Republican Party Favorability Sinks To Record Low

[havok579257]

I work for the Democratic apparatus.  I do not want this to be a tool available for the Democratic party, either.  When we get a Republican President again I'm going to work really hard to stop him from implementing what I view to be bad policy.  I would not support using the debt ceiling, except for symbolic votes, against him either.  This is like nuclear disarmament.  This needs to be taken off the table of acceptable negotiating tactics for both parties.  It needs to end, now.  It should have ended in 2011.  Obama never should have negotiated over the debt ceiling back then.  But he did.  He bears responsibility for legitimatizing this tactic by engaging with it.  But now he and Boehner need to put this genie back in the bottle.  for that to happen this faction of the republican Party needs to lose here.  

 

 

kind of weird that Obama was attacking bush for raising the debt limit.  he called it a lack of leadership.  now he wants it raised.  so I guess that means a lack of leadership on his part.  bet he won't admit that.  easier to blame bush and say how great he is himself.

[havok579257]

That's really not the point.  The point it is the responsibility of both Obama and Boehner to find a better way to work out their differences than this.  Obama has shown reluctance to comprise with the Republicans.  This is now just as much his debacle as it is the Republicans. 

 

 

not to mention Obama went back on his word during the last tax hike.  he agreed with bohner on a certain amount then realized he could get more from senate republicans so he went back on his word.  yeah, I would definatly trust this guy to keep his word about negotiations after he gets everything he wants.

[r2Dtoo]

Obama acts like a dictator. He will not compromise with an elected body of Congress who are representing their voters (though weakly) and the part of America that does not walk in lock step with the President. Those that do not want to be forced to buy a product just because the are alive. The dept limit is another example where D.C. believes it gets a pass from reality where the rest of us live. We would be arrested and thrown in prison. We could not continually spend massive amounts of more money than we raised. And our solution to that could not be to continually raised our debt limit when our debt was raised to high.

What will happen if the debt ceiling isn't raised: 

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/05/24/debt-ceiling-what-happens_n_865016.html#s280962&title=Interest_And_Credit

 

Here are just some of the highlights:

 

With the global banking system in free-fall, nobody will be lending money for a while. You can't make big-ticket purchases (like a car or college education). And companies that have lost all their U.S. assets won't be able to get loans to cover their day-to-day operations if the commercial paper market -- where companies lend each other money overnight -- seizes up.

 

When businesses and corporations lose their money and can't get a loan to function, they have to cut somewhere -- and that somewhere could be you. In other cases, planned expansions and new hires might be pushed back, slowing down economic progress.

 

Because the global banking system has such a big stake in U.S. assets and the dollar, it will essentially grind to a halt until the U.S. raises the debt limit. At that point, our usual ways of purchasing things -- including credit and loans -- will be unavailable. You can get and use cash, but it will essentially be Monopoly money for a while, due to hyperinflation.

 

So, no jobs, no business, and no money.  Why should I really care that DC can do things that I as an individual can't?

[KnightofChrist]

Obama acts like a dictator. He will not compromise with an elected body of Congress who are representing their voters (though weakly) and the part of America that does not walk in lock step with the President. Those that do not want to be forced to buy a product just because the are alive. The dept limit is another example where D.C. believes it gets a pass from reality where the rest of us live. We would be arrested and thrown in prison. We could not continually spend massive amounts of more money than we raised. And our solution to that could not be to continually raised our debt limit when our debt was raised to high.

A good compromise would have been give individuals the same one year delay the big business got from Obama. But nope.

[4588686]

The dept limit is another example where D.C. believes it gets a pass from reality where the rest of us live. We would be arrested and thrown in prison. We could not continually spend massive amounts of more money than we raised. And our solution to that could not be to continually raised our debt limit when our debt was raised to high.

 

 

Here.  Since you seem to have a shaky grasp of what the debt ceiling is this may help:

 

http://www.treasury.gov/initiatives/pages/debtlimit.aspx

Edited October 13, 2013 by Hasan

[4588686]

kind of weird that Obama was attacking bush for raising the debt limit.  he called it a lack of leadership.  now he wants it raised.  so I guess that means a lack of leadership on his part.  bet he won't admit that.  easier to blame bush and say how great he is himself.

 

 

No, it means he was engaged in political theater.  As I said, it is completely fine if a large faction of the Republican party wants to vote against raising the debt ceiling.  The problem is the Republicans preventing a vote from taking place.  They aren't engaged in theater.  They're trying to actually not finance America's existing obligations, thus crashing the global economy, so they can try to push policies that cannot win on a national level (see 2012).  This is illiberal and should not be a negotiating tactic.  Boehner is going to blink.  He's already indicated that he will.  The Republicans are being savaged in the polls, as they should be.  

[havok579257]

No, it means he was engaged in political theater.  As I said, it is completely fine if a large faction of the Republican party wants to vote against raising the debt ceiling.  The problem is the Republicans preventing a vote from taking place.  They aren't engaged in theater.  They're trying to actually not finance America's existing obligations, thus crashing the global economy, so they can try to push policies that cannot win on a national level (see 2012).  This is illiberal and should not be a negotiating tactic.  Boehner is going to blink.  He's already indicated that he will.  The Republicans are being savaged in the polls, as they should be.  

 

 

obamacare did not win on the national level.  to say so is laughable.  the reason he won is because he ran against mitt Romney.  he ran against the worst guy who tried to argue against obamacare.  it was obamacare vs obamacare, either outcome and obamacare won.  there was no second option. 

 

fact is obamacare is hugely unpopular by all polls by left leaning and right leaning media.  obamacare was passed not a complete work but as a rough draft due to Kennedys death.  the obamacare we got was never even intended to be the final product.  the president knew how hugely unpopular it was and so worked with reid and Pelosi to pass it in the middle of the night befire someone represented the American peoples will on the subject with a vote. 

[4588686]

obamacare did not win on the national level.  to say so is laughable.  the reason he won is because he ran against mitt Romney.  he ran against the worst guy who tried to argue against obamacare.  it was obamacare vs obamacare, either outcome and obamacare won.  there was no second option. 

 

fact is obamacare is hugely unpopular by all polls by left leaning and right leaning media.  obamacare was passed not a complete work but as a rough draft due to Kennedys death.  the obamacare we got was never even intended to be the final product.  the president knew how hugely unpopular it was and so worked with reid and Pelosi to pass it in the middle of the night befire someone represented the American peoples will on the subject with a vote. 

 

 

Interesting.  So a national race in which the candidate promises to defend Obamacare is 'Obamacare vs Obamacare."  People like you live in an interesting world.  If Republicans can win at a national level again  (The Presidency) and the Senate and the House then they can repeal Obamacare.  I may not like it but I would consider it bad policy, not illegitimate policy.  A Faction of one House of Congress threatening to crash the global economy by not paying debts already incurred is not legitimate political behavior.  It's illiberal.

[havok579257]

Interesting.  So a national race in which the candidate promises to defend Obamacare is 'Obamacare vs Obamacare."  People like you live in an interesting world.  If Republicans can win at a national level again  (The Presidency) and the Senate and the House then they can repeal Obamacare.  I may not like it but I would consider it bad policy, not illegitimate policy.  A Faction of one House of Congress threatening to crash the global economy by not paying debts already incurred is not legitimate political behavior.  It's illiberal.

 

Romney ran against obamacare when he was the one who invented it.  he can say he would defund it but the American people knew all along Romney was bashing something he put in place first.  his claims of defunding it and not liking it were laughable.  he created it and everyone knew it and it effectively made obamacare a non issue.  without Romney having that to run against he was beat because at the end of the day he was moderate Mitt who people knew would change his stance at the drop of a hat.  Santorum stood a better chance of winning the Presidency.  Not saying he would have won but that he would have stood a better chance than Romney.

 

repealing a law is not an easy thing.  also just because you win all 3 houses of government does not mean you can over turn the law.  you need to have more than a simple majority to over turn the law.  add to the fact the republican party is more interested in shooting itself in the foot and fighting between themselves, winning a fillerbuster proof majority in the house and senate is almost promised not to happen.  the senate would need to have 60 republicans In total. to pick up the needed seats to get to  60 would be near impossible and that would be if they weren't fighting between themselves.  holding 60 seats in the senate is extremely hard. 

 

it is an ilegitimate policy because he was passed in the middle of the night.  the house passed their version of the bill knowing the senate would change it to improve it and then it would go back to the house to improve it and so on.  the senate got it and made changes.  it was not a finished product at this stage.  kennedy died.  the republicans won the special election(which by the way was won in an extremely liberal state with the entire campaigned focused by Brown on keeping obamacare from not becoming a law)the senate no longer had the 60 votes needed to pass the next house revision.  so Obama and his cronies got together and did whatever it took to get the house to pass the senates versions(without any improvements since to change it 1 tiny bit would force it back to the senate for a vote and the votes were not there).  house democrats were not happy about having to pass the senate version of the bill.  although enough fell in line with Obama and Pelosi that they passed it into law. 

 

so I ask you hasan, do you think that was a legit way to pass obamacare?  do you think it was good to pass a law that was not finished and was a rough draft?  do you think it was right how it was passed?

[CrossCuT]

Cmon guys.

 

http://youtu.be/0Jd-iaYLO1A

Edited October 14, 2013 by CrossCuT

[havok579257]

Cmon guys.

 

http://youtu.be/0Jd-iaYLO1A

 

I don't watch youtube videos, so this video says what?

[CrossCuT]

Democracy was suspend because the republican party wanted it so.

[havok579257]

Democracy was suspend because the republican party wanted it so.

 

so that's all the 5 minute video said?  not really an informative description about the video.

[CrossCuT]

Basically,the tea party recognizes that there is a rift in  their own party in Washington. They think too many republicans are becoming reasonable, or as they call it "liberal"

so they voted on a new rule that would prevent any of these rational people from compromising on anything with the senate and president.

 

The tea partiers decided to change one of the house regulations so that the only person in the house who can put forward a motion to reopen the government is the speaker.

 

Edited October 14, 2013 by CrossCuT

[KnightofChrist]

Basically,the tea party recognizes that there is a rift in  their own party in Washington. They think too many republicans are becoming reasonable, or as they call it "liberal"

so they voted on a new rule that would prevent any of these rational people from compromising on anything with the senate and president.

 

The tea partiers decided to change one of the house regulations so that the only person in the house who can put forward a motion to reopen the government is the speaker.

 

Both parties use these rule changes all the time. Other examples would be the roads taken on the passage of the Un-Affordable Care Act by the Democrats. And the Tea Party didn't kill 'democracy' the Founding Fathers did. This is a Republic, but even if one wants to call our Republic a democracy this rule change didn't kill it, no more than any of the other rule changes.