Obama ought to do a Truman

[Paul in Qatar]

(I am posting before my coffee, so this might be silly.)

President Obama ought to call Congress back is session telling the GOP, "We cannot wait for the next election, we need the House and Senate to pass, and me to sign the Republicans' plan to balance the budget, cut the government and restore the economy. If the majority of Republicans pass something, I will get the Democratic votes needed to make it law."

I would suspect that when push comes to shove, the GOP has no idea what they want to do. Let's see.

[Really Not All That Bright]

Yes, it's silly.

[Paul in Qatar]

Worked when Truman did it.

[Really Not All That Bright]

So did nuking Hiroshima.

[Cisco]

Yes, it's silly.
I don't think it's silly, on its face, but I do think the cunning bastards would find a way to turn it around and make Obama look bad for it.

[Chronos]

"We cannot wait for the next election, we need the House and Senate to pass, and me to sign the Republicans' plan to balance the budget, cut the government and restore the economy. Tax cuts for the rich, that'll solve everything.

[Gagundathar]

I know that Mr. Obama's strategy is to try everything he can to engage the GOP and establish some sort of reasonable bipartisan dialogue, but seriously I don't think this is going to ever work with the current opposition party and with the Democrats running scared.

I can only hope that once the GOP has retaken the House that we will finally get something resembling a working Congress. What we have right now is just amazingly dysfunctional, and I do not blame Mr Obama. That would be too simple. I do blame Ms. Pelosi and Mr. Reid for acting in such a cowardly fashion.

But that is a pipe dream.

As an aside, in your opinions, fellow Dopers, would Congress be more effective if the GOP were in charge? Do you think that if the Senate and House were GOP majority that the GOP leadership would start to actually, uh, lead the dang country?
Or do you think they will continue to act like they have and play the political game so that they have a chance of getting a GOP to replace the current POTUS?

[DigitalC]

"We cannot wait for the next election, we need the House and Senate to pass, and me to sign the Republicans' plan to balance the budget, cut the government and restore the economy. Tax cuts for the rich, that'll solve everything.

Don't forget deregulation.

[sleeping]

As an aside, in your opinions, fellow Dopers, would Congress be more effective if the GOP were in charge? Do you think that if the Senate and House were GOP majority that the GOP leadership would start to actually, uh, lead the dang country?


No, they'd pass legislation, but it would be regressive. Then they'd go on Fox to demand that the Dem President sign it.

The problem right now, however, is that the president is trying to pass Republican-style bills and failing because they're filibustering their own ideas.

The cap-and-trade policy that conservatives are now painting as liberal extremism was proposed by Republicans in the 90s and promoted by McCain / Palin in 2008. Nowadays, Palin is attacking any government involvement in energy and McCain's jumped aboard the crazy train to get re-elected.

The healthcare legislation that Republicans said was "socialism" was also modeled largely on their own proposals in the 90s, and their passage of it in Massachusetts. Charles Grassley, who claimed in 2009 that the individual mandate was "unconstitutional," was the person who first proposed it in the 90s.

Or take small business loans. Republicans wanted the government to help small businesses by diverting TARP money to community banks. The Democrats and Obama back it. Now, the Republicans are filibustering it.

If they get back in power, the Republicans would do a repeat of the Clinton hearings, only worse. There would be hearings about whether Obama is a Muslim, hearings about whether he is an American citizen, hearings about ACORN, hearings about every liberal (or allegedly liberal) organization Glenn Beck named, etc.

So, yeah, they'll do stuff, but it will be pernicious and completely against the country's interests. Well, 98% of the country anyway.

[BrainGlutton]

(I am posting before my coffee, so this might be silly.)

President Obama ought to call Congress back is session telling the GOP, "We cannot wait for the next election, we need the House and Senate to pass, and me to sign the Republicans' plan to balance the budget, cut the government and restore the economy.

But, that would not restore the economy. On the economy, the Pubs are wrong on practically everything. That's why it's silly.

[DanBlather]

(I am posting before my coffee, so this might be silly.)

President Obama ought to call Congress back is session telling the GOP, "We cannot wait for the next election, we need the House and Senate to pass, and me to sign the Republicans' plan to balance the budget, cut the government and restore the economy.

But, that would not restore the economy. On the economy, the Pubs are wrong on practically everything. That's why it's silly.You are missing the point The GOP has no plan that would balance the budget. The budget cuts required to do so without tax hikes would be draconian. Touching SS would be suicide, plus it would have zero, zilch, nada effect on the deficit. It would show the GOP as a bunch of lieing asswipes.

[BrainGlutton]

But, that would not restore the economy. On the economy, the Pubs are wrong on practically everything. That's why it's silly.You are missing the point The GOP has no plan that would balance the budget. The budget cuts required to do so without tax hikes would be draconian. Touching SS would be suicide, plus it would have zero, zilch, nada effect on the deficit. It would show the GOP as a bunch of lieing asswipes.

They already proved that when they controlled all three branches not so long ago. What is the point of repeating the demonstration?

[sleeping]

You are missing the point The GOP has no plan that would balance the budget. The budget cuts required to do so without tax hikes would be draconian. Touching SS would be suicide, plus it would have zero, zilch, nada effect on the deficit. It would show the GOP as a bunch of lieing asswipes.

They already proved that when they controlled all three branches not so long ago. What is the point of repeating the demonstration?

If that wasn't a rhetorical question...it has nothing to do with the demonstration (they've already convinced a considerable swath of the populace that they are the brave vanguard against encroaching tyranny), and everything to do with rewarding their corporate paymasters. Not only would privatizing SS further erode the public sector, you can be sure the process would dump trillions in the coffers of Wall St--to be played and gambled with by Goldman Sachs.

I don't know whether this will actually happen, but it's a distinct possibility precisely because of Obama's determination for compromise.

[Chronos]

You are missing the point The GOP has no plan that would balance the budget.The problem is, they may not have any plan that will balance the budget, but they have a plan that they say will balance the budget, and they've somehow convinced a bunch of folks to believe them.

[sleeping]

Right. But the very focus on the deficit distracts from the real problem, which is jobs. America's trade deficit is significant and should be reduced, but that would mean recognizing the destruction of unions and the manufacturing sector--something that conservatives are loath to discuss, because it points to the central problem of "free trade."

[John Mace]

(I am posting before my coffee, so this might be silly.)

President Obama ought to call Congress back is session telling the GOP, "We cannot wait for the next election, we need the House and Senate to pass, and me to sign the Republicans' plan to balance the budget, cut the government and restore the economy. If the majority of Republicans pass something, I will get the Democratic votes needed to make it law."

I would suspect that when push comes to shove, the GOP has no idea what they want to do. Let's see.

Well, at least you're not suggesting that he drop two nukes on Japan...

Be careful what you wish for. The Republicans come up with something, and Obam will not be able to get the Democrats to support it. And if by some chance he did, that would just prove that the Democrats in Congress can't get anything done, and we might as well put the Republicans in charge.

[Paul in Qatar]

Nope, it would work.

The GOP has no real plan, so let's invite them to prove it. Or the GOP has a scary plan, so lets let the American people see it.

Besides, the election is in eight weeks. It makes no real difference if they pass bad laws next week or in the next session.

Let's double-dog dare them.

[Jophiel]

As an aside, in your opinions, fellow Dopers, would Congress be more effective if the GOP were in charge? Do you think that if the Senate and House were GOP majority that the GOP leadership would start to actually, uh, lead the dang country?
Right now?

I think that if the GOP becomes the majority party in either or both chambers, you'll see the Democrats playing the same obstructionist games the GOP has played since 2006. Why not? People don't actually care about process or filibusters or whatever, they care about results and if the Democrats can keep the GOP from producing any results then they can use the "See? They wanted back in power and for what?" line.

Senator Coburn (R-OK) said a week or so ago that if the GOP retakes Congress and can't produce, it'll kill the Republican Party. Expect lots of filibusters and party-line votes in the coming years.

[sleeping]

As an aside, in your opinions, fellow Dopers, would Congress be more effective if the GOP were in charge? Do you think that if the Senate and House were GOP majority that the GOP leadership would start to actually, uh, lead the dang country?
Right now?

I think that if the GOP becomes the majority party in either or both chambers, you'll see the Democrats playing the same obstructionist games the GOP has played since 2006. Why not? People don't actually care about process or filibusters or whatever, they care about results and if the Democrats can keep the GOP from producing any results then they can use the "See? They wanted back in power and for what?" line.

Senator Coburn (R-OK) said a week or so ago that if the GOP retakes Congress and can't produce, it'll kill the Republican Party. Expect lots of filibusters and party-line votes in the coming years.

Eh, that works both ways and can continue ad infinitum. And Dems are largely pussies, so there's no way they'd filibuster as much as the Pubs.

The real problem is that working and middle class people need government intervention. For the wealthy, a shutdown of Congress works just fine.

[Beware of Doug]

Nope, it would work.

The GOP has no real plan, so let's invite them to prove it. Or the GOP has a scary plan, so lets let the American people see it.You don't really want to do that. Enough Americans have been bamboozled by the teabaggers that there's a real chance the country might enthusiastically embrace a scary plan, as long as it scared them in ways they're used to being scared.

[Jophiel]

Eh, that works both ways and can continue ad infinitum. And Dems are largely pussies, so there's no way they'd filibuster as much as the Pubs.
Of course it works both ways. Which is why I'd expect the Democrats to pick up the obstructionist baton right where the GOP leaves it following the elections. Why would they do differently when obstructionism worked so well for the GOP?

I disagree with the second part of your remark but I guess it's a wait-and-see.

[sleeping]

Eh, that works both ways and can continue ad infinitum. And Dems are largely pussies, so there's no way they'd filibuster as much as the Pubs.
Of course it works both ways. Which is why I'd expect the Democrats to pick up the obstructionist baton right where the GOP leaves it following the elections. Why would they do differently when obstructionism worked so well for the GOP?

I disagree with the second part of your remark but I guess it's a wait-and-see.

There is no comparison. Since the Democrats retook Congress in 2006, filibustering have been used at an unprecedented rate (http://www.american.com/archive/2008/march-april-magazine-contents/our-broken-senate). The fact of the matter is that only a handful of Democrats are liberal, but every Republican is now far-right. If there was any parity, the Democrats would have filibustered the Iraq War resolution, the Bush tax cuts, etc. This did not happen.

[foolsguinea]

As an aside, in your opinions, fellow Dopers, would Congress be more effective if the GOP were in charge? Do you think that if the Senate and House were GOP majority that the GOP leadership would start to actually, uh, lead the dang country?
Or do you think they will continue to act like they have and play the political game so that they have a chance of getting a GOP to replace the current POTUS?A Congress led by this particular GOP leadership in opposition has a very good chance of not being able to lead anything. At best they will make the same kinds of mistakes that Newt Gingrich & Dick Armey did in the 1990's.

For example, the federal government decided to underinvest in training medical professionals for fear of a "doctor glut." We now face a doctor shortage, & have seen ten years of medical care prices growing 4 times as fast as general inflation.

The present GOP tends to fatuousness, & will utterly fail to analyze its own errors & fix them.

What we are witnessing is the systemic failure of democracy. The system chooses those politicians that sell themselves & desirable but silly ideas. The system does not elect competence as such. It is left to us to educate our fellow citizens as best we can; vote as best we can; advocate as best we can; & hope that when things finally destabilize enough that a fascist dictator takes power, that said dictator is smart enough to manage the country better than a silly old republic could.

[sleeping]

For example, the federal government decided to underinvest in training medical professionals for fear of a "doctor glut." We now face a doctor shortage, & have seen ten years of medical care prices growing 4 times as fast as general inflation.


I don't think the doctor shortage is a big factor in the rise of healthcare costs, but it certainly doesn't help. The reason the government "decided" to do this was consistent lobbying the conservative American Medical Association, whose goal was to maintain high physician salaries. This was not necessarily representative of majority physician opinion, though.

[BigT]

Funny how democracy is systemically failing--and yet it works perfectly fine in other countries. And the second we have a fascist dictator, we will be doing a whole lot worse. Do you really think the rich are going to suffer under fascism?

[Jophiel]

There is no comparison. Since the Democrats retook Congress in 2006, filibustering have been used at an unprecedented rate (http://www.american.com/archive/2008/march-april-magazine-contents/our-broken-senate). The fact of the matter is that only a handful of Democrats are liberal, but every Republican is now far-right. If there was any parity, the Democrats would have filibustered the Iraq War resolution, the Bush tax cuts, etc. This did not happen.
I don't see what your argument is. I said that since the Democrats have seen how successful obstructionism is for the GOP, they will emulate it. In 2002, there was no history of unprecedented filibustering to copy.

That jump in filibusters is what the Democrats will copy. The fact that they didn't do so eight years ago doesn't mean much of anything. They've spent the last several years seeing the GOP "run" on doing nothing but blocking legislation and then blaming the Democrats for not passing anything to fix the problems. Now if they're in the minority, I expect to see them do the same thing since they now know it works.

[Cyberhwk]

I think that if the GOP becomes the majority party in either or both chambers, you'll see the Democrats playing the same obstructionist games the GOP has played since 2006. Why not? People don't actually care about process or filibusters or whatever, they care about results and if the Democrats can keep the GOP from producing any results then they can use the "See? They wanted back in power and for what?" line.
But people don't put that much thought into it.

The reason Dems can't just sit there is that it'll be Obama taking the fall in 2012. People don't care who was really at fault, as long as heads roll. And the President of the United States would be the most prominent head before them in 2012.

That jump in filibusters is what the Democrats will copy.
While the GOP taking the Senate is now a possibility, it's still remote. Where Dems are going to lose the majority is the House which has no filibuster. Furthermore, as sleeping pointed out, grinding government to a halt is exactly what the GOP wants. Shut down the government for a few days then hit Fox News, "See! We're all still alive! And we didn't need the government to do it!" "We are winning and will continue to fight against the evil Socialist agenda!"

If the economy doesn't storm back, the only way the GOP could screw this up is failing to muzzle the likes of Rand Paul and having the Tea Party Conservatives scare the shit out of grandma by talking about deep cuts to programs like SS and Medicare.

Numbers are ugly for Senate Dems in 2012 as well with 21 Democrats up for re-election versus only 10 Republicans. And these Democratic seats are in states such as Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, and Ohio. Only GOP seats in play may be Scott Brown (MA) and Ensign (NV). Democrats need to win 2/3 of the races in 2012 just to BREAK EVEN! :eek:

[foolsguinea]

Funny how democracy is systemically failing--and yet it works perfectly fine in other countries. And the second we have a fascist dictator, we will be doing a whole lot worse. Do you really think the rich are going to suffer under fascism?Except for Iceland, those other countries haven't been democratic for as long. And Iceland hasn't been independent that long. The rot isn't bad enough yet.

But the financial problems in Iceland, & Greece, & so on, are due to populist democracy. Sorry, I'm all for making decisions for the good of the people, but that doesn't mean letting the people, the stupid stupid people, vote on them.

It's not worth trying to overthrow democracy in the USA, it's too entrenched. But the naysayers 200 years ago were right. Most people are too stupid to govern themselves well. A nation needs good government. The populace want free candy & low taxes. These things are not compatible in the crunch.

[Chronos]

The Dems won't need to filibuster, anyway, at least until 2012 (or maybe 2016 or 2020). As long as Obama (or another Democrat) holds the White House, he can just veto, and the threshold for overturning a veto is even steeper than for cloture.

[marshmallow]

As long as Obama (or another Democrat) holds the White House, he can just veto...

Unlikely.

It's not worth trying to overthrow democracy in the USA, it's too entrenched. But the naysayers 200 years ago were right. Most people are too stupid to govern themselves well.

Which is why they didn't institute one.

[carnivorousplant]

It's not worth trying to overthrow democracy in the USA, it's too entrenched. But the naysayers 200 years ago were right. Most people are too stupid to govern themselves well.

Which is why they didn't institute one.

I've always been shouted down here when I point that out.
:)

[foolsguinea]

Funny, I meant the naysayers in Europe--specifically in Russia. "Yes, yes, great idea, the people aren't ready for it."

The USA has had a democracy since Andrew Jackson, whatever the planters of the revolutionary period planned.

[BrainGlutton]

Which is why they didn't institute one.

I've always been shouted down here when I point that out.
:)

In my experience, anyone who says "The U.S. is a republic, not a democracy," is not arguing but whining. Or, sometimes, screaming.

[carnivorousplant]

I've always been shouted down here when I point that out.
:)

In my experience, anyone who says "The U.S. is a republic, not a democracy," is not arguing but whining. Or, sometimes, screaming.

I rest my case.


"And to the Republic, for which it stands," :)

[Saint Cad]

I know that Mr. Obama's strategy is to try everything he can to engage the GOP and establish some sort of reasonable bipartisan dialogue,

Whoosh!

Oh wait! You're serious?!

[carnivorousplant]

I know that Mr. Obama's strategy is to try everything he can to engage the GOP and establish some sort of reasonable bipartisan dialogue,

Whoosh!

Oh wait! You're serious?!

He surely seems to be an offensive ass about it sometimes, and I voted for him.
He should have denounced the Democratic Senators who attached pork to the stimulus package.

[Markxxx]

Mr Obama's ratings have fallen but he's still far out in front. First rule when you're ahead is not to risk messing things up.

Why should Mr Obama go to any trouble when he's still out in front.

[Surbey]

I came in here hoping to hear about why Obama should blow away the Japanese.... disappointed.

[gonzomax]

I think that if the GOP becomes the majority party in either or both chambers, you'll see the Democrats playing the same obstructionist games the GOP has played since 2006. Why not? People don't actually care about process or filibusters or whatever, they care about results and if the Democrats can keep the GOP from producing any results then they can use the "See? They wanted back in power and for what?" line.
But people don't put that much thought into it.

The reason Dems can't just sit there is that it'll be Obama taking the fall in 2012. People don't care who was really at fault, as long as heads roll. And the President of the United States would be the most prominent head before them in 2012.

That jump in filibusters is what the Democrats will copy.
While the GOP taking the Senate is now a possibility, it's still remote. Where Dems are going to lose the majority is the House which has no filibuster. Furthermore, as sleeping pointed out, grinding government to a halt is exactly what the GOP wants. Shut down the government for a few days then hit Fox News, "See! We're all still alive! And we didn't need the government to do it!" "We are winning and will continue to fight against the evil Socialist agenda!"

If the economy doesn't storm back, the only way the GOP could screw this up is failing to muzzle the likes of Rand Paul and having the Tea Party Conservatives scare the shit out of grandma by talking about deep cuts to programs like SS and Medicare.

Numbers are ugly for Senate Dems in 2012 as well with 21 Democrats up for re-election versus only 10 Republicans. And these Democratic seats are in states such as Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, and Ohio. Only GOP seats in play may be Scott Brown (MA) and Ensign (NV). Democrats need to win 2/3 of the races in 2012 just to BREAK EVEN! :eek:

The Dems think politics is a gentlemens game played with respect for your opponents. The Repubs think it is war for control and they will push any buttons to get elected. they will filibuster everything to stop the Dems from making policy. They don't believe in majority rule. They believe in winning or finding a way to get their way . They will lie with impunity. They will say whatever it takes to get enough power to keep in control so they can deliver to the wealthy what they are expected to. That is their ability to loot and get richer.

[Zakalwe]

The Dems think politics is a gentlemens game played with respect for your opponents. The Repubs think it is war for control and they will push any buttons to get elected. they will filibuster everything to stop the Dems from making policy. They don't believe in majority rule. They believe in winning or finding a way to get their way . They will lie with impunity. They will say whatever it takes to get enough power to keep in control so they can deliver to the wealthy what they are expected to. That is their ability to loot and get richer.I came in here to argue with you, but...

I can't. Certainly I don't think the above is true of the rank-and-file Republican, but enough of the leadership acts exactly like the above, that it's becoming impossible to defend them. I mean, they are now threatening to filibuster THEIR OWN IDEAS because a Democratic President has agreed with them. It's a power play. The Medicis would be proud of the modern Republican apparatchiks.

[Merijeek]

Numbers are ugly for Senate Dems in 2012 as well with 21 Democrats up for re-election versus only 10 Republicans. And these Democratic seats are in states such as Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, and Ohio. Only GOP seats in play may be Scott Brown (MA) and Ensign (NV). Democrats need to win 2/3 of the races in 2012 just to BREAK EVEN! :eek:

Unless Mississippi has a third Senator I don't know about can absolutely assure you that there is no Democratic Senate seat in Mississippi for the Democrats to lose.

-Joe

[Buck Godot]

As long as Obama (or another Democrat) holds the White House, he can just veto...

Unlikely.


Why do you think it is unlikely?