House Preparing to Toss Boehner
And the Dema willing to save him!
Hahahahaha, you don't say!?
http://www.cnn.com/2015/09/21/politics/john-boehner-democrats/
House Preparing to Toss Boehner
And the Dema willing to save him!
Hahahahaha, you don't say!?
http://www.cnn.com/2015/09/21/politics/john-boehner-democrats/
Originally posted by Omega Vision
So we're at the point that being willing to compromise is being a traitor? If we think that way, our political system is doomed.
Or at least the party who thinks that is doomed.
It is, innately, limiting their options.
If they don't compromise, what happens is they simply get less done, and have a shorter accomplishment list.
Parties with smaller actual representation often accomplish a good deal more, but lack of compromise has basically traded 'doing things they want' in exchange for 'stopping many things the other thing wants.'
Ultimately, I don't think that's going to be a good trade for just about any party.
Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
So giving in to everything Obama wants then blaming it on his party is how you see it?
Giving in to everything?
Boehner's the one who said that his congress should be judged on how much it stops (which, btw, is a lot). The phrase 'party of no' is often used to describe the Republican congress under him, and obstructionism has spiked to historical levels.
The only things he's given in on, like the debt ceiling fight and so on, tend to be ones that would be quite damaging to the Republican party if he kept pressing- they're things that were designed never to be fought over in the first place, and which actively harm the country in the fighting, and Boehner is historically unusual in fighting them at all.
In short, you're requiring a higher standard of obstructionism from him than has ever existed in twice your lifetime. Boehner is the most obstructionist Speaker of the House in living memory, and it is still not enough for you. That's not him being easy to give in, that's just him having some limit to how far he can go.
The Democrats worked with George W. Bush far more than the Republicans worked with Obama.
In Bush's term, the number of laws passed ranged from 136 in 2001 up to 313 in 2006.
Since John Boehner took the role of House Speaker, we had 90 in 2011, 60 in 2012, and 57 in 2013
I can't find the numbers for 2014, but in general he's been responsible for there being on average less than half as many laws a year as during the W. Bush administration years.
If obstructionism and not working with the other party is your desire, then Boehner has been delivering in spades.
And the reason he's had to give in the times he has is simple: Because it's always been completely clear there's been nothing in it for the Democrats if they were the ones to give in. Let the debt ceiling be used as a regular bargaining tactic? Congratulations, either the Republicans use it for everything- which we all know they would- and the Democrat's democratically elected representation effectively gets sidelined and you're tossing representation of half the American people out the window- or we actually have a debt default, at which point the country fairly implodes, that'd make the '07/'08 economic crash look small in comparison.
Ultimately, at the end of the day, "Do everything we want or we'll blow both of us up," is not that convincing of a threat since, you know, you're threatening to blow yourself up, and that's pretty much the only thing Boehner's been caving on.
Other stuff, like the Democrats saying, "All right, we'll give you this if you give us that," has been resounding door-to-door 'No' after 'no' after 'no' from both Republican house and senate. The US democratic congress has gotten very little done past the part of Obama's term when he had the majority (and oh how Republicans like to gnash about the Democrats actually having passed a reform when they had a Democratically elected number of votes needed to do so), and most of Obama's actions have been using his other official powers and not through Congress because congress has been a legislative black hole that avoids passing everything it doesn't have to.
Like the numbers above show, it's not 'capitulating to every demand,' but 'being willing to work together on anything at all.'
Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
Your not getting it, they have not obstructed anything. Go look at everything that has passed. They have pulled a funny on everyone including everyone here.
So instead of working on a negative politic agenda they actually got some work done?
I guess congratulations are in order.
Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
Literally you are not keeping up with the news.Boehner is an idiot.
I'm not disagreeing that he's an idiot, but he's also preeetty much acted the opposite of what you say for his entire time on the job.
And simply stating your conclusion is not much of an argument.
Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
Your not getting it, they have not obstructed anything.
There's been legendary levels of obstructionism, the congress has prided itself in obstructionism, and members of it, including Boehner, brag about how much obstructionism they've done, and try and one-up each other on it. The second stimulus, the veteran jobs bill, heck, the medical reform fight was full of obstructionism-for-the-sake of it (the ACA managed to get done despite it, but it's the last time the Democrats had the power to do so, because with the 'Blue Dog' Democrats and independents they had at the time, they could reach 60. And that was pre-Boehner anyway, you can't really peg that on him).
Go look at everything that has passed. They have pulled a funny on everyone including everyone here.
I did, and then I looked at how much normally gets passed, and oh, hey, it's about half the amount that the Democrats let the Republican pass under Bush- which is not a historic high point in itself.
Again from my previous post:
In Bush's term, the number of laws passed ranged from 136 in 2001 up to 313 in 2006.
Since John Boehner took the role of House Speaker, we had 90 in 2011, 60 in 2012, and 57 in 2013
I'll also toss in that there's been over 50 attempts to appeal or cripple Obamacare to the floor.
Here is an article on how the 113th congress is historically good at not passing bills
Here are the acts of the 114th- the current- US congress. Note how despite most of the year being over, there's 49 of them. And 11 of those are place namings. That's generally what's called 'sitting around and not passing stuff.'
You may have this vague idea that he's letting a lot passed, but all the data I can find says the reality is the opposite, that the entire time Boehner's been in office there's been very low levels of things being passed, and . The senate's more permissive and there's literally record numbers of filibusters there too.
And hey, you shouldn't want so much obstructionism, because wanna know how you get your stuff through? You let some other stuff through in exchange.
Shutting stuff down means you don't get anything passed you want.
But seriously, Boehner letting Obama do whatever he wants? The numbers say almost the exact opposite, he's been a staunch foe of letting President of the United States Barack Obama getting anything through.
You're literally getting what you want from Boehner, someone who will oppose what Obama supports on general principle. This is what that gets you: A deadlock where the congressional Republicans don't get anything done, the congressional Democrats don't get anything done and the Democrats don't get much done but still have presidential orders and the power of all the secretaries of state/defense/etc..
Congratulations Time, this is exactly the congress you asked for doing exactly what you want it to do. The results you have a problem with are caused by the actions you call for.
Your still not getting it.
They said they were going to defund Obamacare, they never did.
Oh and there is this.
Look at these pals, together in the mile high club.
Originally posted by Time-ImmemorialThe AFA care act was most likely going through no matter who the speaker was.
Your still not getting it.They said they were going to defund Obamacare, they never did.
Oh and there is this.
Look at these pals, together in the mile high club.
And he did try to stop if with everything they could muster...
Also you're demeaning for taking a picture with Obama on their way to visit the South Carolina shooting site and offer condolences?
This level of hate for a person over this type of stuff is kind worrying to me.
Originally posted by Time-ImmemorialWhat do you mean by power of the purse? You mean keep government shutdown?
No he could have used the power of the purse.They failed to do so.
Your hate speech means little, its this horrible policy I don't like.
Also you're the one that posted a picture of them together like it was a bad thing without ignoring the context of why the picture was taken to begin with.