Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 28

Thread: States to Senate: Send More Federal Aid

  1. #11
    Sage
    Dav's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Virginia
    Last Seen
    04-16-16 @ 02:36 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    5,539

    Re: States to Senate: Send More Federal Aid

    Quote Originally Posted by Morality Games View Post
    At what point did I go astray?
    Every single one, as I already said.


    1. A party is not a person. People vote on things, not parties.
    2. If a party votes unanimously against something, it's a pretty good sign that basically no attempt had been made to reach out to any of its members.
    3. No president has ever needed a supermajority in Congress to get things done, even though the opposing party always hates the president.
    4. A party is not even a thing. Republicans and Democrats do not have different strategies or styles for governance. Different people do.
    5. Obstructing the Democrat's agenda would not be good politics if the Democrat's agenda was popular.

    I could go on.

  2. #12
    Equal Opportunity Hater
    obvious Child's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    0.0, -2.3 on the Political Compass
    Last Seen
    12-09-14 @ 11:36 PM
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    19,883

    Re: States to Senate: Send More Federal Aid

    Quote Originally Posted by drz-400 View Post
    Could you please explain this more?
    It doesn't make sense unless you also include that the federal aid has strings attached.

    Federal aid only is negative to states' rights when it forces states to adopt certain measures to get the money. Freely given federal money is not negative to states' rights.
    "If your opponent is of choleric temperament, seek to irritate him." - Sun Tzu

  3. #13
    Pragmatist
    SouthernDemocrat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    KC
    Last Seen
    Today @ 04:52 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    17,410

    Re: States to Senate: Send More Federal Aid

    Quote Originally Posted by Dav View Post
    Every single one, as I already said.


    1. A party is not a person. People vote on things, not parties.
    Statistically, most congressman vote the party line 90% of the time.

    2. If a party votes unanimously against something, it's a pretty good sign that basically no attempt had been made to reach out to any of its members.
    Not true at all. Usually its just a sign of party discipline. For example, in the Senate a healthcare bill was written by the gang of 6. 3 Democrats, 3 Republicans. The final bill did not draw a single Republican vote.

    3. No president has ever needed a supermajority in Congress to get things done, even though the opposing party always hates the president.
    Not always. Democrats worked with Reagan in the 1980s. Democrats worked with Nixon. Some Republicans worked with LBJ.

    The use of the filibuster by Republicans in the last year to the extent they have is unprecedented in my lifetime.

    4. A party is not even a thing. Republicans and Democrats do not have different strategies or styles for governance. Different people do.
    Parties by and large are a thing. See 1.

    5. Obstructing the Democrat's agenda would not be good politics if the Democrat's agenda was popular.
    Anytime you have complicated bills, they will be controversial, and easy to obstruct. Its a pretty good situation for Republicans to be in. They can raise hell against things like the stimulus, vote against it, yet still reap the benefits of it when they do their ribbon cuttings for stimulus funds in their districts that they voted against. Kind of a win / win situation for them.

    Dav, for someone that puts themselves out as being moderate, you are one of the more partisan Republicans on here. This thread really brings that to light. I don't blame the Republicans for being obstructionists. It is a good political strategy for them, but lets call a spade a spade here. They are deliberately being obstructionists and they are doing so because its in their interest to do so.
    Last edited by SouthernDemocrat; 02-14-10 at 11:01 PM.
    "You're the only person that decides how far you'll go and what you're capable of." - Ben Saunders (Explorer and Endurance Athlete)

  4. #14
    Sage
    Dav's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Virginia
    Last Seen
    04-16-16 @ 02:36 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    5,539

    Re: States to Senate: Send More Federal Aid

    Quote Originally Posted by SouthernDemocrat View Post
    Statistically, most congressman vote the party line 90% of the time.
    And that doesn't mean that some sort of group of Party Elders come up with a plan about how people should vote. It means that people of the same party are by and large ideologically in line with each other.


    Not true at all. Usually its just a sign of party discipline. For example, in the Senate a healthcare bill was written by the gang of 6. 3 Democrats, 3 Republicans. The final bill did not draw a single Republican vote.
    If 3 Republicans had been involved in writing it, then 3 Republicans would have voted for it.


    Not always. Democrats worked with Reagan in the 1980s. Democrats worked with Nixon. Some Republicans worked with LBJ.
    LBJ, like Obama, had a supermajority and did not need Republican support.


    The use of the filibuster by Republicans in the last year to the extent they have is unprecedented in my lifetime.
    That's because usually filibuster is unnecessary, because as soon as it becomes clear that a bill won't go through, its proponents change strategy. What's (almost) unprecedented is that the Democrats have had such huge majorities, they haven't had to worry until recently about not being able to pass something if they could just get all of their Senators on board. The fact is - as I've already pointed out - that it is very, very rare for a bill to pass with less than 60 votes in the Senate.


    Parties by and large are a thing. See 1.
    Only partisans really think this.


    Anytime you have complicated bills, they will be controversial, and easy to obstruct.
    Right, voters are too stupid to understand complicated issues, democracy doesn't work, etc. I've heard plenty of that recently.

    Its a pretty good situation for Republicans to be in. They can raise hell against things like the stimulus, vote against it, yet still reap the benefits of it when they do their ribbon cuttings for stimulus funds in their districts that they voted against. Kind of a win / win situation for them.
    You do realize that the stimulus was initially popular? It was very politically risky for Republicans to almost unanimously oppose it.

    Dav, for someone that puts themselves out as being moderate
    I really don't (anymore).

    you are one of the more partisan Republicans on here.
    I am not the partisan one. I do not think that the Republican Party and Democratic Party are inherently different in their strategies or governing style; apparently, you do.

    This thread really brings that to light. I don't blame the Republicans for being obstructionists. It is a good political strategy for them,
    Not always. How good was it for them when they opposed FDR's New Deal? Obstructionism is a good strategy when you are obstructing things that are not popular.

    but lets call a spade a spade here. They are deliberately being obstructionists and they are doing so because its in their interest to do so.
    See above.
    Last edited by Dav; 02-14-10 at 11:22 PM.

  5. #15
    Tavern Bartender
    Constitutionalist
    American's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Virginia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 06:42 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    76,306

    Re: States to Senate: Send More Federal Aid

    Quote Originally Posted by drz-400 View Post
    Could you please explain this more?

    Also, it would seem if you don't like raising taxes, you would want federal aid, since that most definetly is what many states will probobly be doing to help pay for the budget gap.
    The less handouts the states get from the federal govt the better.
    "He who does not think himself worth saving from poverty and ignorance by his own efforts, will hardly be thought worth the efforts of anybody else." -- Frederick Douglass, Self-Made Men (1872)
    "Fly-over" country voted, and The Donald is now POTUS.

  6. #16
    Slayer of the DP Newsbot
    danarhea's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:53 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    39,748

    Re: States to Senate: Send More Federal Aid

    Now here's a novel idea. Instead of the states begging federal government for money, how about the Federal government reduce its tax burden on the states, and allow the states to decide whether or not to tax its citizens. Projects become a lot cheaper if you eliminate the middleman.
    The ghost of Jack Kevorkian for President's Physician: 2016

  7. #17
    Enemy Combatant
    Kandahar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Washington, DC
    Last Seen
    10-15-13 @ 08:47 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    20,688

    Re: States to Senate: Send More Federal Aid

    Normally I'm not a fan of the federal government funding states, but during a severe recession it's an excellent idea. It helps states cover their temporary budget shortfalls, and it's one of the best forms of stimulus because the states can decide for themselves how their citizens most need it. However, the federal aid needs to be apportioned based on population and/or gross state product (or some combination of the two), rather than on which congressmen have the most influence.
    Are you coming to bed?
    I can't. This is important.
    What?
    Someone is WRONG on the internet! -XKCD

  8. #18
    Sage
    Erod's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    North Texas
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:30 PM
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    13,071

    Re: States to Senate: Send More Federal Aid

    Uh....send more what?

    You mean, the money that the fed doesn't have to send?

    Where does all this non-existent money keep coming from? Or not coming from?

    We don't have any money, folks. We're flat busted.

  9. #19
    Guru
    Morality Games's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Iowa
    Last Seen
    05-24-16 @ 10:00 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    3,733

    Re: States to Senate: Send More Federal Aid

    [quote=Dav;1058562503]Every single one, as I already said.


    1. A party is not a person. People vote on things, not parties.
    I don't see your point. It is a collective entity. It has functions. I described some of them. Specifically its electoral strategy.

    The Republican Party has leaders, strategists, and is a relatively closely knit coalition; state parties work at their own discretion, but they receive cues from Washington D.C. and usually follow them.

    2. If a party votes unanimously against something, it's a pretty good sign that basically no attempt had been made to reach out to any of its members.
    You are drawing an inference that does not necessarily follow. It does not really apply in American politics, and especially not to the Republican Party.

    The nationwide mass media makes it so party belonging politicians stand together or fall separately in the American political system. The Democrats vs. Republicans drama does not allow for strong distinctions. Any sound, national-level party electoral strategy incorporates this understanding of American politics and coordinates the campaigns of its members accordingly.

    3. No president has ever needed a supermajority in Congress to get things done, even though the opposing party always hates the president.
    What? Presidents have 'failed' all the time because they lack supermajorities. Failure is subjective in politics anyway, since passing any kind of bill can be considered a huge success, regardless of its effectiveness. This statement is way too generalized. For example, do you mean 'fail' as in not passing a promised policy? If so, promised policies have failed all the time because of lacking supermajorities. That's the same as saying filibusters have never troubled any presidency.

    4. A party is not even a thing. Republicans and Democrats do not have different strategies or styles for governance. Different people do.
    What? They do too. They even have measures for punishing people who defect from the party line: they cut off funding and support and re-apportion it to people who stand with the party. That's why Arlen Specter switched sides, because they were going to punish him for defecting on a policy. Another thing is you can isolate somebody; make a collective agreement not to support any of their proposals or measures. Such s the give-and-take nature of politics.

    Olympia Snowe would have gotten a similar treatment, except in her case it mattered less because her district was heavily supportive of health care reform; she had less motivation to concur with the party because she would have alienated her base even if she didn't have their support or funding. That said, the Republican Party would have had less reason to inflict a penalty.

    5. Obstructing the Democrat's agenda would not be good politics if the Democrat's agenda was popular.
    This doesn't have anything to do with what I said. But for one thing, the Republican Party has the resources and networks to make things popular or unpopular among their base, and 'popularity' is a tricky concept when people are dispersed in isolated groups across many regions. Also, there is a certain ethical question in the midst.

    I could go on.
    I hope you are prepared to actually address my points thoroughly and systematically instead of vaguely.
    Last edited by Morality Games; 02-15-10 at 02:03 AM.
    If you notice something good in yourself, give credit to God, not to yourself, but be certain the evil you commit is always your own and yours to acknowledge.

    St. Benedict

  10. #20
    Professor

    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    North Dakota
    Last Seen
    09-02-17 @ 08:22 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    2,357

    Re: States to Senate: Send More Federal Aid

    Quote Originally Posted by Erod View Post
    Uh....send more what?

    You mean, the money that the fed doesn't have to send?

    Where does all this non-existent money keep coming from? Or not coming from?

    We don't have any money, folks. We're flat busted.
    Well, the 10 yr. T notes interest rate is at 3.7%, which is histrically low. It seems people flocked to U.S. debt when the recession hit, to them it looks like a safe haven.

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •