The Republicans are the Problem

[Falvlun]

I don't see gridlock as necessarily a problem, since it prevents Pubs & Dems from cooperating to do even more damage.
But it takes two to lock things up. There's no reason that Pubs should let Dems have their way, or vice versa.

Fine. I do see obstructionism as a problem. It's wasteful and there are problems that need fixing.

But that is still kinda besides the point. Whether you regard it as a blessing or a curse or an indifferent outcome, can it be reasonably stated that one party or the other contributes more to the gridlock in Washington?

And as a follow-up to that question, do you find it reasonable to claim that both sides are equally contributing to it? Yes, both parties fight dirty, but as pointed out, that does not necessarily entail a 50:50 share of the blame/credit.

Of course.....Dems.
But I thought the thread was about blaming the others?

Do you have examples and statistics that show why Democrats share more of the responsibility for the present day gridlock in Washington?

Because, so far, you have merely stated that both do it, and that we should basically just leave it at that. Why should we leave it at that?

Why shouldn't we examine the tactics that both sides use and come to an intelligent and educated opinion about how Washington is working, regardless that others will brand us as biased partisans simply for daring to point out that the tactics of one party overwhelmingly contribute to a particular dysfunctionalism in our government?

Who puts any stock in what they say? Only a fool....oh.....the voters.

Perhaps you should read the OP and the article more closely. That was one of the highlighted points: the media treats two sides to an argument as if they have equal weight.

I also think it a bit disingenuous to act as if the quality of news media doesn't matter, even though that still is a major factor in how people get their information.

Do you really not care that our news media is hopelessly inaccurate? Is it wrong to point out areas they can improve upon? Or does that make one a fool?

You keep attributing this "equally" bizness to me when I specifically argue that "equally" does not apply.
I ain't quantifying here, bub.

It's not about quantifying. It's about acting as if, since both do stuff that contribute to a problem, you must dish out the blame to both or neither, regardless of who actually contributed more to the problem. You seem to hold this as a truth, like that is the only reasonable position to hold; you seem to find it a ridiculous concept to even consider that one side may be more responsible than another.

I don't know how else to word your position besides that you feel that both are equally responsible or else neither are responsible at all. At the very least, you appear to believe that we should dish up the BLAME equally, which is a rather unfair thing to do if you don't hold the corollary belief that the they have equal responsibility.

You've a false premise, ie, that one can objectively look at Pubs & Dems, & say that it's as simple as counting cookies, & the the Pubs are clearly worse.
That ain't so clear. We have somewhat different values & different agendas. But even where they are shared, the efficacy of Dem programs is quite
dubious (eg, quantitative easing, which is a smokescreen for printing fiat currency). Actually, I blame the Dems even more for making us vulnerable to
economic collapse & perpetuating our ruin. But this is opinion territory, not facts...& opinions differ.

Again, you've wandered into the realm of differences in policy, when I am still just talking about obstructionism. And yes, I think you can look at various tactics that the Republicans overwhelmingly employ, such as fillibusters, blocking appointments, and their ability make sure all in their party vote the same way, and tally it up rather reasonably.

You think you can tell which is worse, but you have only your opinion. I differ.

I have charts.

Strawmen distract rather than illustrate.

You know what? I really don't see how I can make a strawman of my own argument. I was explaining MY argument, not mischaracterizing yours, which is what a strawman would be. What it basically comes down to is that you didn't like the analogy I used to illustrate what I was talking about and you can't get over that and actually address what it was illustrating.

What is distracting is that you continually accuse me of logical fallacies I am not committing, and which are largely irrelevant to, you know, my actual argument. If you didn't find my analogy useful, then fine, ditch it. But that still just makes it a bad analogy for you, and not a strawman.

I did not imply that.
You incorrectly inferred it.
I blame both. But if you insist on my venturing an opinion, I blame Dems more....
- Their role in running Fannie & Freddie so as to make the housing market more unstable & to inhibit worker mobility
- Their advancing the nanny state
- Their being slightly more responsible for massive increases in dysfunctional regulation of the economy
- Their slightly greater involvement in crony capitalism
- I could think of others, but I don't expect agreement with those either.

Then there are murky issues. Which was worse....
- Clinton's gutting the intelligence community, which arguably contributed to 9/11....or Bush's 2 wars (which Dems went along with) which sapped our economy?
- Bush's wasteful & feckless bail-out plan....or Obama's continuing the same plan?

Again, this is about policy, not the tactics leading to the current level of gridlock in the government, which is what I am discussing.

 

[Reverend Rick]

When GWB was in office, The Dem's blocked appointments as well. Of course the Republicans are more obstructionists right now, the Dem's are in power. Appointments should get an up or down vote reguardless of what party is in office but both sides play the same game.

Are the republicans better at obstructing? Sure they are but only because they vote as one voice where the dems are less united.

 

[Penumbra]

When GWB was in office, The Dem's blocked appointments as well. Of course the Republicans are more obstructionists right now, the Dem's are in power. Appointments should get an up or down vote reguardless of what party is in office but both sides play the same game.

Are the republicans better at obstructing? Sure they are but only because they vote as one voice where the dems are less united.

Do you think it's healthy for a government to have two parties voting as one voice all the time? Or similarly, one party voting as one voice and another party voting in a mixed way?

Or is it healthier for the politicians to think as individuals?

 

[Revoltingest]

Fine. I do see obstructionism as a problem. It's wasteful and there are problems that need fixing.

Sometimes one side wants to make a change. The other side will resist.
Obstructionism is an inherent part of the process, ie, it cannot not happen continually.

But that is still kinda besides the point. Whether you regard it as a blessing or a curse or an indifferent outcome, can it be reasonably stated that one party or the other contributes more to the gridlock in Washington?

It might be possible to say that. It would require objective measurement over many cycles & much time.
But this isn't for me to do, since I don't approach the issue as quantified.

And as a follow-up to that question, do you find it reasonable to claim that both sides are equally contributing to it? Yes, both parties fight dirty, but as pointed out, that does not necessarily entail a 50:50 share of the blame/credit.

That could be reasonable if there were evidence for it.
But I don't make that claim.

Do you have examples and statistics that show why Democrats share more of the responsibility for the present day gridlock in Washington?

Nope. Do you?
Remember that I'm not the one tossing around the word "equally", & even using a bold font for it.

Because, so far, you have merely stated that both do it....

Correct.....so far.

.....and that we should basically just leave it at that. Why should we leave it at that?

Nope. I haven't advocated anything other than dumping the false position that one side is responsible.

Why shouldn't we examine the tactics that both sides use and come to an intelligent and educated opinion about how Washington is working, regardless that others will brand us as biased partisans simply for daring to point out that the tactics of one party overwhelmingly contribute to a particular dysfunctionalism in our government?

Of course, we may examine the situation. I'd have no problem accepting that one side (Dem or Pub) is worse than the other.
(I don't identify with either.) But so far, I've seen only blustery partisan pronouncements that Pubs are worse, and no objective evidence based analysis.

Perhaps you should read the OP and the article more closely. That was one of the highlighted points: the media treats two sides to an argument as if they have equal weight.

I've no control over silly things said in the media, so I don't defend them.

I also think it a bit disingenuous to act as if the quality of news media doesn't matter, even though that still is a major factor in how people get their information.

Disingenuous? Geeze...you're getting all huffy about something some acting which isn't mine.

Do you really not care that our news media is hopelessly inaccurate? Is it wrong to point out areas they can improve upon? Or does that make one a fool?

On the media: I try not to care that they're agenda laden & inaccurate, since I cannot change them.
On their improvement: Since you & I cannot improve them, we may point out wrong where we see it, & urge skepticism in our fellows.
If you can't solve a problem, at least cope with it.

It's not about quantifying. It's about acting as if, since both do stuff that contribute to a problem, you must dish out the blame to both or neither, regardless of who actually contributed more to the problem. You seem to hold this as a truth, like that is the only reasonable position to hold; you seem to find it a ridiculous concept to even consider that one side may be more responsible than another.

Lacking real evidence of greater culpability, I'll remain agnostic about which side is worse than the other.

I don't know how else to word your position besides that you feel that both are equally responsible or else neither are responsible at all. At the very least, you appear to believe that we should dish up the BLAME equally, which is a rather unfair thing to do if you don't hold the corollary belief that the they have equal responsibility.

I speculate that a desire to blame the other side can adversely affect one's judgment.

Again, you've wandered into the realm of differences in policy, when I am still just talking about obstructionism. And yes, I think you can look at various tactics that the Republicans overwhelmingly employ, such as fillibusters, blocking appointments, and their ability make sure all in their party vote the same way, and tally it up rather reasonably.

Failed bi-partisan policies just illustrate the idea that both sides cause trouble.

I have charts.

I haven't seen them.

You know what? I really don't see how I can make a strawman of my own argument. I was explaining MY argument, not mischaracterizing yours, which is what a strawman would be. What it basically comes down to is that you didn't like the analogy I used to illustrate what I was talking about and you can't get over that and actually address what it was illustrating.
What is distracting is that you continually accuse me of logical fallacies I am not committing, and which are largely irrelevant to, you know, my actual argument. If you didn't find my analogy useful, then fine, ditch it. But that still just makes it a bad analogy for you, and not a strawman.

We'll just be in disagreement over this.

For what it's worth, if someone started a thread entitled "Democrats are the problem", I'd be making the very same argument.

 

[Reverend Rick]

Do you think it's healthy for a government to have two parties voting as one voice all the time? Or similarly, one party voting as one voice and another party voting in a mixed way?

Or is it healthier for the politicians to think as individuals?

No offense Lyn, but you are dreaming if you think our representatives are sent to Washington to work together. Republicans are there right now to keep a lid on the Obama administration. No smoke or mirrors, no big surprise.

I believe it is a clear cut agenda and no big surprise.

Did anyone see the Mitch McConnel interview? He basically said this has been the plan all along, to shut Obama down.

 

[Revoltingest]

No offense Lyn, but you are dreaming if you think our representatives are sent to Washington to work together. Republicans are there right now to keep a lid on the Obama administration. No smoke or mirrors, no big surprise.
I believe it is a clear cut agenda and no big surprise.
Did anyone see the Mitch McConnel interview? He basically said this has been the plan all along, to shut Obama down.

They may plan all they want, but obstruction to agendas they oppose will occur anyway.
But with planning, the degree will be affected.

 

[Penumbra]

No offense Lyn, but you are dreaming if you think our representatives are sent to Washington to work together. Republicans are there right now to keep a lid on the Obama administration. No smoke or mirrors, no big surprise.

I believe it is a clear cut agenda and no big surprise.

Did anyone see the Mitch McConnel interview? He basically said this has been the plan all along, to shut Obama down.

So no interest in answering the actual questions asked, then?

 

[Reverend Rick]

Basically half the country wants hope and change while the other half was content with the way things was.

Obama got elected as a backlash to GWB. They had control for the first two years and the american people voted republican two years later mostly because of the tea party backlash to the Obama backlash.

Don't blame the republicans, blame the moderates who sway with the breeze.

Many people believe the less the federal government does the better while others think the government is the answer to all their problems.

My advice is to take personal responsibiliy for yourself and fix your own problems. Waiting on the government to solve all your problems will be an exercise in frustration.

 

[Penumbra]

Basically half the country wants hope and change while the other half was content with the way things was.

Obama got elected as a backlash to GWB. They had control for the first two years and the american people voted republican two years later mostly because of the tea party backlash to the Obama backlash.

Don't blame the republicans, blame the moderates who sway with the breeze.

Many people believe the less the federal government does the better while others think the government is the answer to all their problems.

My advice is to take personal responsibiliy for yourself and fix your own problems. Waiting on the government to solve all your problems will be an exercise in frustration.

That's fine and all, but government problems become everyone's problem when they can't get a budget under control.

 

[Revoltingest]

That's fine and all, but government problems become everyone's problem when they can't get a budget under control.

And lately, this is where obstructionism helps us. If the Dems had their way, I say we'd be far worse off.
(This is not to say that Pubs are our savior though.)
Hmmmm.....another way to view it is that if the Dems would stop obstructing attempts to cut spending & needless regulation, we'd be better off.

 

[Reverend Rick]

So no interest in answering the actual questions asked, then?

I thought I did answer your question. I believe it is more effective to vote as a block than to act like a herd of cats. Is that clear enough?

In a perfect world, one would think the individual approach would be best, but this is not realistic.

 

[Penumbra]

And lately, this is where obstructionism helps us. If the Dems had their way, I say we'd be far worse off.
(This is not to say that Pubs are our savior though.)

In what way would we be worse off?

Hmmmm.....another way to view it is that if the Dems would stop obstructing attempts to cut spending & needless regulation, we'd be better off.

They have offered compromise, which was not taken.

 

[Penumbra]

I thought I did answer your question. I believe it is more effective to vote as a block than to act like a herd of cats. Is that clear enough?

In a perfect world, one would think the individual approach would be best, but this is not realistic.

Effective at doing what, specifically?

The question wasn't whether it's effective, but rather whether it's healthy.

 

[Reverend Rick]

That's fine and all, but government problems become everyone's problem when they can't get a budget under control.

We have not even approved a budget for several years now.

 

[Revoltingest]

In what way would we be worse off?

Increased spending ---> increased public burden ---> increased dependency upon gov't ---> reduced productivity
Whether paid for by borrowing, taxing or fiat currency, we face paying the piper, which siphons money from the private sector.

They have offered compromise, which was not taken.

I presume the compromise was unacceptable.
Sometimes, brinkmanship is the best negotiating tactic.

 

[Reverend Rick]

Effective at doing what, specifically?

The question wasn't whether it's effective, but rather whether it's healthy.

It depends who you are. If you need the government to function as in medicare or medicade or other government programs, no it is not healthy. If you don't want to pay any more taxes or have any more controls on your business, obstruction is very healthy.

This is a tug of war between the haves and the have nots.

 

[Penumbra]

Increased spending ---> increased public burden ---> increased dependency upon gov't ---> reduced productivity
Whether paid for by borrowing, taxing or fiat currency, we face paying the piper, which siphons money from the private sector.

I presume the compromise was unacceptable.
Sometimes, brinkmanship is the best negotiating tactic.

Or the kids of people pay the piper, and those that benefited never do.

It depends who you are. If you need the government to function as in medicare or medicade or other government programs, no it is not healthy. If you don't want to pay any more taxes or have any more controls on your business, obstruction is very healthy.

How is it healthy if it increases the deficit and debt? Someone's got to pay that back.

Given the choice, would you prefer living in a first world country, or a third world country? We're all interconnected. When people perceive injustice, they revolt and protest, which with enough severity, damages the system and economic development. When we avoid useful long-term spending, we end up with greater overall spending, like how we are among the very few developed countries with no universal health care and yet pay by far the most, per capita, on health care.

This is a tug of war between the haves and the have nots.

Who do you believe the have and have nots are?

Of the top ten richest members of Congress, 7 are democrats.
The 50 Richest Members of Congress — 112th : Roll Call

Republican-leaning states, in general, receive more federal money than they put in, compared to Democrat-leaning states.
Most Red States Take More Money From Washington Than They Put In | Mother Jones
Red States Are The Real Welfare States | Addicting Info

Although statistically there is a correlation between having a higher income and having a Republican party affiliation, the spread among Democrats, Republicans, and Independents among the top income quintile is still fairly close.
Section 1: Party Affiliation and Composition | Pew Research Center for the People and the Press

So if you view it as wealthier people voting one way, and poorer people voting another way, then I think you're oversimplifying it.

 

[Revoltingest]

Or the kids of people pay the piper, and those that benefited never do.

I did a Nyquist plot of that system.
It's unstable.

 

[Reverend Rick]

How is it healthy if it increases the deficit and debt? Someone's got to pay that back.

Seeing how the Obama administration has spent as much money in one term as GWB did in two terms in office, you are making my point very well.

If not for the obstructionists, we would have spent even more. In 2014 when most of Obamacare kicks in, we will step up spending beyond that.

Many people subscribe to the theory of raising taxes to solve this problem, but they ignore the glaring fact that increased taxes and raised revenue are two different things. Compare California and Texas for example.

What we want is for people to pay more taxes not higher taxes, these are two different things.

Raising taves never improves an economy. A better economy increases the number of haves and decreases the number of have nots who are a burden on the government.

We have a spending problem not a tax problem. The U.S.A. has the highest corporate tax in the world.

 

[TheKnight]

-We have among the lowest top marginal income and dividend tax rates of the last century, and people complain about over taxation and that the bottom half don't pay their fair share, despite the fact that payroll taxes as a percentage of total federal revenue have substantially increased over time.

Some people believe we should tax more. I don't see how throwing money at the government which consistently spends it irresponsibly is a solution to any problem.

Rarity in the developed world for not providing health care to every citizen.

We could cut spending and provide good health care. The fact is that politicians don't want good healthcare for everyone. Either republican or democrat. Far too many with loud voices profit off of our current system to simply let it die.

-By measurements such as average CEO pay compared to average worker pay, income differences have increased dramatically.

income difference is great because education difference is great. The work and contribution of a CEO to a company is many time that of the average worker in a company.

We can't always know ahead of time what the best policy is to achieve a goal, but let's not pretend that everything is relative, that approaches all work out equally, etc. With regards to fairly basic and shared goals, some approaches end up being wildly unsuccessful. Constant war, constant pollution, and too much concentration of wealth rarely seem to work out, historically.

No one party or individual is responsible for such things. America as a whole is.

Obviously, neither party is blameless. Both sides employ divisive, unproductive tactics. But that does not imply that both sides are equally to blame for the present, highly partisan gridlock that has overtaken Washington in the past 20 years (and particularly during Obama's presidency).

Gridlock is a part of how the system works. God forbid we get a system where the people in control never have doubts or disagreements lest they unify in deciding to take rights away.

Also, let us not forget that for two years Obama had both houses of Congress. What exactly did he accomplish then? Can you really blame the Republicans for where we are now? Because to be quite honest, if Obama and his Congress didn't get it done then I would posit that the blame rests with his failure to accomplish his goals.

I guarantee you that if there were a Republican President who had a majority of Congress like Obama did, much would get done. Either for better or for worse, but much would get done.

Would you prefer that to gridlock?

One thing I've found interesting is observing my father, who has been a life long Republican, decide that he is totally against everything the Republicans currently stand for, and deciding to vote for Obama and Democrats this time around instead of for the Republicans. He decided to vote for McCain over Obama, but said after seeing the last several years, he thinks the Republican politicians are nuts, and that he has realized there is very little that he supports them on.

Isn't part of this problem the fact that people see their options as being solely Republicans or Democrats?

Do you think it's healthy for a government to have two parties voting as one voice all the time? Or similarly, one party voting as one voice and another party voting in a mixed way?

Or is it healthier for the politicians to think as individuals?

A healthy government is one that is slow to action and heavy in deliberation.

In what way would we be worse off?

We got here only after the Dems were in charge...

They have offered compromise, which was not taken.

What good would it do to compromise to the people who, when in charge, couldn't get what they wanted done? Suppose you disagree with someone. Your voice in the argument was essentially muted and the someone you disagreed with could have had their way with you.

Now you get a greater voice, why would you compromise? Any success of the current Republicans is linked to the failure of the Democrats who proceeded them.

I say throw the whole lot out. The true problem with the political game is that it is riddled with party loyalties. Not loyalty to constituents, or loyalty to human benefit, but loyalty to parties. Because at the end of the day, parties control who gets elected, the people only have a minor say. And this, my friends, is the problem.