Kirk: "Coffins outside each Democratic Office" (user search)
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
June 02, 2024, 01:53:49 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Politics
  U.S. General Discussion (Moderators: The Dowager Mod, Chancellor Tanterterg)
  Kirk: "Coffins outside each Democratic Office" (search mode)
Pages: [1]
Author Topic: Kirk: "Coffins outside each Democratic Office"  (Read 2841 times)
Attorney General & PPT Dwarven Dragon
Dwarven Dragon
Atlas Politician
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 31,934
United States


Political Matrix
E: -1.42, S: -0.52

P P P
« on: February 11, 2015, 05:02:44 PM »

Come on.  Democrats have always been willing to compromise on spending.  But, that's not enough for Republicans.  They want to make every budget battle into a "Do what we say or else your pathetic little country gets it!" ransom situation over non-budgetary issues.
Not entirely true.

First off, note that McConnell has already allowed votes for ~41 bill amendments - that's about 3 times the number of bill amendments that Reid allowed votes on during the entirety of 2013 and 2014. And yes, that includes democratic-proposed and republican-proposed amendments. Now, we'll have to see if McConnell's open amendment process promise is kept throughout the next 2 years, but he's certainly honoring it right now.

Secondly, the democrats were only willing to negotiate on spending during the last congress if it was done at a truly convenient time for them. It was always a matter of - you pass a debt ceiling increase with ABSOLUTELY NOTHING attached to it - and then MAYBE we'll think about cutting spending somewhere. Don't get me wrong, I realize the consequences of not raising the debt ceiling, but attaching a couple of lower-tier republican ideas to the raise could have gone a long way toward us not getting into the last-minute action situations we were frequently in during the last congress. And then of course, there's the Warren-led base that won't support any entitlement reform (which, aside from defense, is where any serious spending cuts that will solve our long-term problems need to come from) no matter what.

And to be clear, with entitlements, I'm talking about things like raising the retirement age or reducing benefits for the wealthy - Not the Crappy Paul Ryan Plan.

Logged
Attorney General & PPT Dwarven Dragon
Dwarven Dragon
Atlas Politician
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 31,934
United States


Political Matrix
E: -1.42, S: -0.52

P P P
« Reply #1 on: February 11, 2015, 07:42:31 PM »

Bedstuy, the important thing about allowing votes on bill amendments is that it allows for the culture of discussion and debate that's supposed to happen in the senate. Reid would play the "I don't want my caucus to have tough votes!" card half the time, and the "I/the democratic base doesn't like it" card the other half of the time, and not even allow the vote to happen even if he knew it wasn't going to pass. With McConnell's (at least so far) open amendment process, most/all amendments get votes - everything from Sanders's liberal ideas to Wicker's conservative ideas - and the bad amendments simply don't get the required 60 votes, and the good amendments do.

And the liberal base's entitlement mantra has been either "Not a problem because it won't go bankrupt until (insert projection here)." (Which is just simple procrasination, I'd rather have the debate now so we can ensure that the best solutions are used), or "Eliminate the payroll tax cap!" (A proposal that, despite my support of it, has literally 0% support among the republican party).

Also, the idea of concessions to raise the debt ceiling is not new, it's been used by both parties in past administrations. Sometimes the party using it got something and sometimes they didn't. This article is pretty good:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/wp/2013/09/19/obamas-claim-that-non-budget-items-have-never-been-attached-to-the-debt-ceiling/

------------

Anyways, on the topic of DHS funding, I don't endorse the republican plan. As I've said elsewhere, I actually support what Obama's executive order does. As much as I prefer these things to be done through the legislative process, I'm not going to support blocking an executive order I like because of "muh procedural preferences".
Logged
Pages: [1]  
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.028 seconds with 12 queries.