• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Logic of House GOP intransigence

Somerville

Somerville

DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 29, 2012
Messages
17,856
Reaction score
8,334
Location
On an island. Not that one!
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Socialist
[URL="http://www.politico.com/story/2012/12/the-logic-of-house-gop-intransigence-85546.html?hp=l15]Logic of House GOP intransigence[/URL]

The unruly House Republicans who spurned Speaker John Boehner as the country flirts with fiscal havoc might’ve seemed like they were doing their best “Lord of the Flies” rendition. But last week’s mayhem had a certain logic — the logic of politicians wanting to keep their jobs.

In the staunchly conservative districts that most House Republicans inhabit, playing ball with President Barack Obama on taxes and the debt means tempting a primary opponent in the next election. The threat of a challenge from the left that might come from digging in, on the other hand, is almost nonexistent for most members.
Click to expand...

and why can House Republicans oppose measures that the majority of Americans support? The picture tells us why

View attachment 67140077

The phenomenon isn’t new. For decades, many Republicans — and for that matter Democrats — have found themselves locked into districts where they’re beholden to their party’s electorate. But it will be heightened in 2014.

The polarization was exacerbated by the just completed, once-a-decade redistricting process. Both parties — but particularly Republicans, who swept control of statehouses across the country in the 2010 conservative wave — redrew district lines to shore up House members politically.
Click to expand...

So Republicans can truthfully say they hold a majority of seats in the House of Representatives and therefore they must be doing something 'right' while at the same time, Democrats can point out that more Americans voted for Democratic Representatives than for Republicans in the 2012 elections.

Republicans Can
 
Last edited:
Gerrymandering is hardly a republican trick and it is not new. It has been going on by both sides since long before I was born. It is one of those "To the victor goes the spoils" thing. Maybe if it goes on long enough, democrats will actually try to be more proactive in state issues and stop trying to nationalize state races.
 
Somerville said:
and why can House Republicans oppose measures that the majority of Americans support? The picture tells us why

View attachment 67140077

So Republicans can truthfully say they hold a majority of seats in the House of Representatives and therefore they must be doing something 'right' while at the same time, Democrats can point out that more Americans voted for Democratic Representatives than for Republicans in the 2012 elections.
Click to expand...

What a crock, ignoring the simple reality that you must first win a legislative majority, using the existing election district boundaries, in order to gain the power needed to change them. Also we do not have a democracy, we have a democratic republic. Implying that a few large urban centers should be able to squash the rights of the more sparsely populated suburban/rural areas of the rest of the state denies the intent of the use of election districts.
 
Somerville said:
and why can House Republicans oppose measures that the majority of Americans support?
Click to expand...

Members of congress don't represent the whole nation, they represent their districts and are expected to be true to the principles that got them elected. They are right to do so. That's the way it's supposed to work. They most certainly do have a mandate from their own districts to support certain things.

That's why it's very important for the President to show some leadership and step in to make a deal. This President appears to be unwilling or unable to do that.
 
Fisher said:
Gerrymandering is hardly a republican trick and it is not new. It has been going on by both sides since long before I was born. It is one of those "To the victor goes the spoils" thing. Maybe if it goes on long enough, democrats will actually try to be more proactive in state issues and stop trying to nationalize state races.
Click to expand...


Youre right, but I believe only having to keep a handful of people happy in a small district gets you elected to national office is exactly whats wrong with the House of Representatives and the Senate...if they had to run for all americans alot of this crap wouldnt be going on.
 
LowDown said:
Members of congress don't represent the whole nation, they represent their districts and are expected to be true to the principles that got them elected. They are right to do so. That's the way it's supposed to work. They most certainly do have a mandate from their own districts to support certain things.

That's why it's very important for the President to show some leadership and step in to make a deal. This President appears to be unwilling or unable to do that.
Click to expand...

Yes, a, umm, representative is there to speak for the people who sent him/her there, and them alone. That's the entire purpose of the House of Representatives.

Astounding that so many do not understand this.

And it's the President who's supposed to defer to Congress, not the other way around. The People are sovereign, not the President.
 
Fisher said:
Gerrymandering is hardly a republican trick and it is not new. It has been going on by both sides since long before I was born. It is one of those "To the victor goes the spoils" thing. Maybe if it goes on long enough, democrats will actually try to be more proactive in state issues and stop trying to nationalize state races.
Click to expand...



The goal of the Democrat party and their supporters is to make the non-federal Governments inconsequential.
 
code1211 said:
The goal of the Democrat party and their supporters is to make the non-federal Governments inconsequential.
Click to expand...


I know of a Democratic Party but what is this Democrat Party that Republicans and rightie talking heads are constantly yammering on about?
 
Somerville said:
and why can House Republicans oppose measures that the majority of Americans support? The picture tells us why

View attachment 67140077



So Republicans can truthfully say they hold a majority of seats in the House of Representatives and therefore they must be doing something 'right' while at the same time, Democrats can point out that more Americans voted for Democratic Representatives than for Republicans in the 2012 elections.

Republicans Can
Click to expand...

can you make a rational argument why tax cuts are good for almost everyone but those who pay most of the taxes (other than vote buying which of course is the reason for Obama's schemes not sound economics)
 
TurtleDude said:
can you make a rational argument why tax cuts are good for almost everyone but those who pay most of the taxes (other than vote buying which of course is the reason for Obama's schemes not sound economics)
Click to expand...

Can you make a rational argument as to the relevance of your comment to this thread's topic?
 
The premise of this thread is sophomoric and just plain silly. The braying loons never compromise about anything. All they do is whine that the Republicans won't let them have their own way.
 
Ray410 said:
The premise of this thread is sophomoric and just plain silly. The braying loons never compromise about anything. All they do is whine that the Republicans won't let them have their own way.
Click to expand...

One always appreciates well-reasoned responses to tough questions.
 
Somerville said:
I know of a Democratic Party but what is this Democrat Party that Republicans and rightie talking heads are constantly yammering on about?
Click to expand...


Republicans are in the Republican Party and Democrats are in the Democrat Party.

Note the parallelism.

This is pretty basic stuff.

Should the Republican Party be called Republicanic?
 
Somerville said:
One always appreciates well-reasoned responses to tough questions.
Click to expand...

Says the poster who consistently pretends mocking and objectification are "arguments"

Dodge noted BTW in regards to Turtle's question. This is just another one of your "I love Obama. I hate Republicans" threads. You're a radical left winger/Socialist/Collectivist Authoritarian, so it's par for the course.
 
code1211 said:
Republicans are in the Republican Party and Democrats are in the Democrat Party.

Note the parallelism.

This is pretty basic stuff.

Should the Republican Party be called Republicanic?
Click to expand...


WRONG! give the man a raspberry

One might as well call Republicans - Republicants, as far too many of them do nothing more that regurgitate the 'cant' of the day.

from the always reliable Wikipedia
Democrat Party (epithet)

"Democrat Party" is a political epithet used in the United States for the Democratic Party.[1] The term has been used in negative or hostile fashion by conservative commentators and members of the Republican Party in party platforms, partisan speeches and press releases since 1940.[2]

Multiple reasons are suggested for the use of the term. A 1984 New York Times article suggested Republicans began to use the term when Democrats used their own party name to imply "they are the only true adherents of democracy."[3] Republicans "feared that 'Democratic' suggested Democrats [had] a monopoly on or are somehow the anointed custodians of the concept of democracy."[4] New Yorker commentator Hendrik Hertzberg wrote, "There’s no great mystery about the motives behind this deliberate misnaming. 'Democrat Party' is a slur, or intended to be—a handy way to express contempt. Aesthetic judgments are subjective, of course, but 'Democrat Party' is jarring verging on ugly. It fairly screams 'rat.'"[5] Political analyst Charlie Cook attributed modern use of the term to force of habit rather than a deliberate epithet by Republicans.[6] Ruth Marcus stated that Republicans likely only continue to employ the term because Democrats dislike it.[7] Marcus stated that disagreements over use of the term are "trivial",[7] and Hertzberg calls use of the term "a minor irritation" and also "the partisan equivalent of flashing a gang sign."[5] Theologian William Dinges, however, argues:

Names and labels count in public discourse. They have social and political consequences. They carry residual imaginative meaning and shape how we remember and perceive something. The power to name is the power to define. The power to define is the power to socially locate and designate and (in some cases) to condemn what is labeled deviant or non-normative.[8]
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
None of the replies bother to deal with the question posed in the OP - Do you think Republicans can claim a mandate because they control the House of Representatives even though the collective vote for Republicans was less than that for Democratic candidates?

Yes, there are rational reasons for allowing the majority of tax payers to maintain current tax rates until the economy is back to the growth rate last seen during the Clinton Administration. As those who have seen the largest increase in personal income over the past three years are only being asked to pay at the rate paid during the boom years, one must wonder just how much impediment would occur to the American economy if such an increase were to be put in place.

Economic analyses,history and observation of other developed economies all show that the measures being advocated by the GOP today would do massive harm to the American economy and as a result we would see another recession at least as bad as the 2008-09 period. As with this last recession the result would be felt around the world.

NOW - could we get back on topic? Oh and one other item - I don't "love Obama", he's a bit too conservative, not bad but far too willing to compromise with people who seem to be incapable of comprehending the term "compromise"
 
Fisher said:
Gerrymandering is hardly a republican trick and it is not new. It has been going on by both sides since long before I was born. It is one of those "To the victor goes the spoils" thing. Maybe if it goes on long enough, democrats will actually try to be more proactive in state issues and stop trying to nationalize state races.
Click to expand...

It is actually very hard to gerrymander electoral colleges without the agreement of all parties involved.
 
Rainman05 said:
It is actually very hard to gerrymander electoral colleges without the agreement of all parties involved.
Click to expand...

Only in southern states where federal court approval of everything is required. The most glaring example of that was the 91 Georgia redistricting where the democrats were glad to get a minority majority CD only to turn around and lament that the cost of that was white liberal swing voters in several other districts became not swing voters and the ubber conservatives were able to take those districts as opposed to the moderates.
 
Somerville said:
WRONG! give the man a raspberry

One might as well call Republicans - Republicants, as far too many of them do nothing more that regurgitate the 'cant' of the day.

from the always reliable Wikipedia
Click to expand...

Oh looky, him thinks him won the debate by putting a "t" on the end of a word. :lamo
 
Somerville said:
and why can House Republicans oppose measures that the majority of Americans support? The picture tells us why

View attachment 67140077



So Republicans can truthfully say they hold a majority of seats in the House of Representatives and therefore they must be doing something 'right' while at the same time, Democrats can point out that more Americans voted for Democratic Representatives than for Republicans in the 2012 elections.

Republicans Can
Click to expand...

Im willing to bet there are more liberal democrats than there are conservative republicans. If you want to talk about polarization and all that smoke screen bs that liberals use when the GOP doesnt bend over and take the liberal agenda straight up their collective keister.
 
None of the replies bother to deal with the question posed in the OP - Do you think Republicans can claim a mandate because they control the House of Representatives even though the collective vote for Republicans was less than that for Democratic candidates?
Click to expand...

I think they can vote to reflect the constituency of the people that voted them into office. Im sorry that doesnt align with the OP ideas about how they should vote. Split government tends to be like that. shrug
 
Somerville said:
Can you make a rational argument as to the relevance of your comment to this thread's topic?
Click to expand...

Your comment in the OP tells me you are alluding to the tax issue. Of course a large portion of the populace wants to 'get those guys' who are filthy rich. Obviously you do as a socialist. Hence TD's response was, in fact, relevant. Can you provide a rational argument as to how increasing taxes on a targeted group of our society will have any real affect to our debt problem? Of course you can't because the math isn't there.
 
Somerville said:
WRONG! give the man a raspberry

One might as well call Republicans - Republicants, as far too many of them do nothing more that regurgitate the 'cant' of the day.

from the always reliable Wikipedia
Click to expand...


You say potato.

Are there any other personal choices you would like to make for me?

Word Nazi.
 
OpportunityCost said:
Im willing to bet there are more liberal democrats than there are conservative republicans. If you want to talk about polarization and all that smoke screen bs that liberals use when the GOP doesnt bend over and take the liberal agenda straight up their collective keister.
Click to expand...

Based on what exactly? 'Conservative' lean? It would be sad to think so few in the Republican camp could derail their own Speaker's bill. Not protecting the collective 4th POC from the liberal agenda but knocking down their own leader's Bill... one most everyone agrees will be done eventually.
 
hfd said:
Your comment in the OP tells me you are alluding to the tax issue. Of course a large portion of the populace wants to 'get those guys' who are filthy rich. Obviously you do as a socialist. Hence TD's response was, in fact, relevant. Can you provide a rational argument as to how increasing taxes on a targeted group of our society will have any real affect to our debt problem? Of course you can't because the math isn't there.
Click to expand...
It is very easy to show how the tax cuts for the top earners have increased the debt, multiple studies have shown that the Bush tax cuts were responsible for at least $1.6T in reduced revenues (increases in the debt) from '01 to '11, over 25% of that due to the reductions on the top 2% of earners. Over $42B in reduced revenues from the top 2% for 2013. Pew and the CBO estimate that eliminating the tax cut for the top 2% will result in a loss of $1.1T in revenue over the next decade.

We are talking about a paltry 4.6% MARGINAL tax increase on income over $250K upon a part of the population that has seen the largest increases in income. They won't feel it, it will have next to no negative effect on the economy.

It is not entitlements that have caused the increases to debt (on the contrary, FICA has been a cash cow), it has been tax cuts, unfunded wars and the recession.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom