GOP Obstructionism.....

[nhboy]

 

[This_person]

View attachment 112696

She talks about primarily bad legislation given by the Dems, then says Obama won't sign into law any good legislation. I thought she was a liberal, but she's making a good case to put a Republican in the WH to get good legislation passed with a Congress held by Republicans.

 

[SamSpade]

"GOP Obstructionism" - the kind of phrase you can expect when they expect you to just shut up and color.

When half the country is saying "hell no", the Democrats are saying "obstructionists! Shut up and take what's good for ya!".

Reminds me of when my daughter was little and playing soccer with my son, who was the goalie.
She wouldn't kick the ball until he was *completely* out of the way.

 

[littlelady]

"GOP Obstructionism" - the kind of phrase you can expect when they expect you to just shut up and color.

When half the country is saying "hell no", the Democrats are saying "obstructionists! Shut up and take what's good for ya!".

Reminds me of when my daughter was little and playing soccer with my son, who was the goalie.
She wouldn't kick the ball until he was *completely* out of the way.

And, I like your analogy.

 

[Chris0nllyn]

I've said it, and I'll say it again.

If Congress' success is measured by how many laws and bills they pass, I don't want them to be successful.

Burdening the American people with needless regulation isn't success. Using tax money to pander to special interests and paying for pet projects isn't success either.

This post simply shows the disconnect and difference in opinion big govt. and small govt. folks have.

 

[Rommey]

• Cash for Clunkers: $3Billion program that produced a short-lived effect (360,000 additional cars sold in 2 months), but that the effect was almost completely reversed in the 7 following months due to fewer cars sold, and found no evidence of effect on employment, house prices, or household default rates in cities with higher exposure.
• Credit Card Reform: In the 111th United States Congress the bill was reintroduced as H.R. 627 and on April 30, 2009, the House passed 357 yes votes to 70 no votes. The Senate followed suit and passed an amended version on May 19 with 90 yes votes and 5 no votes. The House passed the amended bill the next day by a vote of 279 to 147 and it was signed into law by President Barack Obama on May 22, 2009.
  -Well there’s proof of Republican obstruction
• START Treaty: This was more a circumstance of timing more than anything else. The original treaty signed by Reagan in 1991 expired in December 2009.
• Children’s Health Care Insurance Program was also a circumstance of timing as the previous program expired in March 2009.
• The Stimulus which “included the largest middle class tax cuts ever”: Even the Washington Post calls BS on this one:
  

  The Pinocchio Test
  Obama’s claim of having passed the “biggest middle-class tax cut in history” is ridiculous. He might have been on more solid ground if he had claimed the “broadest” tax cut, but that doesn’t sound very historic.
  We went back and forth over whether this was a three or four Pinocchio violation, until we found evidence that Obama knew he was saying a whopper. Here’s how he put it in his 2010 State of the Union speech: “We cut taxes for 95 percent of working families.” That phrasing, at least, would not have been so misleading.
  Four Pinocchios

 

[Larry Gude]

S I thought she was a liberal, but she's making a good case to put a Republican in the WH to get good legislation passed with a Congress held by Republicans.

What is this based on? What is it about the GOP that inspires hope of 'good' legislation. What would be an example of something you think they'd do?

 

[This_person]

What is this based on? What is it about the GOP that inspires hope of 'good' legislation. What would be an example of something you think they'd do?

I would use the word "hope" more than "think". They proved a decade ago that a decade ago, those Republicans wouldn't do what they were elected to do - they'd simply be Democrats. I hope that they'd balance the budget like they did under Gingrich, have a budget instead of the on-going CR's, they'd address the impending failure of Soc Sec, and they'd work to reign in entitlement programs like ACA. It is too late to repeal it, because it is in the very fabric of government now, but it would be nice to see some of the draconian aspects of it eliminated in favor of free-market ideas.

But, it's based on the idea that the initial post shows which is that when Congress and the WH are diametrically opposed to one another, very little gets done legislatively, making the president and his regulations/executive orders that much more kingly. Since it is highly unlikely that both the House and Senate will fall to the Dems, it is only conceivable to get legislative action accomplished with a Republican WH, as noted in the initial post.