# Should Obama have been able to get Congress to work with him? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [January 13, 2016, 8:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-obama-have-been-able-to-get-congress-to-work-with-him/743064 "2016-01-13T20:11:00Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 6
**Author:** ![Bone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bone/32/407_2.png) [@Bone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bone)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2016, 7:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-obama-have-been-able-to-get-congress-to-work-with-him/743064/101 "2016-01-14T19:30:52Z")
> [@Airbeck](#): > > Please stop accusing me of missing the point, this is great debates. Take it to the pit if you want to have a pissing contest. If you want to have a debate then lets keep it on that level please. Feel free to report my post if you find it objectionable. > [@](#): > > Which is worse: > > Option A: causing the nations Credit rating to decline, and then raising the debt ceiling and paying our bills so we don’t default. > > Option B: raising the debt ceiling and paying our bills so we don’t default. Excluded middle, how I long for thee. Propositions like these is why I say you are missing the point, again. > [@](#): > > You are arguing that these are exactly the same and its only a matter of perception. No I’m not. They are different. Now people may be more inclined to offer concessions to avoid future harm. Individual congress people can go back to their constituents and tell them they did such and such, or did not do such and such. My original statement is exactly on point, Governing from a congressional standpoint is meaningless - it means doing whatever the fuck they want. The only way they could not “govern” is if they are out of office. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2016, 7:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-obama-have-been-able-to-get-congress-to-work-with-him/743064/102 "2016-01-14T19:33:22Z")
> [@Airbeck](#): > > I’m not handwaving anything, because the debt ceiling was raised anyway, and the funding was approved anyway. As it always was going to be. Do you think there was a chance that it wasn’t going to ultimately happen that way? That we’d actually default forever and let the economy crash as we become the worlds deadbeats? Threatening just short of letting the credit rating decline would be what you’re referring to, and that while I don’t agree with the tactic, I would agree isn’t dereliction of duty. Actually letting it decline though, out of spite? Causing real harm in addition to doing exactly what they were crying about doing simply out of petulance? I don’t know if you are a parent, but would you allow your child to act that way? Why is it “simply out of petulance?” Why isn’t it “…simply the last option to demonstrate the seriousness of the continuing deficit?” ---
**Author:** ![Airbeck](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/airbeck/32/6574_2.png) [@Airbeck](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Airbeck)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2016, 7:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-obama-have-been-able-to-get-congress-to-work-with-him/743064/103 "2016-01-14T19:41:30Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > Feel free to report my post if you find it objectionable. Or we could just be decent to each other and engage in an honest debate. Your call I guess. > [@Bone](#): > > Excluded middle, how I long for thee. Propositions like these is why I say you are missing the point, again. Thanks for being considerate … So what exactly is the excluded middle that I missed? What other option was there for the country at that time? Are you saying that us just defaulting on our debts and refusing to pay at all was an option? What is the 3rd option that was on the table back then, and please be specific. You’re making an accusation of me, I’d appreciate if you could substantiate it. > [@Bone](#): > > No I’m not. They are different. Now people may be more inclined to offer concessions to avoid future harm. Individual congress people can go back to their constituents and tell them they did such and such, or did not do such and such. My original statement is exactly on point, Governing from a congressional standpoint is meaningless - it means doing whatever the fuck they want. The only way they could not “govern” is if they are out of office. So causing harm to the country to try to get your way in the future is governing in your mind? I’d almost call it treason or terrorism personally. I guess you expect very little from your representatives if ‘letting it burn’ is an acceptable result for you for the country. If someone prevented you from paying your credit card bill, which resulted in you having a poor credit rating, would you consider yourself as having been harmed? What if this person is just trying to prove a point, and considers their point to be a positive result. Were you then not harmed? And what of the congressional duties outlined in the constitution? Just ignore that stuff? Not necessary as long as your personal political goals are being pursued? Pretty sad idea of what government is supposed to be, that. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2016, 7:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-obama-have-been-able-to-get-congress-to-work-with-him/743064/104 "2016-01-14T19:42:34Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > The degree to which it is appropriate for Congress to prevent real or imagined harm from the Presidency, at the expense of acting to pass compromise legislation, as a general question on the form of our government, is a subjective question and hard to judge. > > But whether Congress over the last several years has been acting appropriately in prioritizing blocking any substantive action, instead of seeking compromise, can hardly be considered so hard to judge. > > The approval rating of Congress has gone from low (like high 30s, low 40s) ten years ago, to roughly mid-20s in the late Bush years, to consistently in the 10-16 point range since 2010. That’s just the facts – Americans increasingly think Congress is totally worthless, and it hasn’t always been this way. > > Republicans themselves are dissatisfied with Congress as an institution for producing insufficient legislation. The Senate Republicans are holding a policy retreat today in Baltimore, and several press articles indicate that one of the top agenda items is whether to reform the Senate’s rules to make it easier to pass budget bills on time. > > The general concept that Congress is doing something productive by doing nothing — or whatever spin or nuance one cares to apply to that general idea — is an idea that only seems to have currency in this thread and among certain right wing Tea Party types. > > Even by objective measures, the argument over whether Congress is “not governing” or simply “governing unwisely” is clarified. One could fairly claim that, for example, rejecting record numbers of appointees to the judiciary and executive positions would be an example of governing, but perhaps governing unwisely depending on your point of view. But that isn’t happening. As others have detailed, more and more judicial appointments are simply in limbo, not receiving votes at all, despite the fact that there is no longer a filibuster possible on such appointments. That is simply ducking decisions, not making unwise ones. > > Similarly, dozens of nominations for important positions are simply being ignored. The nominee to head the Treasury Department’s office to track down and stop terrorist financial activity has languished for nine months without a vote. The nominee to be ambassador to Mexico, with whom the U.S. has very serious issues to deal with in terms of narcotics and immigration, has been frozen for nearly the same. The nomination for the head at the US Agency for International Development sat for eight months, throughout the beginnings of the Syrian refugee crisis, until being approved. > > Literally the only bright spot – and it really ain’t so bright – is that bipartisan cooperation on writing the individual budget bills isn’t all that bad. But those committees are probably the only relic of the “smoke filled rooms” era where politicians find it mutually beneficial to cooperate. So while deals can be cut on proposals to fund individual agencies, the process of getting those recommendations approved is also a record of inaction and lack of decisions. To explain, budget talks to relieve sequestration started in September. But there was no reason they could not have started in April, when the first budget proposals were debated. But no, the will of Congress was inaction and delay. > > All that wasted time can hardly be considered an important check on executive policies – it was just wasted time. No action at all. A failure to compromise and govern, until the very last possible minute. > > If your teenager drags his or her feet on doing chores in this manner, they get chided for being lazy and shiftless. Now some folks here are trying to cast criticism of congressional inaction as mere difference of opinion on what Congress should be doing – if not outright noble? > > Puh-leeze. Maybe Cliven Bundy and his ilk would buy that, but not me. Except I don’t believe for a moment that when a Republican is back in the White House and the Democrats hold the Senate that you will be anywhere near as eager to see “cooperation.” I have little doubt that when that day comes, we will instead hear how unprecedentedly poor the quality of nominees is, and that it’s the duty of the Democrats to resist these evil designates with every fiber of their being. When Democrats fled the legislative chambers to scuttle a bill, there was very little condemnation of that action as obstructionist – and plenty of cheering because they were on the “correct” side of the issue. Right? ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2016, 7:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-obama-have-been-able-to-get-congress-to-work-with-him/743064/105 "2016-01-14T19:43:31Z")
I think a few facts need to enter this conversation about whether the credit downgrade was fruitful in terms of either the debt limit debate, or the deficit problem in general. I don’t think that some people are accurately remembering what happened: In the spring of 2011, S&P warned that the US AAA rating was at risk unless something was done about the deficit. As the debt limit was approaching, in July 2011 a compromise bill known as the Budget Control Act gained tenuous bipartisan support. The bill raised the debt limit both immediately and in stages, set statutory spending caps, and formed the super committee to deal with all these issues. This was all voted on by Congress and signed into law by August 2, 2011. S&P looked at this deal, and more importantly, how childish Washington was in that teeth had to be pulled for anyone to sign off on this deal, and basically said “Feh!” and downgraded US credit on August 5. so when I read **Bricker** post this – “But calling attention to the issue of the debt ceiling and resisting its increase in a very public way brought renewed public attention to the problems of continuing to spend at a massive deficit. Why isn’t that public airing of the issue accounted as a benefit, one that counterbalances the harm?” – I believe his interpretation of events is at odds with what actually happened. To summarize what actually happened: 1. S&P warned Washington to get serious about the budget 2. Republicans decided on a legislative strategy to use the debt limit as leverage to get a budget deal 3. Budget deal was reached 4. Despite the budget deal, S&P looked at the brinksmanship of #2 and decided that the credit of the United States was in the hands of chimpanzees. For **Bricker** ’s version of events to ring true, one would suspect that the events would have happened in this order – 1, 2, 4, 3. But it did not. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2016, 7:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-obama-have-been-able-to-get-congress-to-work-with-him/743064/106 "2016-01-14T19:44:16Z")
> [@Airbeck](#): > > Or we could just be decent to each other and engage in an honest debate. Your call I guess. > > Thanks for being considerate … > > So what exactly is the excluded middle that I missed? What other option was there for the country at that time? Are you saying that us just defaulting on our debts and refusing to pay at all was an option? What is the 3rd option that was on the table back then, and please be specific. You’re making an accusation of me, I’d appreciate if you could substantiate it. > > So causing harm to the country to try to get your way in the future is governing in your mind? I’d almost call it treason or terrorism personally. I guess you expect very little from your representatives if ‘letting it burn’ is an acceptable result for you for the country. > > If someone prevented you from paying your credit card bill, which resulted in you having a poor credit rating, would you consider yourself as having been harmed? What if this person is just trying to prove a point, and considers their point to be a positive result. Were you then not harmed? > > And what of the congressional duties outlined in the constitution? Just ignore that stuff? Not necessary as long as your personal political goals are being pursued? Pretty sad idea of what government is supposed to be, that. No mandate of the Constitution has been ignored. The Constitution leaves the determination of “general welfare,” in each legislator’s hands, and does not allow you to define it for everyone. ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2016, 7:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-obama-have-been-able-to-get-congress-to-work-with-him/743064/107 "2016-01-14T19:47:30Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Except I don’t believe for a moment that when a Republican is back in the White House and the Democrats hold the Senate that you will be anywhere near as eager to see “cooperation.” I have little doubt that when that day comes, we will instead hear how unprecedentedly poor the quality of nominees is, and that it’s the duty of the Democrats to resist these evil designates with every fiber of their being. Thanks for putting a polite gloss on calling me a hypocrite. Fortunately, I have a long posting record on this board, and I would expect the courtesy and integrity to look over my posting record before saying such silly things. Your penchant to resort to “neener neener you do it too and even worse” arguments does not suit you, especially when you are factually wrong in throwing around such accusations, no matter how politely they are worded. ---
**Author:** ![Airbeck](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/airbeck/32/6574_2.png) [@Airbeck](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Airbeck)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2016, 7:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-obama-have-been-able-to-get-congress-to-work-with-him/743064/108 "2016-01-14T19:56:44Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > No mandate of the Constitution has been ignored. The Constitution leaves the determination of “general welfare,” in each legislator’s hands, and does not allow you to define it for everyone. And you personally, Bricker, how do you view allowing the credit rating of the US to decline? Do you view this as promoting the general welfare? Is the general welfare better now or before our credit rating was lowered? I’m not asking for your theory of government answer, I’m asking what your personal view is. Now what if it was your personal credit rating that someone else caused to decline? Is that a subjective thing too? Or would you consider yourself harmed by that? ---
**Author:** ![Airbeck](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/airbeck/32/6574_2.png) [@Airbeck](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Airbeck)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2016, 8:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-obama-have-been-able-to-get-congress-to-work-with-him/743064/109 "2016-01-14T20:01:56Z")
Is there anything then that we can objectively say is good or bad for the general welfare according to your theory Bricker? It sounds like complete relativism and that there is literally nothing that any legislator, or the congress in general can possibly do or not do that could be considered objectively bad for the general welfare. This philosophy is sure convenient for the point you are currently trying to make, but how can we possibly apply it to the real world in any meaningful way? In your mind, is there nothing that congress is actually obligated to do aside from promote their own individual political ambition? ---
**Author:** ![Bone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bone/32/407_2.png) [@Bone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bone)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2016, 8:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-obama-have-been-able-to-get-congress-to-work-with-him/743064/110 "2016-01-14T20:03:11Z")
> [@Airbeck](#): > > So what exactly is the excluded middle that I missed? What other option was there for the country at that time? Are you saying that us just defaulting on our debts and refusing to pay at all was an option? What is the 3rd option that was on the table back then, and please be specific. You’re making an accusation of me, I’d appreciate if you could substantiate it. The most obvious is that the opposition could have capitulated. > [@](#): > > So causing harm to the country to try to get your way in the future is governing in your mind? I’d almost call it treason or terrorism personally. I guess you expect very little from your representatives if ‘letting it burn’ is an acceptable result for you for the country. We often incur pain now for future benefit. Is that a new concept for you? It’s interesting you should bring up treason - you’ve already attempted to re-define what “governing” is, are you going to redefine “treason” next? > [@](#): > > If someone prevented you from paying your credit card bill, which resulted in you having a poor credit rating, would you consider yourself as having been harmed? What if this person is just trying to prove a point, and considers their point to be a positive result. Were you then not harmed? Of course there was harm - it’s been stated and acknowledged there was harm. Whether or not that is a net positive depends on what criteria you are using to evaluate, from what perspective, and the specific situation. > [@](#): > > And what of the congressional duties outlined in the constitution? Just ignore that stuff? Not necessary as long as your personal political goals are being pursued? Pretty sad idea of what government is supposed to be, that. Which duties? Can you quote them? Congress can do whatever the fuck it wants. If people aren’t happy with it, they can elect someone else. ---
**Author:** ![Bone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bone/32/407_2.png) [@Bone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bone)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2016, 8:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-obama-have-been-able-to-get-congress-to-work-with-him/743064/111 "2016-01-14T20:10:31Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Except I don’t believe for a moment that when a Republican is back in the White House and the Democrats hold the Senate that you will be anywhere near as eager to see “cooperation.” I have little doubt that when that day comes, we will instead hear how unprecedentedly poor the quality of nominees is, and that it’s the duty of the Democrats to resist these evil designates with every fiber of their being. > > When Democrats fled the legislative chambers to scuttle a bill, there was very little condemnation of that action as obstructionist – and plenty of cheering because they were on the “correct” side of the issue. Right? I don’t think it’s fair to ascribe these things to **Ravenman** unless you have a particular example. This I think is the main thrust of his post: > [@Ravenman](#): > > Even by objective measures, the argument over whether Congress is “not governing” or simply “governing unwisely” is clarified. One could fairly claim that, for example, rejecting record numbers of appointees to the judiciary and executive positions would be an example of governing, but perhaps governing unwisely depending on your point of view. But that isn’t happening. As others have detailed, more and more judicial appointments are simply in limbo, not receiving votes at all, despite the fact that there is no longer a filibuster possible on such appointments. That is simply ducking decisions, not making unwise ones. While the factual information you presented is good background, I don’t think your conclusion here holds. Inaction is a form of action. Deciding not to vote is a decision. Don’t get me wrong - I’m not saying I approve of all of these shenanigans. But it’s not lack of governing. Like I said - if a person’s political platform is that they will actively try and impede congressional action - how can their doing so not be considered governing? ---
**Author:** ![Airbeck](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/airbeck/32/6574_2.png) [@Airbeck](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Airbeck)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2016, 8:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-obama-have-been-able-to-get-congress-to-work-with-him/743064/112 "2016-01-14T20:42:32Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > The most obvious is that the opposition could have capitulated. This is what hostage takers think too as they hold the gun to the hostage’s head. Just saying. “Hey, the police could have just given in to my demands when I made them, its not my fault the hostage died”. And this is what you want out of your representatives? > [@Bone](#): > > We often incur pain now for future benefit. Is that a new concept for you? It’s interesting you should bring up treason - you’ve already attempted to re-define what “governing” is, are you going to redefine “treason” next? And what future benefit do you anticipate in exchange for our reduced credit rating? Is it a benefit for the country or for your party? Was this a choice ever presented to the public? Making a choice for yourself to incur harm in the hopes of future gain is one thing, making that choice for the entire country though? You really don’t see any issue with this? You are the one attempting to define governing as having no actual meaning, that literally doing nothing, or worse causing actual harm to the country counts, and I’m the one trying to redefine the term? How would the founding fathers have defined it? More like me, or more like you? > [@Bone](#): > > Of course there was harm - it’s been stated and acknowledged there was harm. Whether or not that is a net positive depends on what criteria you are using to evaluate, from what perspective, and the specific situation. The US Credit rating is lower now. Are you actually arguing that this is a good thing? Or is it more like you are trying to say its a 4 out of 10 on the harm scale rather than a 9? Is it just a matter of degree and you don’t think credit rating is that important, or are you saying something else? I can’t see how you can say that a lower credit rating is not a harm though. Put that idea to a vote and what do you think the public would say? > [@Bone](#): > > Which duties? Can you quote them? Congress can do whatever the fuck it wants. If people aren’t happy with it, they can elect someone else. Its right there in post #59. Are you reading this whole thread? “establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty.” Is it your claim that this is meaningless? If so, why would they have put it into the constitution? What other parts of the constitution can we tear out of there then? 2nd amendment? Yeah didn’t think so… ---
**Author:** ![Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/budget_player_cadet/32/205_2.png) [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Budget_Player_Cadet)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2016, 8:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-obama-have-been-able-to-get-congress-to-work-with-him/743064/113 "2016-01-14T20:43:39Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > The most obvious is that the opposition could have capitulated. “See, you made me shoot the hostage. If you had just given me the helicopter I asked for, her brains wouldn’t be all over the floor. This is _your_ fault.” This issue really shows just how low republicans are willing to sink. No, I’m sorry, if you’re holding up a crucial (and utterly meaningless) bit of legislature to score political capital, you are not “bargaining”, you are _taking hostages_. Taking you at your word, the republican position was essentially, “Do what we want or the debt ceiling gets it”. And you’re _defending_ that? On the off chance they would have gotten what they wanted? > [@Bricker](#): > > Why is it “simply out of petulance?” > > Why isn’t it “…simply the last option to demonstrate the seriousness of the continuing deficit?” Because the _last_ option is holing up in one of those nuclear silos and threatening to detonate. :rolleyes: ---
**Author:** ![casdave](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/c6cbf5/32.png) [@casdave](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/casdave)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2016, 8:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-obama-have-been-able-to-get-congress-to-work-with-him/743064/114 "2016-01-14T20:56:17Z")
Whilst visceral dislike of Democrats by republicans may be a significantly important part of the Congress logjam, its only a small part of it. Its still the R word. Reality, Republican grass roots are racist, even if those further up the line are less willing to appear so, and Republican representatives have no option but to ride that train if they wish to remain in office. How about this, why is Trump getting any sort of hearing at all? Frankly he is an embarrassment to the majority of Republican representatives because he says it the way the grassroots wants to see it, and his rhetoric is absolutely nothing except racist stereotyping. Truly, I cannot imagine any mainstream political hopeful with a genuine chance of real power ever supporting such comments. Yes you can look at right wing parties around the first world, but they are pretty much an irrelevance, they can make a bit of noise, and not much else.- and further to that, every such party in the first world would probably expel him - that the Republicans do not do so, says plenty about where they see their own support is located. These spineless Republicans are too scared to condemn Trump for fear of losing their own support. This situation did not happen by accident, the Republicans have been courting this side of US politics for the last 10 years, ever since Obama looked like a credible candidate. In fact all it has done is fuel loonies such as the swifties, truthers, and birthers, it has made these knuckle dragging dolts feel like they are important, and it has become self fulfilling. I do not see an equivalent set of Democrat loonies, though Lord alone knows they are far from perfect. ---
**Author:** ![Bone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bone/32/407_2.png) [@Bone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bone)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2016, 8:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-obama-have-been-able-to-get-congress-to-work-with-him/743064/115 "2016-01-14T20:56:21Z")
> [@Airbeck](#): > > This is what hostage takers think too as they hold the gun to the hostage’s head. Just saying. “Hey, the police could have just given in to my demands when I made them, its not my fault the hostage died”. And this is what you want out of your representatives? You seem to have this habit of confusing different ideas. You asked what an alternative could be - I offered one. In other words, you earlier engaged in fallacious reasoning, namely the excluded middle. Do you acknowledge this? The problem with your example is that you are comparing criminal activity to the political process. Confusing I know, but hey, those are different things. A hostage taker uses threats of force. Congress is under no obligation to do anything, nor do they have a duty to act in a way you approve of. The comparison is facile and absurd because it fails to understand the role of congress. > [@](#): > > And what future benefit do you anticipate in exchange for our reduced credit rating? Is it a benefit for the country or for your party? Was this a choice ever presented to the public? Making a choice for yourself to incur harm in the hopes of future gain is one thing, making that choice for the entire country though? You really don’t see any issue with this? We have this thing…it’s called representative government. We elect people to act on our behalf. They need not present this or any choice to the public. If people have an issue with it, they can vote for someone else. > [@](#): > > You are the one attempting to define governing as having no actual meaning, that literally doing nothing, or worse causing actual harm to the country counts, and I’m the one trying to redefine the term? How would the founding fathers have defined it? More like me, or more like you? It’s funny you mention this since treason is specifically defined in the constitution. You are literally using the word to mean something else incorrectly. Show me where “governing” is defined. > [@](#): > > The US Credit rating is lower now. Are you actually arguing that this is a good thing? Or is it more like you are trying to say its a 4 out of 10 on the harm scale rather than a 9? Is it just a matter of degree and you don’t think credit rating is that important, or are you saying something else? I can’t see how you can say that a lower credit rating is not a harm though. Put that idea to a vote and what do you think the public would say? So I say, _“Of course there was harm - it’s been stated and acknowledged there was harm.”_ and you respond with,\*\*\* “I can’t see how you can say that a lower credit rating is not a harm though.”\*\*\*? This is what I mean when I say you are missing the point. > [@](#): > > Its right there in post #59. Are you reading this whole thread? > > “establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty.” > > Is it your claim that this is meaningless? If so, why would they have put it into the constitution? What other parts of the constitution can we tear out of there then? 2nd amendment? Yeah didn’t think so… Post #59 quotes the preamble, and does not impose a duty on Congress. Care to try again? ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2016, 9:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-obama-have-been-able-to-get-congress-to-work-with-him/743064/116 "2016-01-14T21:18:44Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > While the factual information you presented is good background, I don’t think your conclusion here holds. Inaction is a form of action. Deciding not to vote is a decision. Don’t get me wrong - I’m not saying I approve of all of these shenanigans. But it’s not lack of governing. The congressional inability to hold votes on things – including routine business – is less similar to an American abstaining from voting and more akin to cancelling an election. > [@](#): > > Like I said - if a person’s political platform is that they will actively try and impede congressional action - how can their doing so not be considered governing? If I go to work at a factory in the morning and engage in the old union tactic of “working by the book,” or a work slowdown, such that every task takes an inordinate amount of time and rarely, if ever, reaches completion, at a certain point it strains credulity that I am actually manufacturing goods. Such a tactic of “working by the book” has a better claim to being a form of productivity than a factory worker showing up and announcing a decision not to engage in production at all. A congressional equivalent may be showing up to vote down the President’s proposals at least has the advantage of the body taking a position, even though nothing is produced; as opposed to the current state of very often not holding a vote at all. To put it in sillier terms, if inaction is a form of action, would you say that that former governor of South Carolina was “governing” when he disappeared to the Appalachian Trail – err, his mistress’ pad in South America for all those days? If not doing anything is a form of governance, it stands to reason that not showing up at all is equally a demonstration of leadership. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2016, 9:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-obama-have-been-able-to-get-congress-to-work-with-him/743064/117 "2016-01-14T21:18:57Z")
> [@Airbeck](#): > > And you personally, Bricker, how do you view allowing the credit rating of the US to decline? Do you view this as promoting the general welfare? Is the general welfare better now or before our credit rating was lowered? I’m not asking for your theory of government answer, I’m asking what your personal view is. Now what if it was your personal credit rating that someone else caused to decline? Is that a subjective thing too? Or would you consider yourself harmed by that? I’ve said many times on these boards that I regard it as unwise – that is, in my opinion, the harms outweigh any good side effects that may arise from the debt ceiling brinksmanship. So my answer is that the country was harmed more than it was helped. I just don’t regard my view as self-evidently correct. Reasonable people may disagree with me, and I with them. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2016, 9:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-obama-have-been-able-to-get-congress-to-work-with-him/743064/118 "2016-01-14T21:21:41Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > Thanks for putting a polite gloss on calling me a hypocrite. Fortunately, I have a long posting record on this board, and I would expect the courtesy and integrity to look over my posting record before saying such silly things. > > Your penchant to resort to “neener neener you do it too and even worse” arguments does not suit you, especially when you are factually wrong in throwing around such accusations, no matter how politely they are worded. I use the pronoun “you,” in its indefinite sense. That is, I don’t mean you, **Ravenman** , but “you,” the chorus of voices now singing of the evils of obstructionism. ---
**Author:** ![Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/budget_player_cadet/32/205_2.png) [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Budget_Player_Cadet)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2016, 9:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-obama-have-been-able-to-get-congress-to-work-with-him/743064/119 "2016-01-14T21:22:15Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > You seem to have this habit of confusing different ideas. You asked what an alternative could be - I offered one. In other words, you earlier engaged in fallacious reasoning, namely the excluded middle. Do you acknowledge this? The point being that he excluded that middle for the sake of not making congressional republicans look like absolute _assholes_. He was giving your guys the benefit of the doubt. Something I personally feel is entirely unnecessary. > [@](#): > > The problem with your example is that you are comparing criminal activity to the political process. Confusing I know, but hey, those are different things. A hostage taker uses threats of force. The republicans in congress used threats of economic meltdown. Yes, they were legally allowed to do that. Probably. It doesn’t make it right. It doesn’t make it acceptable. It doesn’t mean that we should excuse it when it happens. It doesn’t mean that you being an apologist for this paints you in a good light. The analogy to taking a hostage only fails in one way: congress is apparently legally allowed to take the US economy hostage. That doesn’t make it right. ---
**Author:** ![Airbeck](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/airbeck/32/6574_2.png) [@Airbeck](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Airbeck)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2016, 9:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-obama-have-been-able-to-get-congress-to-work-with-him/743064/120 "2016-01-14T21:26:32Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > You seem to have this habit of confusing different ideas. You asked what an alternative could be - I offered one. In other words, you earlier engaged in fallacious reasoning, namely the excluded middle. Do you acknowledge this? > The problem with your example is that you are comparing criminal activity to the political process. Confusing I know, but hey, those are different things. A hostage taker uses threats of force. Congress is under no obligation to do anything, nor do they have a duty to act in a way you approve of. The comparison is facile and absurd because it fails to understand the role of congress. No I do not acknowledge any such thing. I asked for a reasonable 3rd option. Giving into the hostage taker’s demands is not a reasonable option. Do you want us to do the same thing with ISIS, just give into their demands and then no harm? So your opinion is that congress has no duties whatsoever. So why do we have a congress? Now I see why conservatives hate government, they have no idea what its actually supposed to do. > [@Bone](#): > > We have this thing…it’s called representative government. We elect people to act on our behalf. They need not present this or any choice to the public. If people have an issue with it, they can vote for someone else. > > It’s funny you mention this since treason is specifically defined in the constitution. You are literally using the word to mean something else incorrectly. Show me where “governing” is defined. Way to dodge the question. Governing is defined in the dictionary by the way. I’m not inventing the definition of the word. You are the one trying to define it as meaning absolutely nothing at all. Speaking of facile and absurd. If I withdraw the treason remark can you let it go and stick to the actual point here? You’re distracting from the main idea here with nitpicking. I hereby withdraw it. Ok? Can we move on and stick to the actual topic at hand? > [@Bone](#): > > So I say, _“Of course there was harm - it’s been stated and acknowledged there was harm.”_ and you respond with,\*\*\* “I can’t see how you can say that a lower credit rating is not a harm though.”\*\*\*? This is what I mean when I say you are missing the point. Once again accusing me of missing the point. You are a broken record at this point, can you find a new schtick? If you are admitting that the Republicans caused the country harm, then why are you arguing? That’s why I asked about the degree of harm and if that’s what you’re trying to say. Why does it seem like you only read half of my posts when you reply? > [@Bone](#): > > Post #59 quotes the preamble, and does not impose a duty on Congress. Care to try again? So your position is that the preamble of the constitution is meaningless and can be ignored and that congress has no duties whatsoever. Do I have that right? Can you see how ridiculous this sounds? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-obama-have-been-able-to-get-congress-to-work-with-him/743064.md?page=5) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-obama-have-been-able-to-get-congress-to-work-with-him/743064.md?page=7)