# So let's say the Democrats win the House in 2014 **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [October 13, 2013, 10:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-lets-say-the-democrats-win-the-house-in-2014/671131 "2013-10-13T10:32:24Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 16\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [October 15, 2013, 5:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-lets-say-the-democrats-win-the-house-in-2014/671131/81 "2013-10-15T17:35:44Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > On every major piece of legislation, like health care, immigration reform, economic stimulus, etc., the Republicans have obstructed with every move they could make. On health care, they did obstruct the final bill, but only because it was unacceptable. While most of the party would have still obstructed the bill, if the Gang of Six had come to an agreement, they would have had three more Republican votes and probably a few more, which would have been enough to pass it easily. Which doesn’t actually contradict what you said, but it does add some extra context. On stimulus, there might have been obstruction but the point is moot since obstruction failed. That’s because the Democrats did enough to win the Maine ladies. Which should be possible on EVERY bill, because there’s nothing right-wing whacko about those two. If they feel compelled to vote no, you failed. On immigration, there’s no obstruction at all, assuming we defined obstruction the same: opposition with no desire to make the bill palatable, only defeat it. The Senate passed the bill very solidly with plenty of bipartisan support. While the House has not taken that bill up, they do intend to pass some incremental changes more line with their priorities on the issue. That’s not obstruction, that’s the normal legislative process. > [@](#): > > The ACA used many Republican ideas. It’s not credible to claim that a plan very similar to that which Bob Dole and Mitt Romney supported in the 90s was too far to the left- the Republicans, as documented by Robert Draper (among others), decided opposing Obama at every turn was the most important thing. But that’s not totally true either. It’s only partially accurate. The broad outlines are certainly a Republican idea, that much is true. But there were a lot of things thrown in there that Democrats wanted that were unacceptable. First, while Republicans supported a mandate, the idea was consumers by insurance they like, not necessarily comprehensive insurance. Republicans have always wanted consumer to have more “skin in the game”, so if people chose to buy high deductible plans, that’s a good thing, in their view. Democrats wanted more comprehensive plans, which brings us to the next problem: mandates on insurance companies. Republicans supported a basically free market in health care. Not the Wild West, but regulated lightly so that companies could offer whatever they thought people would want to buy. Not everyone wants maternity benefits, for example. Not everyone wants preventive care to be co-pay free. These things add to the cost of insurance, which is why Republicans could never support them, and in fact have tended to not impose them much in red states. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [October 15, 2013, 5:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-lets-say-the-democrats-win-the-house-in-2014/671131/82 "2013-10-15T17:37:50Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > Judging by their actions, obstructing Obama has been a very high priority. Pairing that with the statements, it’s not a stretch to say that this is still part of their plan. Yes it is. I just objected to the absoluteness of your statement. But for what it’s worth, I think Republican refusal to work better with the President has been wrong, and foolish to boot. Yet they do still work with him when it suits their interests. And even Tea Partiers have found common ground with liberal Democrats, although not necessarily with the President. ---
**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:** [October 15, 2013, 5:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-lets-say-the-democrats-win-the-house-in-2014/671131/83 "2013-10-15T17:43:16Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > I was satisfied. You don’t know the meaning of the word satisfied, because you were just complaining that Obama was doing it wrong. Do you have borderline personality disorder? Because you can’t even carry an argument two posts without contradicting yourself. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [October 15, 2013, 5:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-lets-say-the-democrats-win-the-house-in-2014/671131/84 "2013-10-15T17:44:50Z")
Obama was doing it wrong, he failed, and had to endure the long debate he had not prepared for, and which he has been constantly criticized for STILL not being prepared for. I’m not sure what’s so complicated about this. Here it is again: Obama wants ACA rushed through as fast as possible. Republicans obstruct. Obama doesn’t get what he wants. So Obama was both wrong, yet I got what I wanted, thanks to Republicans. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [October 15, 2013, 5:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-lets-say-the-democrats-win-the-house-in-2014/671131/85 "2013-10-15T17:55:21Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > On stimulus, there might have been obstruction but the point is moot since obstruction failed. That’s because the Democrats did enough to win the Maine ladies. Which should be possible on EVERY bill, because there’s nothing right-wing whacko about those two. If they feel compelled to vote no, you failed. They’re still part of the Republican caucus, and they still do what McConnell says, most of the time. > [@](#): > > On immigration, there’s no obstruction at all, assuming we defined obstruction the same: opposition with no desire to make the bill palatable, only defeat it. The Senate passed the bill very solidly with plenty of bipartisan support. While the House has not taken that bill up, they do intend to pass some incremental changes more line with their priorities on the issue. That’s not obstruction, that’s the normal legislative process. Weak… the House has done nothing, and passing the parts that Republicans like anyway offers nothing to the President. > [@](#): > > But that’s not totally true either. It’s only partially accurate. The broad outlines are certainly a Republican idea, that much is true. It was a complicated piece of legislation, but the Republicans, collectively, were unwilling to compromise. There was no give and take- just give by the Democrats. Just listen to the current ridiculous language about the ACA from the Republicans- so much of that is crap, and you must realize it. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [October 15, 2013, 5:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-lets-say-the-democrats-win-the-house-in-2014/671131/86 "2013-10-15T17:56:22Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > Obama was doing it wrong, he failed, and had to endure the long debate he had not prepared for, and which he has been constantly criticized for STILL not being prepared for. > > I’m not sure what’s so complicated about this. Here it is again: > > Obama wants ACA rushed through as fast as possible. > Republicans obstruct. Obama doesn’t get what he wants. > > So Obama was both wrong, yet I got what I wanted, thanks to Republicans. This is incoherent. No idea what you’re trying to say. ---
**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:** [October 15, 2013, 6:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-lets-say-the-democrats-win-the-house-in-2014/671131/87 "2013-10-15T18:02:33Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > This is incoherent. No idea what you’re trying to say. “I’m off my meds.” ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [October 15, 2013, 6:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-lets-say-the-democrats-win-the-house-in-2014/671131/88 "2013-10-15T18:17:19Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > They’re still part of the Republican caucus, and they still do what McConnell says, most of the time. I think we know by now that Republicans can’t control their caucus.😃 > [@](#): > > Weak… the House has done nothing, and passing the parts that Republicans like anyway offers nothing to the President. The House has been distracted, first by Syria and now the shutdown and debt limit. They are going to move very slowly, probably looking to pass something popular with a midterm electorate and make Democrats vote against it or support it. As I said, obstruction will always lose out to self-interest, and passing SOMETHING on immigration is in their political interests. > [@](#): > > It was a complicated piece of legislation, but the Republicans, collectively, were unwilling to compromise. There was no give and take- just give by the Democrats. Just listen to the current ridiculous language about the ACA from the Republicans- so much of that is crap, and you must realize it. It was complicated because Democrats had to cut deals with industry and wanted a highly regulated insurance market. We don’t know what the Gang of Six talked about(or at least I don’t), but they did talk for a long time. I’m assuming it wasn’t just Democrats offering stuff and Olympia Snowe and her cohorts saying “no” over and over. ---
**Author:** ![Honesty](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/f04885/32.png) [@Honesty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Honesty)\ **Post date:** [October 15, 2013, 10:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-lets-say-the-democrats-win-the-house-in-2014/671131/89 "2013-10-15T22:39:27Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > Yes it is. I just objected to the absoluteness of your statement. But for what it’s worth, I think Republican refusal to work better with the President has been wrong, and foolish to boot. Yet they do still work with him when it suits their interests. And even Tea Partiers have found common ground with liberal Democrats, **although not necessarily with the President**. (bolding mine) Has it dawned on you the reason for that? I’ll tell you the secret, though you and many others won’t like it: _it’s because he’s black_. If Obama stepped down and Biden assumed the Presidency, the tea party would vanish to the pages of time. The Tea Party is a modern politicization of neo-racism and forge their views to flatly oppose the will of minorities. If Obama wants X, then Tea Party must want Y. It’s a strange bit of psychology, but I believe the Tea Partiers have convinced themselves that blacks are shit and, by extension, Obama is too; they are unable to countenance that deficits are going down, that unemployment is ticking down, exports are increasing, that stock market is soaring, inflation is inching down, the dollar is stable, and, on top of all that, he’s going to providing healthcare to millions of additional Americans.They’re willing to throw the baby out with the bath water to insure that their preconceived notions (e.g. that he was going to fail at all of these things) of Obama comes true. The majority of the debt that we owe is from Reagan and Bush years. Debt from the GOP’s massive tax cuts (1981, 1986, 2001, 2003), debt from two unfunded wars, debt for an expensive prescription drug program. The New Deal programs had a surplus that the GOP raided to the tune of $2.6 trillion to obfuscate the fact their damn tax cuts didn’t generate revenue, as promised. All the while, GOP has nominated anti-government ideologues to highest echelons of government. News Flash: _If you philosophically hate government, you have no business in government_. It would be analogous to the National Beef Association nominating President of PETA to replace their outgoing CEO. It’s crazy. If Democrats can get a comfortable majority in the House and Senate, I think they will get a lot of work done. Increase taxes on the wealthy Reduce student loan rate Reduce oil and gas subsidies Transportation/Rail Reinstate federal revenue sharing to cities and municpalities Fix the Campaign Finance Law Expand safety net for the poor End Drug War against marijuana Expand money for medical and scientific research Tighter regulation/new taxes on financial markets Income verification/Public Option on ObamaCare That’s a good start. - Honesty ---
**Author:** ![Honesty](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/f04885/32.png) [@Honesty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Honesty)\ **Post date:** [October 15, 2013, 10:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-lets-say-the-democrats-win-the-house-in-2014/671131/90 "2013-10-15T22:51:22Z")
Oh! I forgot one. I think the Democrats would work to **grant Puerto Rico statehood.** The Puerto Ricans voted in a pro-statehood referendum and, to my knowledge, the U.S has yet to not formally considered it. They’ve been in territorial limbo for over 100 years and should either become a State or allow Puerto Rico to be independent. Democrats seizing on this will allow them to expand their EV votes and act as a buffer to the GOP’s incessant gerrymandering in the House and Senate. - Honestyu ---
**Author:** ![curlcoat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ea5d25/32.png) [@curlcoat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/curlcoat)\ **Post date:** [October 15, 2013, 11:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-lets-say-the-democrats-win-the-house-in-2014/671131/91 "2013-10-15T23:45:39Z")
> [@Wendell\_Wagner](#): > > curlcoat writes: > > \> Do you know, is the poor education of public high school graduates country > \> wide or is it just something we have a problem with locally? > > There’s no evidence that high school graduates are any less educated than they used to be. You’re not even bothering to find real statistics. You’re just listening to people sit around and complain about how much better things were in the old days. Uh huh. Not that I didn’t work with all these folks that can’t spell, do simple math or construct a letter, not that I see the results of a high school education in what folks write online, not that my teacher friends don’t consistently bemoan what is going on in their classes, not that people pay to send their kids to private school because the public ones in their area are dangerous and/or substandard. Every indication I’ve had over the past couple of decades is that many/most of the public schools in this area suck big time. You were the one claiming that education is getting better - I asked a question. If you think I’m wrong, you provide the stats. I for one would be really happy to know that the public schools outside of S Cal aren’t just expensive babysitters/juvie halls. ---
**Author:** ![sylmar](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b782af/32.png) [@sylmar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sylmar)\ **Post date:** [October 16, 2013, 1:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-lets-say-the-democrats-win-the-house-in-2014/671131/92 "2013-10-16T01:07:29Z")
> [@curlcoat](#): > > Uh huh. _ **Not** _ that I _ **didn’t** _ work with _all these folks_ that can’t spell, do simple math or construct a letter\*\*\*,\*\*\* not that I see the results of a high school education\* in what\* folks write online\*\*\*,\*\*\* _ **not** _ that my teacher friends _ **don’t** _ consistently bemoan what is going on in their classes, not that people pay to send their kids to private school because the public ones in their area are dangerous and/or substandard. Every indication I’ve had over the past couple of decades is that many/most of the public schools in this area suck big time. I cite the above quoted post as proof the educational system was no better when curlcoat went to school. ---
**Author:** ![Wendell\_Wagner](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/8491ac/32.png) [@Wendell\_Wagner](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Wendell_Wagner)\ **Post date:** [October 16, 2013, 1:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-lets-say-the-democrats-win-the-house-in-2014/671131/93 "2013-10-16T01:24:32Z")
Look at page vi in the following report: [http://www.hks.harvard.edu/pepg/PDF/Papers/PEPG12-03\_CatchingUp.pdf](http://www.hks.harvard.edu/pepg/PDF/Papers/PEPG12-03_CatchingUp.pdf) Test scores have improved at 1.6% of a standard deviation on average every year (from 1995 to 2009) in the U.S. This isn’t as good as in some countries, but it’s still a steady improvement. The fact that you and your friends sit around complaining about the younger generation proves nothing. Everybody has always sat around complaining about the younger generation, all teachers have complained about how their students are stupid and lazy, and everybody comes up with some excuse to send their children to private school so they can see make sure that their children are well educated and that they can ignore the children from poorer families. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [October 16, 2013, 1:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-lets-say-the-democrats-win-the-house-in-2014/671131/94 "2013-10-16T01:42:48Z")
> [@curlcoat](#): > > Yes, that isn’t what I am responding to. It’s the recurring desire to pay for more and more social programs by raising taxes only on those that make more than a certain amount of money. I don’t know if you’ve been paying attention but every tax increase proposal since Obama took office has been coupled with a spending cut (I think both are stupid right now but people seem fixated on deficits at exactly the wrong time). > [@](#): > > I don’t know what you are saying with the percentages. I’m saying that keeping 60% of your marginal income versus 65% of your marginal income still provides an incentive to earn that marginal income. > [@](#): > > And then there is all this talk that if they do make it, their taxes take a big jump. That just doesn’t look like incentive to me. When do you think the top marginal rate kicks in? What makes you think that people with advanced degrees typically pay the top marginal rate? > [@adaher](#): > > But that’s not totally true either. It’s only partially accurate. The broad outlines are certainly a Republican idea, that much is true. But there were a lot of things thrown in there that Democrats wanted that were unacceptable. First, while Republicans supported a mandate, the idea was consumers by insurance they like, not necessarily comprehensive insurance. Republicans have always wanted consumer to have more “skin in the game”, so if people chose to buy high deductible plans, that’s a good thing, in their view. Democrats wanted more comprehensive plans, which brings us to the next problem: mandates on insurance companies. Republicans supported a basically free market in health care. Not the Wild West, but regulated lightly so that companies could offer whatever they thought people would want to buy. Not everyone wants maternity benefits, for example. Not everyone wants preventive care to be co-pay free. These things add to the cost of insurance, which is why Republicans could never support them, and in fact have tended to not impose them much in red states. You see I don’t remember the debate where the Republicans say they would be OK with Obamacare if only they would allow high deductible plans into the exchange (BTW, have you looked at the bronze plans on the exchange, they look a lot like high deductible plans). I don’t remember this being the linchpin that was holding up the opposition. Do you? I don’t remember any attempt to try and amend Obamacare at all, I simply remember obstruction. ---
**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:** [October 16, 2013, 4:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-lets-say-the-democrats-win-the-house-in-2014/671131/95 "2013-10-16T04:51:42Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > Now. When they had control, the only way legislation didn’t get done right the hell now was if Republicans filibustered. Which they did. Constantly. Unprecedentedly. Despite the fact that democrats had every right to push legislation through. That’s kind of how democracy works. They actually would have had a 60-seat majority for six months, but thanks to dishonest shitheads, Al Franken was stuck in a legal battle over whether or not he actually won, and there really ought to be a law about this. > [@](#): > > Again, the President wanted a health care bill before Congressmen had to face the voters back in their districts. That’s not how you do bills of that import. Really? You mean a massive nationwide mandate in both houses of congress _and_ the presidency doesn’t justify pushing a bill through without minority support? You mean it isn’t eventually justified after _170 republican amendments_ to go forward accepting that you’re just not gonna get a republican vote? ---
**Author:** ![Evil\_Captor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/f17d59/32.png) [@Evil\_Captor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evil_Captor)\ **Post date:** [October 16, 2013, 6:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-lets-say-the-democrats-win-the-house-in-2014/671131/96 "2013-10-16T06:51:14Z")
> [@Honesty](#): > > If Democrats can get a comfortable majority in the House and Senate, I think they will get a lot of work done. > > Increase taxes on the wealthy > Reduce student loan rate > Reduce oil and gas subsidies > Transportation/Rail > Reinstate federal revenue sharing to cities and municpalities > Fix the Campaign Finance Law > Expand safety net for the poor > End Drug War against marijuana > Expand money for medical and scientific research > Tighter regulation/new taxes on financial markets > Income verification/Public Option on ObamaCare > > That’s a good start. - Honesty It is indeed a good start, but the Dems won’t be doing all of that stuff. The progressive caucus has almost no influence in Congress, it’s all center right Democratic Leadership Council types that run the show, and they’re half Republican. The Democrats are just as much slaves of Wall Street of the Republicans and will be until the Campaign Finance Laws get fixed, which of course their Wall Street masters will oppose because they like having control of both houses of Congress and the White House. The legislative agenda I set forth earlier in this thread will also have problems under the current crop of Democrats, for the same reasons yours will. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-lets-say-the-democrats-win-the-house-in-2014/671131.md?page=4)