Recent history suggests otherwise, though I’d love it if this were true.
Would that be the same chained CPI that Obama has already proposed in his budget negotiations with Republicans, to be met with:
(from here.)
And what happened as a result of his “heroism”?
was all grandstanding, resulting in actually nothing. As you know.
Adding up to how much of the deficit caused by your party’s irresponsible tax cuts? And this is something worth fighting, or even voting, for?
You do remember that you’re calling for an equal cut to every program and department for an indefinite period, don’t you? If you forgot, it’s just a few posts above.
We had surpluses. Your guys took credit for it despite opposing it with every vote they had (sound familiar?)
[quoet]Our deficit is falling today primarily due to the fact that the budget hasn’t seen an overall increase since Republicans took over Congress.
[/quote]
Whose deficit, for one thing? And the recovery allowed by the stimulus package you also opposed had nothing to do with the recovery?
What *would *be funny, if it weren’t so sad, is your refusal to grasp any of the facts that add up to that need, and your own irresponsibility’s contribution to those needs.
A statement of ideology, not fact. It takes hardly any thought at all to come up with alternatives, and it would help you immensely to try. You offer as targets only the programs that have always been associated with the ones associated with the party that fought for them and created them, and has benefited electorally from votes for the people they benefit ever since. Obamacare is another, as you are slowly and horrifyingly becoming aware, aren’t you?
Just a few sentences ago you were accepting that the world keeps changing. Back to your old ways already, in the same post?
And another gratuitous, non-fact-based slam on a President whose success is inconvenient to partisan cheerleading.
All in all, a typical **adaher **post, with all the thought and principle and responsibility typical of them.
You certainly won’t advance that agenda by propping folks like McConnell who oppose campaign finance reform, any campaign finance reform, at every turn. Ditto for advancing obstructionism, something that he is very candid about when it is not an election year. It’s odd that the Republican Party can successfully forge a coalition between those who love obstructionism and believe Republican congress is doing exactly that and those who hate obstructionism and believe the Republican congress is acting otherwise.
So the libertarian candidate who was getting 2% of the vote in Iowa died in a plane crash, the race was extremely close but this might clinch it for Ernst.
Well, all domestic spending could effectively be frozen if we keep the population from increasing. Perhaps adaher has a modest proposal?
Campaign finance isn’t a source of corruption. Earmarks were. There was a direct link between campaign donations and earmarks. Democrats thought we needed to preserve earmarks and cut the donations side of it. Republicans believed the opposite, that the money going out of DC is where the corruption is. I agree with the Republicans.
McConnell also promises to allow amendments on bills, something Reid has not done. Letting the minority offer amendments is good process. The Republicans in 1994 eliminated the seniority rules as well and put term limits on committee heads. Those fiefdoms had caused massive amounts of corruption.
But what they really need to do is oversee government operations and insist on efficiency and honesty. They have a great opportunity to do that given the headlines we’ve had over the last couple of years.
If adaher’s thesis was remotely correct, the oil and gas industry would either split their contributions roughly evenly between parties or they would support deals for across the board cuts in industry subsidies. Back in reality, oil and gas gave about 8x the amount to Republicans as Democrats in 2012, up from a ~1.5 ratio in 1990. Cite. Currently there are about $7 billion of subsidies channeled to Big Oil. Cite.
And Reid only curbed amendments after a litany of superficial attempts to squash the Affordable Care Act in wholly irrelevant bills. This is what Republicans have never understood: actions have consequences. If you punch somebody they may punch back. Here's the Reason Harry Reid Keeps Rejecting All Republican Amendments
Reid did what he did to protect his red state incumbents. You need to distinguish between legitimate reasons and simple pretext.
As for the oil and gas industry, their primary issue is drilling, thus their support for Republicans. Also, they technically don’t receive subsidies, at least that’s not where most of the money Democrats complain about is going. They benefit from tax laws that other businesses benefit from. Democrats want to single oil companies out by taking away these tax breaks just for them, while preserving them for companies like GM, who Democrats like.
Your last cite helpfully lists some of the tax breaks, and where there are special breaks that only oil companies benefit from, Democrats could team up with the Tea Party to get rid of those. Bipartisanship is good and corporate welfare is a good faultline for Democrats to exploit within the Republican party. Assuming they haven’t gone all-in on corporate welfare themselves.
But yeah, that’s a big issue(corporate welfare in general, not just oil), where liberal Democrats and Tea Party Republicans could get some things done. With McConnell being serious about offering amendments to bills, they might even be able to cobble together majority coalitions. That would be an example of good government. Bipartisanship+getting rid of corporate welfare. For GM and Exxon alike.
You mean even DFH like myself might earn the respect and approval of such as Ted Cruz and Louis Goober? Who would we have to throw under the bus for this blessing?
It doesn’t work that way. Alliances for single issues don’t change anything. The TEa Party and liberal Democrats worked to kill the second F-35 jet engine, which was just corporate welfare and had nothing to do with our national security. It doesn’t make them friends or require liberals to throw the rest of the party under the bus, it just requires them to recognize that even among the evil Tea Party extremists there are issues of genuine agreement with liberals. Corporate welfare being tops among them.
Here’s the details on the F-35 engine:
Back to Silver vs Wang, ISTM that they are now in alignment and Wang has moved. He is now showing the likelihood of 50+ Democrats and Independents as 40%.
Wow, that will dramatically change the whole dynamic of nothing getting done!
ISTM that people have been consistently overestimating the magnitude of 60% odds and underestimating 40%. If something is 40% likely to happen that’s a pretty good chance and it’s completely unremarkable if it comes to pass.
Like if a .400 hitter steps up to the plate, you don’t automatically assume he’s going to make an out just because there’s a 60% chance of that happening.
Silver has it at 65% now.
Key question is what it means. The two possibilities are
[ol]
[li]that things are starting to trend in favor of the Republicans, or[/li][li]that as things stay the same (or even if they move incrementally in favor of the Democrats), the small Republican advantage becomes increasingly significant as time runs out.[/li][/ol]
Mostly that the closer the election gets the more certain polls become.
How about now?
Thank goodness I won’t have to pay this one.
I think about now he’s realizing the multiple faults with Wang’s model, which is only useful in the last week of the election campaign.
“Special sauce” does matter when you’re pretty far out from an election. The oldtime pundits were predicting that the Republicans had a good shot at taking the Senate long before there was significant polling. Fundamentals matter.