A Serious Question About "Obstruction"

[CrusaderFrank]

Obama shouldn't obstruct the will of the People as represented by the House of Representatives

 

[CrusaderFrank]

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.

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

Dems are lying scumbags

 

[Uncensored2008]

You can't say the Republican Party is fine when it is fundamentally a regional party. In the Northeast and on the Pacific Coast the party is all but dead. The only hope Republicans have in these states is to get away from the national brand and move in mass to the Libertarian Party.

California has no Libertarian leanings. A communist with the religious agenda of the GOP would play well with the Mexicans, who, let's be honest, control the state. It's fiscal responsibility and support of the free market that is rejected in California. The state is run 100% for the benefit of the public employee unions. Libertarian policy has no place in California.

 

[Uncensored2008]

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.

Wow, really?

You have no clue at all what a hedge fund is, nor what hedge fund management it.

To generate cash flow to repay the debt, he plans to off shore the US workers to low cost countries.

Does he? Funny, since hedge funds have no operational control over the investments in their portfolio.

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.

How did he end up with "excess cash?"

I'll give you a hint, in a venture capital project, the goal is to achieve payback in 5 years. This means 5 years just to break even. By "excess cash" I assume you mean "profit," but lacking any semblance of knowledge of finance or economics, you stumbled with this.

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??

No, this example is not "real life" or even rational. This example is ignorant pap from the leftist drone spewing bullshit about how they think economic transactions occur.

 

[daveman]

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

Illinois Congressional District 4: Worst Example Of Gerrymandering | Getting Real

Oh, but this one does, huh?

 

[Sactowndog]

You can't say the Republican Party is fine when it is fundamentally a regional party. In the Northeast and on the Pacific Coast the party is all but dead. The only hope Republicans have in these states is to get away from the national brand and move in mass to the Libertarian Party.

California has no Libertarian leanings. A communist with the religious agenda of the GOP would play well with the Mexicans, who, let's be honest, control the state. It's fiscal responsibility and support of the free market that is rejected in California. The state is run 100% for the benefit of the public employee unions. Libertarian policy has no place in California.

Do you live here? I have most of the past 50 years. The Republican Party has moved towards irrelevance because it has ignored it's Libertarian wing. It needs to move back that direction.

 

[LibertyLemming]

Here's my question:
What is shocking or inappropriate about stating forthrightly that you intend to fight against someone who is trying to enact change that you feel is inherently dangerous to what you feel your constituents want/elected you to do/is in the best interest for the country?

No one seemed shocked when Democrats stated during the Bush Administration that they opposed the administration's policies, called them or the President directly, stupid/dangerous/criminal/etc. It seemed only logical that if you were against what President Bush was trying to do you would fight against it...not rally to his side as a sign of good sportsmanship or in the spirit of bipartisanship.

So here comes our new president...and we know from his books, his votes, his statements, etc. that he is going to push for massive healthcare reforms, higher taxes, that he believes the best approach to foreign policy begins with apologizing to various nations for the ways we have "wronged" them in the past...etc.

Not sure I agree there. Obama is very militaristic. He has continued all of Bush's conflicts and started some new ones

Agree or disagree, these are ideas that are inherently opposed to much of what the Republicans in Congress claim to represent.
agree

Why exactly are you expecting them to say, "Well - gee, the President is a Democrat so I guess we should all just bow down/bend over/shut up and let him do whatever he wants to this country for four years...and then we'll revisit the ideas and see if the people want a Republican again!"

Why is it shocking or offensive to hear a Republican politican say that they want to shut down Obama's agenda and that they'd like him to be a one-term president? Why isn't it just a "Well...duh!" observation.

If Romney wins the Presidency in November...will we witness Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid shake his hand and say, "Congratulations, Mr. President, lets have lunch and discuss how we can lower taxes on the rich, end Obamacare as quickly as possible, and do whatever else you have in your rich, Republican head to do!"

Yeah. People freaked out when Rush said he hopes "Obama fails" in 2008. He meant that he is opposed personally to Obama's policies so why on Earth would he want them to come true?

Good post though. I've said frequently that I am praying for gridlock.

 

[Sactowndog]

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.

Wow, really?

You have no clue at all what a hedge fund is, nor what hedge fund management it.

To generate cash flow to repay the debt, he plans to off shore the US workers to low cost countries.

Does he? Funny, since hedge funds have no operational control over the investments in their portfolio.

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.

How did he end up with "excess cash?"

I'll give you a hint, in a venture capital project, the goal is to achieve payback in 5 years. This means 5 years just to break even. By "excess cash" I assume you mean "profit," but lacking any semblance of knowledge of finance or economics, you stumbled with this.

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??

No, this example is not "real life" or even rational. This example is ignorant pap from the leftist drone spewing bullshit about how they think economic transactions occur.

I have seen this executed strategy executed by a number of funds. Sure not all funds execute this strategy but plenty do. I have also seen corporations execute this approach including the one I work for.

Also you confuse a hedge fund and a venture capital project. Generally a venture capital project is focused on start-ups at varying stages where the hedge fund (of this type) would look at more mature businesses. For someone who claims to know how this works you make a pretty fundamental error.

BTW, I am not saying all hedge funds employ this strategy as they employ various approaches but the one I outlined is certainly a variation.

 

[Polk]

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.

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

McConnell's definition of compromise is for Obama to cave to him on everything.

 

[Darkwind]

Utter garbage. It is touching the concern that dyed in the wool liberals have for the GOP. The GOP is doing just fine, thank you, as we saw in 2010. There is little influence from "those preachers". And the GOP has eschewed the isolationism preached by the libertarians in favor of a vigorous foreign policy, something the Democrats used to stand for, btw.
Yes, that part of Goldwater's party is gone. Thank goodness. Especially the part that lost to LBJ in a landslide.
It is teh Democratic Party that has changed the most. I recall the party of 1968 or so. It was led by men like Hubert Humphrey and George McGovern. You could disagree with their policies but you never questioned their integrity. When a flap enveloped Wilbur Mills, powerful chairman of the ways and means committee, the Democrats demanded his resignation. They did not join in lockstep and declare, "It's just sex" or "They all do it." I mourn the loss of a reasonable Democratic Party in this country.

You can't say the Republican Party is fine when it is fundamentally a regional party. In the Northeast and on the Pacific Coast the party is all but dead. The only hope Republicans have in these states is to get away from the national brand and move in mass to the Libertarian Party.

Yet, you call the GOP a regional party.......

What is that saying about people not being able to see their own....ah..no, it people not being able to smell their own stink.

 

[Darkwind]

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.

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

McConnell's definition of compromise is for Obama to cave to him on everything.

You have your actors backwards.

It is Obama's belief that the GOP should cave in to him on ANYTHING he decrees.

 

[oldfart]

You have no clue at all what a hedge fund is, nor what hedge fund management it.

Not trying to be argumentative here, but how do you define a hedge fund? I used to teach a course on "Money & Capital Markets" and I'm curious how the nomenclature has changed in the last forty years.

 

[PaulS1950]

What you call obstructionism I call intervention. You know like when an adict is confronted in order to stop the abuse? This is just an intervention of fiscal dependancy. The USA is 16.3 Trillion ($16,300,000,000,000) dollars in debt. We only pay the interest on that money and each year they borrow more than the years before. At some point in the next twenty years (or less) The entire tax collected won't be enough to pay the interest. Then we default - people go bankrupt due to inflation in the tripple digits. You will fill a wheelbarrow with money to get bread at the store only to find out that by the time you get there the price will tripple. The work you do in the first hour of work will pay three times what the money in the last hour and each day it will pay less and less. Cheep foreign imports will be very expensive and gas... forget it!
So when you talk about the Republicans trying to stop the president from borrowing another 3 trillion ($3,000,000,000,000) dollars maybe you too should think "INTERVENTION" instead of obstruction.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

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.

Elected officials do not sabatoge the President or the opposition party when they do not vote the way they want. That is a lie, misinformation and RETARDED to boot. Or would you kindly link us a thread where during republican admins you claimed the dems were sabotaging Bush?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

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.

The people voted to keep a majority of Republicans in the House. The individual Representatives are obliged to follow the desires of their electorate not the Presidents. Now remind me how you were pissed at the Dems for opposing Bush while he was President. Perhaps a link to a thread where you called them out for blocking Judges for 2 years?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

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.

You fail to note that the Republicans won the House and so using your analogy THEY have a mandate to do as they have been doing. As to who stopped whom the last 2 years, the House passed NUMEROUS budget bills and the Senate refused to even look at them. Refused to submit them to committee and do their JOBS.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

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.

You mean like how the democrats in the Senate refused to discuss anything with the Republicans in the House? How they refused to send to committee bill after bill, refused to legislate? Like that?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Saw this on another thread...

Here's my question:
What is shocking or inappropriate about stating forthrightly that you intend to fight against someone who is trying to enact change that you feel is inherently dangerous to what you feel your constituents want/elected you to do/is in the best interest for the country?

No one seemed shocked when Democrats stated during the Bush Administration that they opposed the administration's policies, called them or the President directly, stupid/dangerous/criminal/etc. It seemed only logical that if you were against what President Bush was trying to do you would fight against it...not rally to his side as a sign of good sportsmanship or in the spirit of bipartisanship.

So here comes our new president...and we know from his books, his votes, his statements, etc. that he is going to push for massive healthcare reforms, higher taxes, that he believes the best approach to foreign policy begins with apologizing to various nations for the ways we have "wronged" them in the past...etc.

Agree or disagree, these are ideas that are inherently opposed to much of what the Republicans in Congress claim to represent.

Why exactly are you expecting them to say, "Well - gee, the President is a Democrat so I guess we should all just bow down/bend over/shut up and let him do whatever he wants to this country for four years...and then we'll revisit the ideas and see if the people want a Republican again!"

Why is it shocking or offensive to hear a Republican politican say that they want to shut down Obama's agenda and that they'd like him to be a one-term president? Why isn't it just a "Well...duh!" observation.

If Romney wins the Presidency in November...will we witness Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid shake his hand and say, "Congratulations, Mr. President, lets have lunch and discuss how we can lower taxes on the rich, end Obamacare as quickly as possible, and do whatever else you have in your rich, Republican head to do!"

There is a huge difference between trying to find compromise on issues and having some give and take so that both sides get some of the things they want. Obviously, the party holding the power will usually get more of the benefit, but they don't just stonewall the opposition. The Republican Party, during Obama's entire presidency, has been stonewalling Obama and the Dems. They have not given on anything, and this is why this is most likely the most ineffective Congress we have ever had.

WRONG, The Republican House did its job and passed numerous bills dealing with numerous issues. The stone walling was Reid refusing to send to committee any of the bills The way Congress WORKS is the House passes a bill, the Senate takes that ill submits it to Committee, works out the parts the like and don't like, makes changes , submits it to Senate vote and if it passes they submit the new bill back to the House and have a committee work out the differences if possible. The Senate REFUSED to do their job for 2 years. NOT the House.

 

[PaulS1950]

The American voting (and non-voting) public has been argueing which of the two parties is better since Lincoln was elected. We have been voting the same two parties into office since then and expecting things to change. Well, they have but always for the worse. Both parties spend more money than they collect in taxes. The money they borrow they only pay interest on so the debt (and the amount of interest) just keeps growing. We owe 16.3 trillion ($16,300,000,000,000) dollars as of last October. If we stopped borrowing then (oops, too late) and paid a million dollars each day on the principal (and were forgiven the interest as long as we paid) that is 365 million dollars a year it would take 44,657 years and 195 days to pay it off. 44,657.5 years to pay off a debt that has accumulated for less than 200 years. We could have it paid off in July or August of 46669 CE. Now is it obstructive to try to cut spending? Is it in the best interests of the USA to keep spending more than we take in? What would you recommend to your representative?
What happens ifwe don't stop the spending? The USA dies! It dies in tripple digit inflation, depression that makes the "great depression" look like a bad day and the complete and total collapse of the entire government. Federal, state and city governments are all so tied to the federal teat that when it dries up everybody loses. You won't be able to pay the taxes on your home, each time you go to the store the same stuff (if you can find it) will cost many times what it did the last time, you will be walking because what gas is available will be priced so high that even the wealthy won't be driving. That gold tooth will be worth millions but it will cost hundreds times that much for just a months groceries.
If you don't believe this then find out for yourself - figure out how long it will take topay off the debt, find out what we pay in interest and then figure out how much we can borrow before it can't be paid. Look at the facts for yourself and then if you truly want to change the direction this country is going then stop voting for the same two parties that got us here. (am I crazy?)
The definition of insanity is: Doing the same thing repeatedly and expecting different results.
according to that the voting public is crazy at least the 95% that voted democrat or republican. The only alternative is the party that is founded on the original constitutional values that made this country great. They call themselves Libertarians for the freedoms and liberties that we had before we became slave to the federal government. Not a slave? OK, an indentured servant, and so are your unborn children and grandchildren for the next 44,657.5 years until the debt is paid.
The choice is yours - now (contact your representatives) and in the future - vote with those who will get the fed out of the places it doesn't belong and stop spending more than we have.

 

[daveman]

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.

You mean like how the democrats in the Senate refused to discuss anything with the Republicans in the House? How they refused to send to committee bill after bill, refused to legislate? Like that?

No, that's different. Somehow. It just is.