Nov 2023 Mod notice:
There may be other, more specific, threads about some aspects of US politics, but this one tends to act as a hub for all sorts of related news and information, so it's usually one of the busiest OTC threads.
If you're new to OTC, it's worth reading the Introduction to On-Topic Conversations
and the On-Topic Conversations debate guidelines
before posting here.
Rumor-based, fear-mongering and/or inflammatory statements that damage the quality of the thread will be thumped. Off-topic posts will also be thumped. Repeat offenders may be suspended.
If time spent moderating this thread remains a distraction from moderation of the wiki itself, the thread will need to be locked. We want to avoid that, so please follow the forum rules
when posting here.
In line with the general forum rules, 'gravedancing' is prohibited here. If you're celebrating someone's death or hoping that they die, your post will get thumped. This rule applies regardless of what the person you're discussing has said or done.
Edited by Mrph1 on Nov 30th 2023 at 11:03:59 AM
Baff, your arguments are illogical and inconsistent. And also ignorant of reality. The Dems aren't capitulating here, they're managing to get some of what they want. Which, in light of recent history, is amazing.
But yeah, there is no "winner take all" in American politics. Our system wasn't designed that way. There has to be some compromise, and as mentioned before a savvy negotiator goes in and starts with something lower/higher than they really want so they have some ground to give.
Also, you seriously need to use spellcheck and check your grammar. You're just flat out using the wrong words in many, many places and this makes it hard to understand you sometimes.
Eric Cantor opposes the deal. http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2013/01/01/latest-updates-house-readies-for-fiscal-cliff-vote/?hpt=hp_t1
@Karkadinn: No. The fiscal cliff isn't just Bush era tax cuts. So if no deal happens, the economy will hit a second recession and middle-class tax cuts won't do us much good.
Edit: Cantor is useless as always...plus I'm seeing a worrying split between Senate (classic) and House (Tea Party) Republicans. Not good...what's Boehner's position?
edited 1st Jan '13 2:27:23 PM by Ultrayellow
Except for 4/1/2011. That day lingers in my memory like...metaphor here...I should go.@Ultrayellow.
The republicans have dominated the policies that the U.S follows for over 30 years. As such the status Quo is a republican wet dream.
So to point out the many ways in which the Obama administration, and in general the democrats, have lost to the Republicans we will begin by the things they say they where going to do and didnt do. Not even with a supermajority. Bear in mind that this is a reply to you question "name republicans victories". What I am trying to prove here is that republicans always win on the big issues.
So first, lets point the democrats failures:
- Not Increasing the capital gains and dividends taxes for higher-income taxpayers
- Not exapnding the Child Dependent Care Credit
- Not creating a foreclousre prevention fund for homehowners
- Not giving the option for a pre-filled out tax form
- Not creating a mortage interst tax credit for non Itemizers
- Not requiring automatic enrollment in IRA plans
- Not creating a retirement savings tax credit for low incomes
- Not creating a 60 billion bank to fund roads and bridges
- Not phasing out exemptions and deductions for higher income earners
- Not siggining the Employee Free Choice Act, making it easier for workers to unionize
- Not lifting the payroll tax cap on earnings abobe 250000
- Not forbiding companies in bankruptcy from giving executvies bonuses
- Not allowing workers to claim more in unpaid wages and benefits in bankruptcy court
- Not requring gull disclosure of company pension investments to employees.
- Not allowing the import of prescription drugs
- Not preventing drug companies from bloclong generic drugs.
- Not allowing medicare to negotiate for cheaper drug prices.
- Not providing 50 million dollar funding to determine the most effective cancer treatment.
- not signing the Un convention of the rights of persons with disabilites
- Not funding the individuals with disabiliteis education act.
- Not creating a National commission on people with disabilities, employment, and social securtiy.
- Not changing federal rules so small businesses owned by people with disabilities can get preferential treatment for dederal contracts
- Not reducin the threshhold for the family and medical leave act from companies with 50 employess to comapnies with 25 employess.
- Not providing a 1.5 billion fund to help states lunch programs for paid family and medical leave.
- Not requiring employers to provide seven paid sich days per year.
- Not amending the medicare "homebound" rule to allow some travel without loss of benefits
- Not reducing the veteran benefit administration backlog
- Not expanding the family medical leave act to include leave for domestic violence or sexual assault.
- Not forming an international group to help iraq refugees.
- Not providing at least 2 billion for services to iraqi refugees.
- Not working with russia to move nuclear weapons off hair-trigger alert.
- Not clarifying legal status for defense contractor personnel.
- Not doubling U.S spending on foreign aid to 50 billion a year by 2012
- Not stablishing the global education fund
- Not lunching the new "Americas voice corps".
- Not closing Guantanamo Bay Detention Center
- Not developing an alternativo to Bushes military tribunals
- Not restoring the habeas corpus rights for enemy combatants
- Not stablishing regulations to secure chemical plants
- Not strenghtening the IAEA and double its budget for the next 4 years
- Not ratifaying the Comprehensive test ban treaty.
- Not requiring companies to disclose personal information data breaches
- Not doubling the size of the peace corps
- Not creating an independent watchdog agency to investigate congressional ethics violations
- Not creating a public "contracts and influence" database/
- Not exposing special interests tax breaks to public scrutiny.
- Not doubling funding for federal charter school programs
- Not doubling funding for afterschool programs
- Not regulating pollution from major livestock operations
- Not expanding the employment non discrimination act to include sexual orentation and gender identity.
- Not repaling DOMA
- Not having the Deceptive Practices and Voter Intimidation Prevention Act passed.
- Not eliminating caps on damges for discrimination cases
- Not abnning racial profiling by federal law enforcement agencies.
- Not allowing bankruptcy judges to modify the terms of a home mortage
- Not increasing the federal minumun wage to 9.50 an hour
- Not restoring the superfund progam so taht polluters pay for clean ups
- Not having a human mission to the moon by 2020 (once again thank you fiscal conservatives)
- Not directing revenues from offshore oil and gas drilling to increased coastal hurricane protection.
- Not creating a national catastrophe insurance reserve.
- Not stablishing a Global energy corps to promote gree energy in developing countries.
- Not prioritizing student science assessments.
- Not limiting subsidies for agribusiness.
- Not strenghtening anti monopoly laws to favor independent farmers
- Not giving tax incentives to new farmers.
- Not strenghtening the Age Discrimination in Employment act.
- Not limitng the term of the director of national intelligence.
- Not banning the permanent replacement of striking workers.
- Not stablishing low carbon fuels standard.
- Not enacting a windfall profit tax for oil companies.
- Not implementing Cap and trade (which in idea that was put forward by the Heritage Foundation in case you didnt know) to reduce global warmng.
- Not using revenue from cap and trade tu support clean enegry and enviormental restoration.
- Not issuing the Flexible fuel vehicles mandate.
- Not siggning the Freedom of Choice Act.
- Not allowing penalty free hardship withdrawals from retiremnt accounts in 2008 and 2009.
- Not giving the WH Privacy and Civil Liberties Board subpoena power.
- Not recognizing the Armenina genocide.
- Not passing any form of immigration reform
Now lets go with the GOP's victories:
- Repealing the small bussiness mandate (do the mandate itself is a republica idea, good job at pushing yourselfs to the right every time the democrats concede!)
- Establishing a hard cap on new discretionary spending.
- keeping "combatants" in Guantanamo Bay.
- Not extending miranda rights to foreing "terrorists"
- Defeating Cap and Trade (a republican idea)
- Defeating Card Check
- Aproving the "free trade" agreements with Colombia, Panama, South Korea
- Updating Nuclear warheads (a serious and lunatic breach at all weapon control treaties).
Has all of this happened because the Republicans are just too powerful? No. Many of this things have happened because at the end of the day democrats make empty promisses and then break them.
I will always cherish the chance of a new beggining.@Ace of Spades
The Bush tax cuts expire because republicans wanted them to expire. The democrats offering to let the tax exemption apply to people earning over 250 000 is already more republican than the original republican plan.
Now this compromise will make a more conservative form of an initially conservative plan more conservative.
But of course, I am illogical (along side an economcis nobel prize winner) because I think that democrats had all the levarage not to compromise and get everything that they wanted, which was on itself fairly a conservative thing to want.
edited 1st Jan '13 2:33:04 PM by Baff
I will always cherish the chance of a new beggining.@Baff: Learn. To. Read.
What did I say? Go back and check.
Ok, I'll tell you again.
Don't write a list. I said that. And what did you do? You wrote a list. It must have taken you twenty minutes, but you typed out an entire list. With bullet points. What did you think you were doing? If you don't read or understand my posts, I'm certainly not giving you that courtesy.
Write another post. This time with one example. Otherwise, I'll simply assume you can't or won't understand and therefore ignore you.
Except for 4/1/2011. That day lingers in my memory like...metaphor here...I should go.
I chose to do so anyways. (good practice for ortography and mechanography). You dont get to dictate how I conduct my arguments.
Example: Health Care. The whole idea was a plan that had been put forward by the heritage foundation. In the end, it didnt had the public option which made it even more right wing. The result? A helthcare system that while better than the previous one, was still far inferior to what could have been and that is a huge plus for insurance companies (since it forces people to buy insurance for them).
Also, Guantanamo, torture, modernization of the nuclear missiles, CIA assasinations, etc.
They didnt even fight for immigration reform or the jobs act.
They took from the stimulus, what I would say where arguably the most important parts as my list above shows.
etc...
Besides Obama could have done trough executive action a lot of the things he failed to do. Including rising the debt ceiling.
edited 1st Jan '13 2:48:02 PM by Baff
I will always cherish the chance of a new beggining.![]()
It has never been done before, but the constitution says its the responsability of the president to uphold the obligation of the goverment of the United States.
He didnt even have to do it, just threat to do it, but the frst thing he did when the negotiations began was saying he wouldnt do it (this is another reason why I doubt they are such great negociators).
If you just want one example then only read one. If you dont want a list then dont read it. If you dont want to talk with me then dont. I dont put conditions to you to argue with me, and I shall not behold myself to yours.
edited 1st Jan '13 2:57:14 PM by Baff
I will always cherish the chance of a new beggining.@Deviant: He shouldn't be able to. There's no reason why that should be an executive power. It would just be another unpleasant example of the slow takeover of the executive branch.
edited 1st Jan '13 2:59:08 PM by Ultrayellow
Except for 4/1/2011. That day lingers in my memory like...metaphor here...I should go.![]()
Fair enough. I would argue its a pretty conservative deal. Not conservative enough for Republicans do.
But thats what happens. Democrats beleive that if they move to the right we are suddenly gonna get consensus and compromise and harmony.
But whenever democrats move to the right, republicans move further to the riht. Thats why I keep on arguing on being though.
Republicans have the luxury of trying to defeat conservatie proposals to get even more conservative proposals and when the end result is a proposal in between conservate and far right we all act like we democrats are soo cleaver, and how we reall cant do anything about it, and how mean those republicans are, and how reasonable we are etc...
edited 1st Jan '13 3:03:01 PM by Baff
I will always cherish the chance of a new beggining.Gay Representative Barney Frank 'Strongly Opposes' Chuck Hagel for Defense Secretary
Governor Tom Corbett to sue NCAA over Penn state sanctions
California Supreme Court rejects lawsuit against Great America over bumper car rides
Here's the full text of the Fiscal cliff bill.
edited 1st Jan '13 4:08:12 PM by DeviantBraeburn
Everything is Possible. But some things are more Probable than others. JEBAGEDDON 2016This is the first time the Senate has agreed to raise taxes on the rich in decades. It's not enough, but it's a start.
Share it so that people can get into this conversation, 'cause we're not the only ones who think like this.I refuse to believe that becoming as partisan as the Republicans is the only way to avoid losing ground.
Hagel has a sterling record and is a great candidate for the position...but expressed anti-gay prejudice over a decade ago. Which he has since apologized for, and stated wouldn't impact his job performance. Frank just wants the new Secretary to toe the party line, even on irrelevant issues like LGBT rights.
Edit: LGBT civil rights are irrelevant to leading an army, not in general. Just wanted to clarify that before someone gets offended.
edited 1st Jan '13 5:06:02 PM by Ultrayellow
Except for 4/1/2011. That day lingers in my memory like...metaphor here...I should go.LGBT rights are more relevant to leading the army than you'd think especially since we allow out soldiers now. Despite that married LGBT people aren't getting the same treatment as straight people, nor are their spouses and there are issues with harassment that need to be dealt with. Those are all big issues in leading the army right now. It's not just about military strategy. It's about handling people.
That said, his position, like a lot of people's, does seem to have matured in the past decade.
Reality is that, which when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away. -Philip K. DickThe main problem, in my eyes, was that that the Democrats missed a chance to shatter the Republican's blockade.
Points out that the Republicans are likely going to end up coming back from this, strong as every, and try to used the next debt ceiling vote to undo the tax hikes that did happen. I'm annoyed at them calling people like me (people who would like the president to use his "political capital" better, and stop being such an appeaser) the "Tea Party of the Left."
This just brings up my hatred of most media. They love their catchy little labels and buzzword, love to prey upon the fact that most people are too busy, or can't find the time to explore the nuances and science of the situation. So, they don't go into details. They create labels, buzzwords, and basically inhibit actually in depth thought.
Anyhow, I don't like this "deal." I think the democrats should have fought on, longer and harder. The longer they fought, the more the republicans would weaken and cave. The cliff, as has been pointed out, wasn't a cliff. It would be a slow, gradual slide. The democrats had time to push for a better deal, one with higher tax hikes for the rich, and one that would keep more spending on social programs. They had the support to do it as well. But they didn't? Why? I'm just wondering what Obama has to lose. I feel that he's doomed himself to longer fighting the gridlock, when he could have done a good amount to break their stranglehold in this.
However, I'm not going to claim anyone "won" this. It's better that this happened, for sure, than that we slide back into a recession. I think the democrats could have fought longer and harder, and still need to find their spine. Perhaps it won't happen until anti-filibuster legislation is passed.

@Baff: Name a Republican victory in policy since Obama's election. Go on. Don't write a list please, I hate rebutting a bunch of things in multi-paragraph posts.
And frankly, I do find Krugman obnoxious on this issue. Normally, I like and respect him. But on the fiscal cliff issue, I've been disgusted with his input.
Except for 4/1/2011. That day lingers in my memory like...metaphor here...I should go.