Has Republican Congress finally learned they'll need to constructively work with President Clinton?

[skyking]

No way she deviates that far from the DNC platform. No way.

I'll quote you on that.
Go back and see what her husband's record was, and realize slick Willie is her top unofficial adviser.

 

[Perknose]

In a word: NO!

The longer answer would contain lots of bitter laughter before and after that single word.

 

[trenchfoot]

No way she deviates that far from the DNC platform. No way.

If I recall, back in the early days of Obama's first term, the usual pattern for Obama and the Dems to get any kind of agreement with the Repubs was "to get a little, you need to give up a lot" to the point where the Repubs in Congress were actually bragging about it in public.

I recall getting fairly upset and frustrated at times how, from my perspective, Obama and Harry Reid were caving way too often to the Repubs and getting practically nothing in return in the way of policies that would benefit the middle class and the poor. The very wealthy were getting practically every thing they demanded from their Republican stooges, thus making Obama and the Dems look like lambs to the slaughter.

Hopefully those glory days for the Repubs are now over where some sort of balance gets restored between satisfying the needs of the middle class and the poor and the demands of the privileged few. I consider Obama's second term and the way he finally got back at the Repubs as a precursor to what Hillary may be able to take off running with should she get elected.

Assuming Hillary does get the nod, I can see where she would have a strong hand in dealing with the Repubs in the sense that they are in disarray from the identity crisis they're presently involved in and I assume(?) that's partly why you feel Hillary has a solid footing to stand toe to toe with the Repubs?

If so, I tend to agree with you that Hillary has a much better chance of sticking with the Dem platform and accomplishing more than Obama did in his first term despite the turmoil the Repubs were experiencing even way back then.

Let's hope that she and the Dems take every single advantage they can over the crisis the Repubs are now going through so that they may right some of the egregious wrongs the Congressional Repubs committed (at the behest of their wealthy benefactors) over these recent decades.

 

[dank69]

If I recall, back in the early days of Obama's first term, the usual pattern for Obama and the Dems to get any kind of agreement with the Repubs was "to get a little, you need to give up a lot" to the point where the Repubs in Congress were actually bragging about it in public.

I recall getting fairly upset and frustrated at times how, from my perspective, Obama and Harry Reid were caving way too often to the Repubs and getting practically nothing in return in the way of policies that would benefit the middle class and the poor. The very wealthy were getting practically every thing they demanded from their Republican stooges, thus making Obama and the Dems look like lambs to the slaughter.

Hopefully those glory days for the Repubs are now over where some sort of balance gets restored between satisfying the needs of the middle class and the poor and the demands of the privileged few. I consider Obama's second term and the way he finally got back at the Repubs as a precursor to what Hillary may be able to take off running with should she get elected.

Assuming Hillary does get the nod, I can see where she would have a strong hand in dealing with the Repubs in the sense that they are in disarray from the identity crisis they're presently involved in and I assume(?) that's partly why you feel Hillary has a solid footing to stand toe to toe with the Repubs?

If so, I tend to agree with you that Hillary has a much better chance of sticking with the Dem platform and accomplishing more than Obama did in his first term despite the turmoil the Repubs were experiencing even way back then.

Let's hope that she and the Dems take every single advantage they can over the crisis the Repubs are now going through so that they may right some of the egregious wrongs the Congressional Repubs committed over these recent decades.

Honestly, without Senate super majority and House, nothing from the DNC platform will get done. We'll be lucky if she gets to appoint some SCOTUS judges.

 

[theeedude]

The issue for the Republicans is they only control the House due to gerrymander, which is a double edged sword. Americans are voting for a Democrat house by effectively same margin as for Democrat President, but they need to win by almost 7% to be even due to the gerrymandering. But if there is a less favorable to GOP redistricting in 2020, or Democrat SCOTUS blocks racially impactful redistricting schemes, GOP could be at the point where they can't win the House either. And then they could become a permanent minority party.

 

[trenchfoot]

Honestly, without Senate super majority and House, nothing from the DNC platform will get done. We'll be lucky if she gets to appoint some SCOTUS judges.

That's pretty much the reality of it at the present time. I'm going to go the cup is half full route and hope for the best as things seem to be ever so slightly nudging in that direction.

 

[Cozarkian]

The issue for the Republicans is they only control the House due to gerrymander, which is a double edged sword. Americans are voting for a Democrat house by effectively same margin as for Democrat President, but they need to win by almost 7% to be even due to the gerrymandering. But if there is a less favorable to GOP redistricting in 2020, or Democrat SCOTUS blocks racially impactful redistricting schemes, GOP could be at the point where they can't win the House either. And then they could become a permanent minority party.

Probably a good thing, because I don't think it will stay as Democrat party runs everything forever. What will likely happen is a reformed or new party will rise to challenge the Democrats and to successfully do so, it will have to drop the focus on religious issues. Thus, the key differences between the two parties will be based on economic and foreign policy, rather than whether gay people can marry.

 

[dank69]

Probably a good thing, because I don't think it will stay as Democrat party runs everything forever. What will likely happen is a reformed or new party will rise to challenge the Democrats and to successfully do so, it will have to drop the focus on religious issues. Thus, the key differences between the two parties will be based on economic and foreign policy, rather than whether gay people can marry.

And hopefully the new "trickle down" party fails before it even gets started. The GOP honestly doesn't doesn't own a single winning policy at this point.

 

[theeedude]

I am sure a party will emerge, either a reformed GOP, or a replacement. But it has to happen through fair political competition, not voter suppression, gerrymandering, filibustering, etc.
The Democratic party is now being forged by having to out-compete GOP significantly just to be even. It's basically the Asian immigrant student applying to a US university, whereas GOP is like an affirmative action student given extra points on admissions, but then can't keep up once in the real world.

 

[trenchfoot]

The issue for the Republicans is they only control the House due to gerrymander, which is a double edged sword. Americans are voting for a Democrat house by effectively same margin as for Democrat President, but they need to win by almost 7% to be even due to the gerrymandering. But if there is a less favorable to GOP redistricting in 2020, or Democrat SCOTUS blocks racially impactful redistricting schemes, GOP could be at the point where they can't win the House either. And then they could become a permanent minority party.

You know, scaring the shit out of the Repubs with talk like that will turn all of them into raving lunatics. I mean, not that it makes much difference from how they're behaving right now, but there are a few of them left with any kind of logical sense to know that they should vote for Hillary when that deciding moment occurs in the voting booth.

Let's not scare them off and turn them into more Trump Chumps.

(Don't mind me, I'm just trying to get a few digs in on our resident conservatives while the digging is good.)

 

[theeedude]

GOP should be more scared about multiple new generations of young people hating their guts. Those voting patterns will stick around for the next 40 years.

 

[glenn1]

And hopefully the new "trickle down" party fails before it even gets started. The GOP honestly doesn't doesn't own a single winning policy at this point.

With as much as you guys complain about tax rates for the rich being cut you must absolutely hate JFK then. After all he's the one who lowered the top rate for the rich from 91% down to 60% or so.

 

[Jhhnn]

With as much as you guys complain about tax rates for the rich being cut you must absolutely hate JFK then. After all he's the one who lowered the top rate for the rich from 91% down to 60% or so.

Desperate false equivalency.

 

[MongGrel]

Desperate false equivalency.

He likes to grasp for straws.

 

[glenn1]

Desperate false equivalency.

You sure love that phrase despite evidently not understanding its meaning. Don't worry, Hillary won't be appreciably raising the taxes on the rich either.

 

[Jhhnn]

You sure love that phrase despite evidently not understanding its meaning. Don't worry, Hillary won't be appreciably raising the taxes on the rich either.

She may not, but it won't be for lack of trying. It's the only way we'll get more out of the much ballyhooed Job Creators than they allow ATM.

 

[glenn1]

She may not, but it won't be for lack of trying. It's the only way we'll get more out of the much ballyhooed Job Creators than they allow ATM.

LOL you really do believe that sh!t don't you? No doubt you think she'll take the proceeds from those fantasized tax increases and stroke you a big fat Treasury check to boot.

 

[theeedude]

Do Republicans still believe in trickle down or not? Kennedy was 50 years ago, before we tried Reaganomics and it failed miserably.

 

[dead_smiley]

You guys talk so big about how Republicans and Democrats are so different. They are not. They are the same with the same goals, which is simply to get reelected.

Trump is doing something no career politician is capable of doing. He is transforming the Republican party. Those Republicans in office that have withdrawn their support for him are experiencing blowback from their base and it's rather ugly for them.

When both establishment Democrats and Republicans hate you then you know you have struck a nerve. He is not playing by the norms and they cannot stand it. I predict a landslide victory for Trump.

Sent from my overpriced smartphone

 

[fskimospy]

You sure love that phrase despite evidently not understanding its meaning. Don't worry, Hillary won't be appreciably raising the taxes on the rich either.

You do realize that Obama raised taxes on the rich significantly, right? Was he just a unicorn?

 

[Puffnstuff]

I don't know about you guys but I've got my microwave popcorn set aside for next weeks final debate. I expect for the entertainment value of this one to be over the top with all of the recent revelations surfacing of the Gropester's activities. If a so called Christian can support this whack job then the church is truly dead.

 

[glenn1]

You do realize that Obama raised taxes on the rich significantly, right? Was he just a unicorn?

Your threshold for significant isn't very high then. Basically he reset marginal top rates to the Clinton levels (from lowered levels which would have expired anyway with the Bush tax cuts) and locked in a lot of the Bush tax cuts. If you want to call the payroll tax increases related to Obamacare "significant" be my guest, but I'd use that term for changes that actually are significant like Reagan reducing the top rate from 70% to 28%. Obama's tax increases aren't even a rounding error in comparison. Besides if a single digit percentage increase in nominal tax rates is the cost to achieve a parabolic increase in income share then that's a worthy tradeoff.

 

[fskimospy]

Your threshold for significant isn't very high then. Basically he reset marginal top rates to the Clinton levels (from lowered levels which would have expired anyway with the Bush tax cuts) and locked in a lot of the Bush tax cuts. If you want to call the payroll tax increases related to Obamacare "significant" be my guest, but I'd use that term for changes that actually are significant like Reagan reducing the top rate from 70% to 28%. Obama's tax increases aren't even a rounding error in comparison. Besides if a single digit percentage increase in nominal tax rates is the cost to achieve a parabolic increase in income share then that's a worthy tradeoff.

According to the CBO the net effect of Obama's tax provisions is to increase taxes on the top 1% to what they were before President Reagan. Since you seemed to think Reagan's tax cuts were 'significant', presumably you think Obama rolling back both Reagan's and Bush II's tax cuts for the rich is historic? The table is on page 4 and it was the most recent projection I could find. Rates were projected to be 33%, which is approximately equal to the proportion of income they paid before Reagan.

So a 'rounding error'? Hardly.

https://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/f.../49440-Distribution-of-Income-and-Taxes-2.pdf

 

[Puffnstuff]

I respect people who deal in facts.

 

[Jhhnn]

Your threshold for significant isn't very high then. Basically he reset marginal top rates to the Clinton levels (from lowered levels which would have expired anyway with the Bush tax cuts) and locked in a lot of the Bush tax cuts. If you want to call the payroll tax increases related to Obamacare "significant" be my guest, but I'd use that term for changes that actually are significant like Reagan reducing the top rate from 70% to 28%. Obama's tax increases aren't even a rounding error in comparison. Besides if a single digit percentage increase in nominal tax rates is the cost to achieve a parabolic increase in income share then that's a worthy tradeoff.

It's a start in the right direction. A 35 year trend can't be turned on a dime, certainly not w/o Repubs realizing that the discontent among their base is largely based on economics.