For the short term over the next two years, I hope they don't misread this smackdown as something it's not. This is not a signal that they now must cross the aisle, compromise, "fix" the government, or "work with" the Democrats. They are agents of opposition, pure and simple and that's what got them elected.
The American people voted against the direction the country has taken under Obama. They voted against candidates that would be responsible for continuing down that path. They voted against Democratic governance and they want it stopped.
The government is not broken, it's working exactly the way it was designed to.
Now that is funny. 😛
For the short term over the next two years, I hope they don't misread this smackdown as something it's not. This is not a signal that they now must cross the aisle, compromise, "fix" the government, or "work with" the Democrats. They are agents of opposition, pure and simple and that's what got them elected.
The American people voted against the direction the country has taken under Obama. They voted against candidates that would be responsible for continuing down that path. They voted against Democratic governance and they want it stopped.
The government is not broken, it's working exactly the way it was designed to.
___________________________________
Exactly.
The American People have rejected Obama's failed policies and the obstructionist democrat controlled senate. Yesterday they threw the bums out.
That is government working!
For the short term over the next two years, I hope they don't misread this smackdown as something it's not. This is not a signal that they now must cross the aisle, compromise, "fix" the government, or "work with" the Democrats. They are agents of opposition, pure and simple and that's what got them elected.
The American people voted against the direction the country has taken under Obama. They voted against candidates that would be responsible for continuing down that path. They voted against Democratic governance and they want it stopped.
The government is not broken, it's working exactly the way it was designed to.
Right because refusing to work with the Democrats is going to get a lot done in Whashington just as it has with the GOP opposing just about everything the Democrats proposed during Obama's administration. Alloak sometimes your logic amazes me.
For the short term over the next two years, I hope they don't misread this smackdown as something it's not. This is not a signal that they now must cross the aisle, compromise, "fix" the government, or "work with" the Democrats. They are agents of opposition, pure and simple and that's what got them elected.
The American people voted against the direction the country has taken under Obama. They voted against candidates that would be responsible for continuing down that path. They voted against Democratic governance and they want it stopped.
The government is not broken, it's working exactly the way it was designed to.
Right because refusing to work with the Democrats is going to get a lot done in Whashington just as it has with the GOP opposing just about everything the Democrats proposed during Obama's administration.
And that proved so harmful to the GOP, didn't it? Moving forward, it will be up to the Democrats cross the aisle, not the other way around.
What a sad way to approach our government. Even McConnell said that he believes they must find common ground in order to get things done for the American people.
For the short term over the next two years, I hope they don't misread this smackdown as something it's not. This is not a signal that they now must cross the aisle, compromise, "fix" the government, or "work with" the Democrats. They are agents of opposition, pure and simple and that's what got them elected.
The American people voted against the direction the country has taken under Obama. They voted against candidates that would be responsible for continuing down that path. They voted against Democratic governance and they want it stopped.
The government is not broken, it's working exactly the way it was designed to.
Right because refusing to work with the Democrats is going to get a lot done in Whashington just as it has with the GOP opposing just about everything the Democrats proposed during Obama's administration.
And that proved so harmful to the GOP, didn't it? Moving forward, it will be up to the Democrats cross the aisle, not the other way around.
While I agree with your post in the other thread (how many threads do we need about this, really?), I patently reject this notion. All I seem to hear our conservative friends here is that the reason the GOP has not engaged with Obama and we have all this gridlock is because Obama has shown no leadership and the GOP owns none of it. Well, we'll get to see what kind of leadership comes from the party that now controls both houses of congress, and they will own a large of what comes next, good or bad.
For the short term over the next two years, I hope they don't misread this smackdown as something it's not. This is not a signal that they now must cross the aisle, compromise, "fix" the government, or "work with" the Democrats. They are agents of opposition, pure and simple and that's what got them elected.
The American people voted against the direction the country has taken under Obama. They voted against candidates that would be responsible for continuing down that path. They voted against Democratic governance and they want it stopped.
The government is not broken, it's working exactly the way it was designed to.
Right because refusing to work with the Democrats is going to get a lot done in Whashington just as it has with the GOP opposing just about everything the Democrats proposed during Obama's administration.
And that proved so harmful to the GOP, didn't it? Moving forward, it will be up to the Democrats cross the aisle, not the other way around.
While I agree with your post in the other thread (how many threads do we need about this, really?), I patently reject this notion. All I seem to hear our conservative friends here is that the reason the GOP has not engaged with Obama and we have all this gridlock is because Obama has shown no leadership and the GOP owns none of it.
Well, we'll get to see what kind of leadership comes from the party that now controls both houses of congress, and they will own a large of what comes next, good or bad.
Once again, the Republicans that won elections in 2010 and 2014 were sent to Washington to STOP Obama and try to change the direction he's taking the country. If gridlock is the result of that, then it is what it is. The system is working. The system was designed for gridlock. Was it ever supposed to be easy for a President to get anything he wanted?
Do you think it's just a coincidence that 28 Senators who voted in favor of Obamacare are heading home?
As far as leadership from the GOP, I feel that the Senate under McConnell will no longer be run like a Roach Motel. Bills checked into Harry Reid's desk, never to be seen again. Was that the GOP's fault?
The system was designed for gridlock.
Wonder why there is voter apathy in this country....? 😮
[Edited on 11/6/2014 by fanfrom-71]
The system is working. The system was designed for gridlock.
As far as leadership from the GOP, I feel that the Senate under McConnell will no longer be run like a Roach Motel. Bills checked into Harry Reid's desk, never to be seen again. Was that the GOP's fault?
Gridlock might not be for everybody, but it's proved once again it's great for the stock market.
Gridlock must mean the government is "not getting anything done," right? Well, what more do you want the government to do? Really. The laws that grant it's powers are found in a document a few pages long. It has taken that power and passed a stack of laws, rules, and regulations that would reach Mars. Something wrong with that picture?
Gridlock might not be for everybody, but it's proved once again it's great for the stock market.
Gridlock must mean the government is "not getting anything done," right? Well, what more do you want the government to do? Really. The laws that grant it's powers are found in a document a few pages long. It has taken that power and passed a stack of laws, rules, and regulations that would reach Mars. Something wrong with that picture?
I think it is very sad that you would embrace gridlock as a "good" thing that shows government is working as it should, and even sadder that you are probably not alone (although I would say yours is a minority opinion). I also think you are talking out both sides of your mouth (nothing new) by bashing Harry Reid for his role in gridlock while also praising the GOP for their role in it. That type of attitude is exactly why gov't is NOT working as most Americans want it to. No one was elected to simply stymie the other side and dig in even more and show no interest in compromise. Neither side should get everything they want. Compromise is what makes the system work, not digging in and being proud of gridlock.
[Edited on 11/6/2014 by gondicar]
Looky...
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/political-gridlock-is-good-for-the-stock-market-2014-11-03
http://pragcap.com/the-stock-market-loves-government-gridlock
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/do-stocks-prefer-political-gridlock-2013-01-29
So you would like gridlock if Democrats blocked everything a Republican tried to do, with the end result of nothing getting done? As a liberal, I wouldn't like that. I'd rather see what the Republicans can do, rather than have nothing done.
Gridlock might not be for everybody, but it's proved once again it's great for the stock market.
Gridlock must mean the government is "not getting anything done," right? Well, what more do you want the government to do? Really. The laws that grant it's powers are found in a document a few pages long. It has taken that power and passed a stack of laws, rules, and regulations that would reach Mars. Something wrong with that picture?
I think it is very sad that you would embrace gridlock as a "good" thing that shows government is working as it should, and even sadder that you are probably not alone (although I would say yours is a minority opinion). I also think you are talking out both sides of your mouth (nothing new) by bashing Harry Reid for his role in gridlock while also praising the GOP for their role in it. That type of attitude is exactly why gov't is NOT working as most Americans want it to. No one was elected to simply stymie the other side and dig in even more and show no interest in compromise. Neither side should get everything they want. Compromise is what makes the system work, not digging in and being proud of gridlock.
[Edited on 11/6/2014 by gondicar]
I guess it all depends on your point of view, whether the government doing less as opposed to more is good or bad.
So you would like gridlock if Democrats blocked everything a Republican tried to do, with the end result of nothing getting done? As a liberal, I wouldn't like that. I'd rather see what the Republicans can do, rather than have nothing done.
That would depend entirely on what the Democrats were blocking on a case by case basis.
Gridlock might not be for everybody, but it's proved once again it's great for the stock market.
Gridlock must mean the government is "not getting anything done," right? Well, what more do you want the government to do? Really. The laws that grant it's powers are found in a document a few pages long. It has taken that power and passed a stack of laws, rules, and regulations that would reach Mars. Something wrong with that picture?
I think it is very sad that you would embrace gridlock as a "good" thing that shows government is working as it should, and even sadder that you are probably not alone (although I would say yours is a minority opinion). I also think you are talking out both sides of your mouth (nothing new) by bashing Harry Reid for his role in gridlock while also praising the GOP for their role in it. That type of attitude is exactly why gov't is NOT working as most Americans want it to. No one was elected to simply stymie the other side and dig in even more and show no interest in compromise. Neither side should get everything they want. Compromise is what makes the system work, not digging in and being proud of gridlock.
[Edited on 11/6/2014 by gondicar]
I guess it all depends on your point of view, whether the government doing less as opposed to more is good or bad.
Well, the message here in Maine that voters seemed to respond to is the GOP candidates will "get things done". Now they need to live up to that or they risk the same backlash that the Dems just got slapped with (and make no mistake, it WILL happen at some point as it always does, just a matter of when). I see no evidence to suggest that your point of view of "doing nothing is the best approach" is widely held.
[Edited on 11/6/2014 by gondicar]
Gridlock might not be for everybody, but it's proved once again it's great for the stock market.
Gridlock must mean the government is "not getting anything done," right? Well, what more do you want the government to do? Really. The laws that grant it's powers are found in a document a few pages long. It has taken that power and passed a stack of laws, rules, and regulations that would reach Mars. Something wrong with that picture?
I think it is very sad that you would embrace gridlock as a "good" thing that shows government is working as it should, and even sadder that you are probably not alone (although I would say yours is a minority opinion). I also think you are talking out both sides of your mouth (nothing new) by bashing Harry Reid for his role in gridlock while also praising the GOP for their role in it. That type of attitude is exactly why gov't is NOT working as most Americans want it to. No one was elected to simply stymie the other side and dig in even more and show no interest in compromise. Neither side should get everything they want. Compromise is what makes the system work, not digging in and being proud of gridlock.
[Edited on 11/6/2014 by gondicar]
I guess it all depends on your point of view, whether the government doing less as opposed to more is good or bad.
Well, the message here in Maine that voters seemed to respond to is the GOP candidates will "get things done". Now they need to live up to that or they risk the same backlash that the Dems just got slapped with (and make no mistake, it WILL happen at some point as it always does, just a matter of when). I see no evidence to suggest that your point of view of "doing nothing is the best approach" is widely held.
[Edited on 11/6/2014 by gondicar]
Ideally, they plan on starting to scale back government. That would be getting something "done."
Gridlock might not be for everybody, but it's proved once again it's great for the stock market.
Gridlock must mean the government is "not getting anything done," right? Well, what more do you want the government to do? Really. The laws that grant it's powers are found in a document a few pages long. It has taken that power and passed a stack of laws, rules, and regulations that would reach Mars. Something wrong with that picture?
I think it is very sad that you would embrace gridlock as a "good" thing that shows government is working as it should, and even sadder that you are probably not alone (although I would say yours is a minority opinion). I also think you are talking out both sides of your mouth (nothing new) by bashing Harry Reid for his role in gridlock while also praising the GOP for their role in it. That type of attitude is exactly why gov't is NOT working as most Americans want it to. No one was elected to simply stymie the other side and dig in even more and show no interest in compromise. Neither side should get everything they want. Compromise is what makes the system work, not digging in and being proud of gridlock.
[Edited on 11/6/2014 by gondicar]
I guess it all depends on your point of view, whether the government doing less as opposed to more is good or bad.
Well, the message here in Maine that voters seemed to respond to is the GOP candidates will "get things done". Now they need to live up to that or they risk the same backlash that the Dems just got slapped with (and make no mistake, it WILL happen at some point as it always does, just a matter of when). I see no evidence to suggest that your point of view of "doing nothing is the best approach" is widely held.
[Edited on 11/6/2014 by gondicar]
Ideally, they plan on starting to scale back government. That would be getting something "done."
Agreed, it would. But they have to engage with the Dems to make it happen and have to accept that they can't get everything they want. They will have to compromise on some level...that's the hard work of governing.
Here's one good outcome already, McConnell is bringing back the 5-day workweek.
Gridlock might not be for everybody, but it's proved once again it's great for the stock market.
Gridlock must mean the government is "not getting anything done," right? Well, what more do you want the government to do? Really. The laws that grant it's powers are found in a document a few pages long. It has taken that power and passed a stack of laws, rules, and regulations that would reach Mars. Something wrong with that picture?
I think it is very sad that you would embrace gridlock as a "good" thing that shows government is working as it should, and even sadder that you are probably not alone (although I would say yours is a minority opinion). I also think you are talking out both sides of your mouth (nothing new) by bashing Harry Reid for his role in gridlock while also praising the GOP for their role in it. That type of attitude is exactly why gov't is NOT working as most Americans want it to. No one was elected to simply stymie the other side and dig in even more and show no interest in compromise. Neither side should get everything they want. Compromise is what makes the system work, not digging in and being proud of gridlock.
[Edited on 11/6/2014 by gondicar]
I guess it all depends on your point of view, whether the government doing less as opposed to more is good or bad.
Well, the message here in Maine that voters seemed to respond to is the GOP candidates will "get things done". Now they need to live up to that or they risk the same backlash that the Dems just got slapped with (and make no mistake, it WILL happen at some point as it always does, just a matter of when). I see no evidence to suggest that your point of view of "doing nothing is the best approach" is widely held.
[Edited on 11/6/2014 by gondicar]
Ideally, they plan on starting to scale back government. That would be getting something "done."
Agreed, it would. But they have to engage with the Dems to make it happen and have to accept that they can't get everything they want. They will have to compromise on some level...that's the hard work of governing.
Point taken.
For the short term over the next two years, I hope they don't misread this smackdown as something it's not. This is not a signal that they now must cross the aisle, compromise, "fix" the government, or "work with" the Democrats. They are agents of opposition, pure and simple and that's what got them elected.
The American people voted against the direction the country has taken under Obama. They voted against candidates that would be responsible for continuing down that path. They voted against Democratic governance and they want it stopped.
The government is not broken, it's working exactly the way it was designed to.
Right because refusing to work with the Democrats is going to get a lot done in Whashington just as it has with the GOP opposing just about everything the Democrats proposed during Obama's administration.
And that proved so harmful to the GOP, didn't it? Moving forward, it will be up to the Democrats cross the aisle, not the other way around.
While I agree with your post in the other thread (how many threads do we need about this, really?), I patently reject this notion. All I seem to hear our conservative friends here is that the reason the GOP has not engaged with Obama and we have all this gridlock is because Obama has shown no leadership and the GOP owns none of it. Well, we'll get to see what kind of leadership comes from the party that now controls both houses of congress, and they will own a large of what comes next, good or bad.
The Republicans will pass bills. It will be up to Obama to either sign or veto or suggest revisions for compromise (As Clinton did with for example the Welfare Reform Act). If Obama offers compromise I will be pretty surprised after everything we've seen over the past 6 years.
Gridlock might not be for everybody, but it's proved once again it's great for the stock market.
Gridlock must mean the government is "not getting anything done," right? Well, what more do you want the government to do? Really. The laws that grant it's powers are found in a document a few pages long. It has taken that power and passed a stack of laws, rules, and regulations that would reach Mars. Something wrong with that picture?
I think it is very sad that you would embrace gridlock as a "good" thing that shows government is working as it should, and even sadder that you are probably not alone (although I would say yours is a minority opinion). I also think you are talking out both sides of your mouth (nothing new) by bashing Harry Reid for his role in gridlock while also praising the GOP for their role in it. That type of attitude is exactly why gov't is NOT working as most Americans want it to. No one was elected to simply stymie the other side and dig in even more and show no interest in compromise. Neither side should get everything they want. Compromise is what makes the system work, not digging in and being proud of gridlock.
[Edited on 11/6/2014 by gondicar]
I guess it all depends on your point of view, whether the government doing less as opposed to more is good or bad.
Well, the message here in Maine that voters seemed to respond to is the GOP candidates will "get things done". Now they need to live up to that or they risk the same backlash that the Dems just got slapped with (and make no mistake, it WILL happen at some point as it always does, just a matter of when). I see no evidence to suggest that your point of view of "doing nothing is the best approach" is widely held.
[Edited on 11/6/2014 by gondicar]
Ideally, they plan on starting to scale back government. That would be getting something "done."
Agreed, it would. But they have to engage with the Dems to make it happen and have to accept that they can't get everything they want. They will have to compromise on some level...that's the hard work of governing.
They are not going to get anything they want because assuming they can get past a fillibuster by the Democrats and pass the bill, Obama will veto it unless it meets his specifications. He will then attempt to spin it as "They passed a bill they KNEW he would have to veto just to score points.) The reality is that unless a president is prepared to compromise with the opposition as Clinton both Bush's and Reagan did, NOTHING can be passsed. All Congress can do is pass a bill. It's up to the president whether it becomes law since an override is inconceivable.
Sending bills to Obama for him to veto will help the GOP. First off, it will show people what they stand for which will help the brand.
Second, it will force Obama to govern against the will of the people (as he has done all along.) If Obama really heard voters as he claims, there would be no Obamacare. He wouldn't even be talking about amnesty for illegals. He might listen to voters but he ignores them.
Thirdly, it will demonstrate to the naysayers why nothing "gets done."
[Edited on 11/6/2014 by alloak41]
Gridlock might not be for everybody, but it's proved once again it's great for the stock market.
Gridlock must mean the government is "not getting anything done," right? Well, what more do you want the government to do? Really. The laws that grant it's powers are found in a document a few pages long. It has taken that power and passed a stack of laws, rules, and regulations that would reach Mars. Something wrong with that picture?
I think it is very sad that you would embrace gridlock as a "good" thing that shows government is working as it should, and even sadder that you are probably not alone (although I would say yours is a minority opinion). I also think you are talking out both sides of your mouth (nothing new) by bashing Harry Reid for his role in gridlock while also praising the GOP for their role in it. That type of attitude is exactly why gov't is NOT working as most Americans want it to. No one was elected to simply stymie the other side and dig in even more and show no interest in compromise. Neither side should get everything they want. Compromise is what makes the system work, not digging in and being proud of gridlock.
[Edited on 11/6/2014 by gondicar]
I guess it all depends on your point of view, whether the government doing less as opposed to more is good or bad.
Well, the message here in Maine that voters seemed to respond to is the GOP candidates will "get things done". Now they need to live up to that or they risk the same backlash that the Dems just got slapped with (and make no mistake, it WILL happen at some point as it always does, just a matter of when). I see no evidence to suggest that your point of view of "doing nothing is the best approach" is widely held.
[Edited on 11/6/2014 by gondicar]
Ideally, they plan on starting to scale back government. That would be getting something "done."
Agreed, it would. But they have to engage with the Dems to make it happen and have to accept that they can't get everything they want. They will have to compromise on some level...that's the hard work of governing.
They are not going to get anything they want because assuming they can get past a fillibuster by the Democrats and pass the bill, Obama will veto it unless it meets his specifications. He will then attempt to spin it as "They passed a bill they KNEW he would have to veto just to score points.) The reality is that unless a president is prepared to compromise with the opposition as Clinton both Bush's and Reagan did, NOTHING can be passsed. All Congress can do is pass a bill. It's up to the president whether it becomes law since an override is inconceivable.
Thanks for helping me make my point. Compromise is the only way meaningful legislation gets passed. And by definition, compromise is a two way street.
As for your take on vetoes and overrides, you are wrong again.. In fact Regan issued more vetoes than any president since Eisenhower (181). Average number of total vetoes per president since Eisenhower is 36. Reagan, Bush the 41st, and Clinton all were higher than average, Reagan more than double the average (a significant percentage of which were inconceivably overridden). Here's what it looks like going back to Carter...
[Edited on 11/6/2014 by gondicar]
Sending bills to Obama for him to veto will help the GOP. First off, it will show people what they stand for which will help the brand.
Second, it will force Obama to govern against the will of the people (as he has done all along.) If Obama really heard voters as he claims, there would be no Obamacare. He wouldn't even be talking about amnesty for illegals. He might listen to voters but he ignores them.
Thirdly, it will demonstrate to the naysayers why nothing "gets done."
[Edited on 11/6/2014 by alloak41]
But you said gridlock is what is supposed to happen. If Obama vetoes everything, isn't he doing what you want him to do? Or is only Republican oriented gridlock what you want?
Sending bills to Obama for him to veto will help the GOP. First off, it will show people what they stand for which will help the brand.
Second, it will force Obama to govern against the will of the people (as he has done all along.) If Obama really heard voters as he claims, there would be no Obamacare. He wouldn't even be talking about amnesty for illegals. He might listen to voters but he ignores them.
Thirdly, it will demonstrate to the naysayers why nothing "gets done."
[Edited on 11/6/2014 by alloak41]
But you said gridlock is what is supposed to happen. If Obama vetoes everything, isn't he doing what you want him to do? Or is only Republican oriented gridlock what you want?
Great point. I'm awaiting a Phi Beta Kappa response for someone to logically explain the difference & justify the difference in GOP versus Dem oriented gridlock. We'll either get nothing on this one or stretch marks of the brain.
Thirdly, it will demonstrate to the naysayers why nothing "gets done."
Wait, what? You said gridlock is what the system is designed for. So what gives? Oh wait, I see. When a D president uses the veto, it is a demonstration of why nothing gets done, but when an R president does it (like the last three R presidents did an average of 46 times each, compared to 2 so far for the current president) it is the system working as it should. Yeah, that makes sense.
But I'm not one of the naysayers. Gridlock doesn't bother me.
And yes, the system IS designed for gridlock.
