We've had 4 years of Obama's marxist economic philosophy and the facts show it is a monumental failure (the longest period of +8% unemployment in U.S. history, sans the Great Depression).

Most Obama supporters both in Washington and civilian who ignore the indisputable facts that prove his policies are a failure in my opinion are no smarter than the pebbles of the Grand Canyon.

 

[P@triot]

Wiseacre -

I think demcracy requires firm opposition. We need opposition parties to ask questions, challenge assumptions and present alternative visions.

What we don't need is legislation so heavily compromised that it does not work, or legislation bogged down in committees for years when it could make a real difference once implemented.

When a party stand on a couple of key issues and wins an election on them, they have a mandate from the people, even if they do not have a majority in the house. I think opposition parties should respect that, even if they do not support the legislation themselves.

If the other party has policies that are collapsing my nation (as the dumbocrats in Washington do) then I demand that my representatives gridlock government to gridlock the collapse.

$16 trillion is about $15.5 trillion beyond unsustainable, and all the dumbocrats in Washington want to do is finish the collapse by spending even more and taxing businesses into closing their doors.

 

[Wiseacre]

But in fact the actions did not follow the words. The Republican leadership did want him to fail to the point of when he adopted Republican ideas they promptly opposed them.

A perfect example is the mandate in health care. The simple fact is this a Republican concept stated by the Heritage Foundation. Nor does it violate Republican principles because in fact without it people freeload off the system by gaining catastrophic health care insurance free of charge. But once it was included in the Obama health care plan Republican's attacked it.

Simply put Republicans are not willing to move at all and despite what they think, the vast majority of American's don't think they have the monopoly on good ideas.

I don't see the democrats as willing to address the problems with our entitlement programs or cut spending at all, except defense spending. Democrats are no more willing to budge than the repubs are.

About the ACA, too bad the democrats didn't try to include the repubs in the creation of the bill. But no, they completely shut them out and then expected their support. Fuck that.

This is simply not factually correct. The grand bargin Obama sought and still seeks is to raise taxes in exchange for addressing Medicare which everyone agrees is out of control. The death of this was due solely to Boehner's refusal to raise income taxes.

Now personally I agree it is a bad idea. Their whole campaign pointed out that Romney invested in China and only paid 14% in income taxes. Raise the personal income tax rate and Romney will still be paying 14% because most of his income derived from outsourcing comes in the form of Capital Gains.

The way I heard it, Boehner offered 800 billion in more revenue through closing tax loopholes, and thought he had a deal with Obama. But Obama tried to get more and the deal went south. You blame Boehner, I blame Obama for not taking the deal that was on the table. We could've avoided all the sequestration bullshit that followed.

 

[Sactowndog]

Most Obama opponents both in Washington and civilian in my opinion are no smarter than the pebbles of the Grand Canyon. My think to Obama haters is "you hate Obama but would rather elect a president that gives tax cuts to the rich?"

Yes, because the "rich" are the people who create jobs. We've had 4 years of Obama's marxist economic philosophy and the facts show it is a monumental failure (the longest period of +8% unemployment in U.S. history, sans the Great Depression).

Most Obama supporters both in Washington and civilian who ignore the indisputable facts that prove his policies are a failure in my opinion are no smarter than the pebbles of the Grand Canyon.

This is not always the case. Let's use a real life example of a hedge fund manager. His strategy (a real one by the way) is to buy companies using debt. To generate cash flow to repay the debt, he plans to off shore the US workers to low cost countries. With the excess cash generated he will also acquire more companies and follow the same strategy. His efforts will increase the stock price which he will sell at a profit and pay 15% in taxes.

This example is a real life example and this rich person didn't create a single job in the US. How do you rationalize this with your statement??

 

[Sactowndog]

I don't see the democrats as willing to address the problems with our entitlement programs or cut spending at all, except defense spending. Democrats are no more willing to budge than the repubs are.

About the ACA, too bad the democrats didn't try to include the repubs in the creation of the bill. But no, they completely shut them out and then expected their support. Fuck that.

This is simply not factually correct. The grand bargin Obama sought and still seeks is to raise taxes in exchange for addressing Medicare which everyone agrees is out of control. The death of this was due solely to Boehner's refusal to raise income taxes.

Now personally I agree it is a bad idea. Their whole campaign pointed out that Romney invested in China and only paid 14% in income taxes. Raise the personal income tax rate and Romney will still be paying 14% because most of his income derived from outsourcing comes in the form of Capital Gains.

The way I heard it, Boehner offered 800 billion in more revenue through closing tax loopholes, and thought he had a deal with Obama. But Obama tried to get more and the deal went south. You blame Boehner, I blame Obama for not taking the deal that was on the table. We could've avoided all the sequestration bullshit that followed.

Seems to me Obama has been quite clear. Closing loopholes hits the middle class which is already under heavy strain. His side of the deal is not extending the Bush tax cuts for those making over 250K a year. That's the deal take it or leave it. In this case, not taking it means the sequestration comes into play.

 

[Sactowndog]

I don't see the democrats as willing to address the problems with our entitlement programs or cut spending at all, except defense spending. Democrats are no more willing to budge than the repubs are.

About the ACA, too bad the democrats didn't try to include the repubs in the creation of the bill. But no, they completely shut them out and then expected their support. Fuck that.

This is simply not factually correct. The grand bargin Obama sought and still seeks is to raise taxes in exchange for addressing Medicare which everyone agrees is out of control. The death of this was due solely to Boehner's refusal to raise income taxes.

Now personally I agree it is a bad idea. Their whole campaign pointed out that Romney invested in China and only paid 14% in income taxes. Raise the personal income tax rate and Romney will still be paying 14% because most of his income derived from outsourcing comes in the form of Capital Gains.

The way I heard it, Boehner offered 800 billion in more revenue through closing tax loopholes, and thought he had a deal with Obama. But Obama tried to get more and the deal went south. You blame Boehner, I blame Obama for not taking the deal that was on the table. We could've avoided all the sequestration bullshit that followed.

You know as well as I it was theater and wasn't a real deal. The Republican plan was simple. Don't offer a real deal. Obstruct, make Obama a one term President and then create the system you want with your guy in office. The wealthy not only keep their tax breaks they get a further cut despite already having a historically light tax load.

Problem is it didn't work and now they are between a rock and a hard spot. They were out maneuvered by Obama and now obstruction means huge tax increases for everyone and huge defense cuts.

 

[AVG-JOE]

I think all politiians in both house should respect democracy.

I understand that opposition parties do not support the vision of the party that defeated them at the polls, but they should respect that the people voted for that vision.

I'd rather see opposition parties try to get amendments made rather than jut set out to block and sabtoage.

Step one to working it out is to put all aspects of the nations finances on the table, spending needs to be drastically reduced and those who can afford it need to pay a little more in taxes.

Step one in obstructionism is the refusal to discuss one side of the solution equation.

Been reading about last summer's debt ceiling debacle. From what I got out of it so far, the GOP refused to even discuss tax hikes but were willing to talk about reducing tax deductions and exemptions that would've increased revenue. They wanted to make other changes to grow the economy, thereby increasing revenue that way.

But the democrats were as unwilling to discuss making any changes to the entitlement programs, which is where the big money is. They took it off the table, and instead went looking for nickle and dime stuff in other areas. Looks to me like plenty of obstructionism on both sides.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/261655-successful-negotiations-on-the-us-budget.html

 

[Wiseacre]

This is simply not factually correct. The grand bargin Obama sought and still seeks is to raise taxes in exchange for addressing Medicare which everyone agrees is out of control. The death of this was due solely to Boehner's refusal to raise income taxes.

Now personally I agree it is a bad idea. Their whole campaign pointed out that Romney invested in China and only paid 14% in income taxes. Raise the personal income tax rate and Romney will still be paying 14% because most of his income derived from outsourcing comes in the form of Capital Gains.

The way I heard it, Boehner offered 800 billion in more revenue through closing tax loopholes, and thought he had a deal with Obama. But Obama tried to get more and the deal went south. You blame Boehner, I blame Obama for not taking the deal that was on the table. We could've avoided all the sequestration bullshit that followed.

You know as well as I it was theater and wasn't a real deal. The Republican plan was simple. Don't offer a real deal. Obstruct, make Obama a one term President and then create the system you want with your guy in office. The wealthy not only keep their tax breaks they get a further cut despite already having a historically light tax load.

Problem is it didn't work and now they are between a rock and a hard spot. They were out maneuvered by Obama and now obstruction means huge tax increases for everyone and huge defense cuts.

Well I know this: it is the president's job to work with Congress to get shit done. Every other president has been able to this with a divided Congress, but Obama hasn't. You wanna blame the GOP, fine. But I think the truth is that it was Obama and the democrats wouldn't bend either.

 

[Greenbeard]

About the ACA, too bad the democrats didn't try to include the repubs in the creation of the bill. But no, they completely shut them out and then expected their support. Fuck that.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nz5AmhI9g7o]Senate Republicans Block Own Amendments on Health Care Bill - YouTube[/ame]

This is what obstruction is. And it should be self-explanatory why that's neither principled nor good for our nation.

 

[daveman]

This is simply not factually correct. The grand bargin Obama sought and still seeks is to raise taxes in exchange for addressing Medicare which everyone agrees is out of control. The death of this was due solely to Boehner's refusal to raise income taxes.

Now personally I agree it is a bad idea. Their whole campaign pointed out that Romney invested in China and only paid 14% in income taxes. Raise the personal income tax rate and Romney will still be paying 14% because most of his income derived from outsourcing comes in the form of Capital Gains.

The way I heard it, Boehner offered 800 billion in more revenue through closing tax loopholes, and thought he had a deal with Obama. But Obama tried to get more and the deal went south. You blame Boehner, I blame Obama for not taking the deal that was on the table. We could've avoided all the sequestration bullshit that followed.

Seems to me Obama has been quite clear. Closing loopholes hits the middle class which is already under heavy strain. His side of the deal is not extending the Bush tax cuts for those making over 250K a year. That's the deal take it or leave it. In this case, not taking it means the sequestration comes into play.

Too bad the President's "concern" for the middle class doesn't extend to Obamacare:

Nearly 6 Million Americans Face New Tax - Business Insider

Nearly 6 million Americans — significantly more than first estimated— will face a tax penalty under President Barack Obama's health overhaul for not getting insurance, congressional analysts said Wednesday. Most would be in the middle class.
The new estimate amounts to an inconvenient fact for the administration, a reminder of what critics see as broken promises.

--

And the budget office analysis found that nearly 80 percent of those who'll face the penalty would be making up to or less than five times the federal poverty level. Currently that would work out to $55,850 or less for an individual and $115,250 or less for a family of four.

Average penalty: about $1,200 in 2016.​

‘Obamacare’ burdens poor, middle class with tax - POLITICO.com

The $8 billion “Obamacare” fee on insurers will increase Americans’ premiums by $10.6 billion in its first year, estimates Douglas Holtz-Eakin, a former director of the Congressional Budget Office .
That tax will be particularly hard on the poor and middle class — the very people that were supposed to benefit from the law.
In 2014, people earning between $10,000 and $30,000 will pay almost $2.8 billion in higher health insurance premiums. People earning between $30,000 and $50,000 will pay $2.2 billion. (This does not include the proposed government subsidy.) People earning from $75,000 to $100,000 will pay less than $1.5 billion, and the numbers only go down from there.l​

I'm less than impressed with Obama's "concern" for the middle class.

 

[daveman]

About the ACA, too bad the democrats didn't try to include the repubs in the creation of the bill. But no, they completely shut them out and then expected their support. Fuck that.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nz5AmhI9g7o]Senate Republicans Block Own Amendments on Health Care Bill - YouTube[/ame]

This is what obstruction is. And it should be self-explanatory why that's neither principled nor good for our nation.

It is when you believe Obama's agenda is not good for the nation.

One more time: The GOP has no obligation to rubber-stamp Obama's agenda. They don't work for him; they work for their constituents, who put them in DC to look out for them.

 

[Sactowndog]

The way I heard it, Boehner offered 800 billion in more revenue through closing tax loopholes, and thought he had a deal with Obama. But Obama tried to get more and the deal went south. You blame Boehner, I blame Obama for not taking the deal that was on the table. We could've avoided all the sequestration bullshit that followed.

You know as well as I it was theater and wasn't a real deal. The Republican plan was simple. Don't offer a real deal. Obstruct, make Obama a one term President and then create the system you want with your guy in office. The wealthy not only keep their tax breaks they get a further cut despite already having a historically light tax load.

Problem is it didn't work and now they are between a rock and a hard spot. They were out maneuvered by Obama and now obstruction means huge tax increases for everyone and huge defense cuts.

Well I know this: it is the president's job to work with Congress to get shit done. Every other president has been able to this with a divided Congress, but Obama hasn't. You wanna blame the GOP, fine. But I think the truth is that it was Obama and the democrats wouldn't bend either.

Both sides have been bad as many a retiring senator has said. At this point the power of doing nothing lies with Obama.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Saw this on another thread...

Here's my question:...

When you demonize opponents and turn them into caricatures of an enemy, compromise is not possible. The art of politics in governing is the art of compromise.
When you go into a negotiation saying you will not budge on 100% of what you believe, there is no reason to go further.

America got along just fine for a few hundred years, Is anything different now? The partisan bickering was there from the day Jefferson and Adams fought over who would have their way. But even though their battles were personal, petty, and nasty, they ultimately compromised, or their surrogates did, and failing that they persuaded a majority to elect them.

Gerrymandered congressional districts have given the right wing a false sense of baking by the public. Romney laid out the conservative case for tax policy very well..and the public did not buy it even though a small majority thought Romney had a better case to be made on the jobs and economic issues. Why? The public does not trust Romney or the GOP.

The right wingers are a faction. They have a narrow agenda. They are no more representative of the general public than the left wingers are...but the right wingers have power where the left wingers do not. Dennis Kucinich, JEsse Jackson, BErnie Sanders, none has any real power like right wingers do.

Obstruction has been a right wing tactic since the days of Newt Gingrich and it serves only the partisan faction and not the nation. One can delude oneself into believing one is representative of the nation, but the political graveyards are full of lost causes fought on behalf of a phantom public agenda

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Wiseacre -

I think demcracy requires firm opposition. We need opposition parties to ask questions, challenge assumptions and present alternative visions.

What we don't need is legislation so heavily compromised that it does not work, or legislation bogged down in committees for years when it could make a real difference once implemented.

When a party stand on a couple of key issues and wins an election on them, they have a mandate from the people, even if they do not have a majority in the house. I think opposition parties should respect that, even if they do not support the legislation themselves.

If the other party has policies that are collapsing my nation (as the dumbocrats in Washington do) then I demand that my representatives gridlock government to gridlock the collapse.

$16 trillion is about $15.5 trillion beyond unsustainable, and all the dumbocrats in Washington want to do is finish the collapse by spending even more and taxing businesses into closing their doors.

most Americas do not agree with you. Gerrymandered congressional districts are not representative of the nation as a whole.

see your tired, sorry ass in 2014

 

[editec]

Obstructionism?

The GOP stood its ground firmly based on its principles.

So did the Dems.

And by a slim margin of voters, the people of the USA just told the GOP that theirs is the SECOND BEST set of principles for this nation.

So there's nothing wrong with what they did. It was hard ball politics.

It's just that the American people decided they were sick of the GOP's politics and they threw their support to Obama and the Dems.


Suck it up, Republicans.

The 47% have spoken.

 

[Grandma]

About the ACA, too bad the democrats didn't try to include the repubs in the creation of the bill. But no, they completely shut them out and then expected their support. Fuck that.

Disinfo.

The ACA very closely followed Romney's Mass. bill, and democrats allowed the republicans to add in all sorts of riders in order to get their vote - yet the repugs still refused to vote for it.

Fuck that.

The republican obstructionsts are without honor. So are their shills.