Pretty straight forward question, if Obama wins a second term and the houses of congress continue to be of opposite parties, will we get another 2 or maybe 4 years of this inability to address the issues?
If you had a countdown clock, what time would it be now? Is the congress really willing to wait until Obama is out of office before anything substantial is passed?
The Republicans are not going to stop something that is working wonderfully for them.
Actually it’s working pretty awfully for them, but almost as awfully for the Dems, because it is coloring voters’ perceptions of Congress into a very negative light (Congressional approval in recent polls is somewhere in the teens now), and people seem willing to put a pox on both their houses/parties. It has been said that the party which is most-anti-government would thus have the most to gain, but frankly it only works if the voters don’t really pay attention to the details WRT the gridlock in question and don’t assign proportionate blame (i.e. voters are uninformed and easily manipulated by certain media outlets). In a more enlightened society IOW such a cynical strategy would backfire badly.
Judging by the fact that 86% of incumbents won their seat in the House in 2010, I would say the “pox on both their houses/parties” thing is overstated.
(In case you are curious, the Democrat incumbent re-election rate was 80%. The Republican incumbent re-election rate was 95%)
The Republicans proposed a plan that would have worked. It was ignored. Obama was nowhere to be found the last couple of weeks. There is no leadership in the current administration.
The obstructionism will stop the same way any political strategy stops - when the voters decide they don’t approve and speak in an election.
So, perhaps, Nov 2012.
Only if the goal was to lower taxes on the richest Americans, and raise them on the middle class.
If the Myans are right 21 December 2012. I think it went on 2009-2010 when the Democrats controlled the presidency, house, and senate. I also think Bush had some trouble the years the Republican controlled the house and senate. Why didn’t Hillary Care pass? Reagan…
I’m on the same fax list that said to emphasize this. I’d update my credentials, but it’s fun to see things arrive and then see them in action a day or two later. Good job!
Judging by recent events, it evidently stops when industrial lobbyists shower both sides with enough Benjamins to get pizza ruled a veggie.
When’s the next congressional recess?
Then.
C’mon, be honest. It should say “…lower the tax rate while ending a lot of deductions that rich people take, resulting in higher taxes on the rich overall and lowering taxes on the bottom 2/3 of Americans.” I’m sure your omission was just an oversight.
The declaration was that a 1/8 cup of tomato paste counts as a serving of vegetables for the purposes of federal dietary guidelines of school lunches. In other words, maintaining the status quo and allowing schools to continue to serve pizza. Do you have a cite for the “industrial lobbyists shower[ing] both sides with” money? Or are you one of those that just assume that’s what happened when a law has been passed (or in this case, renewed)?
Really? Can you show me an analysis of the Toomey plan that laid out the tax impact for various segments of the population?
Because what I saw was Toomey claiming this would be the effect but that details weren’t worked out, and Democrats claiming the opposite. I don’t recall ever seeing a firm proposal or an independent evaluation.
That said, I applaud Toomey for at least putting some revenue on the table, even if it was paired with tax cuts. It’s a start, at least.
Nope. Just my obsession with the truth.
[QUOTE=New York Times]
Food companies have spent more than $5.6 million so far lobbying against the proposed rules.
[/QUOTE]
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/02/us/school-lunch-proposals-set-off-a-dispute.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all
Another cite: Pizza still a vegetable for U.S. schools | CBC News
Most likely, it stops when enough Baby Boomers decide they want to retire but realize that their 401(k) and pension plans won’t let them - and chances are, they will take it out on the Republicans. Maybe not in 2012, but I think almost certainly by 2020.
(I just hope the backlash doesn’t turn into something like “90% wealth tax - not on income, but on your current wealth - over the amount that puts you in the wealthiest 5%, as payback-ER, UH, as ‘reparations’ for past tax benefits, and yes, that includes everything you own outside of the country, and if you try to run, I suggest you look up ‘Bush Doctrine’.”)
My cynical side says “Never”. We seem to be in a cycle of “I’ll do to you when I’m in power that you did to me when you were in power.” The throw everyone out won’t work because we’d just switch the ratios. Plus, most people don’t like Congress but they like their congressman. With the current congressional seniority system, I think all of you guys should elect freshman reps while I keep my senior guy.
I think things have to get so bad that the current two parties aren’t viable which probably means a significant collapse of the country economically.
When a sufficient number of voters no longer demand or value it. At present, many do and many Congresscritters got elected on never-back-down promises.
When we have a 66% majority for one party in both houses of congress and the white house.
If you have the 2/3 majority (not “66%” - pardon me for being pedantic, but I once saw a local school property tax get voted down with about 66.3% approval when it needed 2/3) in both houses of Congress, you don’t really need the White House, since pretty much any veto would be overridden.
If you have the White House, all you need is a majority in the House and 3/5 in the Senate.