Fiscal Cliff MEGATHREAD: Wile E. Economy falls off, lands in cloud at bottom

[jimmy olsen]

For good or ill, the GOP has more ideological cohesiveness these days. That's without a doubt, there are almost no moderate republicans left these days, while the Dems span the spectrum from the Blue Dogs to the Progressive Caucus.

[11B4V]

Yes, they march to the beat of their own drum.

[Razgovory]

For good or ill, the GOP has more ideological cohesiveness these days. That's without a doubt, there are almost no moderate republicans left these days, while the Dems span the spectrum from the Blue Dogs to the Progressive Caucus.

Do they?  Boehner couldn't seem to get his people together for his "plan B" vote.  And Bush had a much easier time getting much of his programs through.  I mean, how many Dems voted against the Iraq War?  I think we have a fundamental difference in how both parties see how Congress work.  Dems believe in coalitions, negotiations and compromise.  The GOP tends to see things in black white, good and evil, those who would save America and those who would destroy it.  You don't negotiate with pure evil.  You make a stand and you never give an inch.

[Phillip V]

For good or ill, the GOP has more ideological cohesiveness these days. That's without a doubt, there are almost no moderate republicans left these days, while the Dems span the spectrum from the Blue Dogs to the Progressive Caucus.

Do they?  Boehner couldn't seem to get his people together for his "plan B" vote.  And Bush had a much easier time getting much of his programs through.  I mean, how many Dems voted against the Iraq War?  I think we have a fundamental difference in how both parties see how Congress work.  Dems believe in coalitions, negotiations and compromise.  The GOP tends to see things in black white, good and evil, those who would save America and those who would destroy it.  You don't negotiate with pure evil.  You make a stand and you never give an inch.

The Iraq War was pure evil.

[alfred russel]

I'm sorta confused on how we got in a situation where if the Republicans win an election they get everything they want, and if Democrats win they have to negotiate with Republicans.

Lets pretend that the Republicans actually want to reduce spending.

Theoretically, with the House of Rep, they can unilaterally impose their will. If the president wants to spend $50 on something, and the Republicans want to spend $25, the Republicans can just pass a bill authorizing $25. For the Democrats to ensure that they get their $50, they really need the House, Senate, and Presidency.

[Razgovory]

Even with the House, Senate and Presidency Dems weren't allowed to get what they wanted through.

[alfred russel]

Even with the House, Senate and Presidency Dems weren't allowed to get what they wanted through.

Sure they were. I don't think Obamacare was especially bipartisan.

[Razgovory]

Even with the House, Senate and Presidency Dems weren't allowed to get what they wanted through.

Sure they were. I don't think Obamacare was especially bipartisan.

And it got filibustered.  And what about everything else?  Appointments and treaties and such?  It took forever to get the new Start treaty through.

[alfred russel]

Even with the House, Senate and Presidency Dems weren't allowed to get what they wanted through.

Sure they were. I don't think Obamacare was especially bipartisan.

And it got filibustered.  And what about everything else?  Appointments and treaties and such?  It took forever to get the new Start treaty through.

And then it passed.

Even ignoring that the majority could do away with the filibuster if they so chose, the Democrats had a filibuster proof majority for a while.

[MadImmortalMan]

And then it passed.

Even ignoring that the majority could do away with the filibuster if they so chose, the Democrats had a filibuster proof majority for a while.

An opportunity that should have been used better, I think.

[alfred russel]

And then it passed.

Even ignoring that the majority could do away with the filibuster if they so chose, the Democrats had a filibuster proof majority for a while.

An opportunity that should have been used better, I think.

I think that what the members of parties say they want doesn't really match with what they want. Case in point: I don't think the republicans are unified by the idea of actually reducing spending.

[Razgovory]

Even with the House, Senate and Presidency Dems weren't allowed to get what they wanted through.

Sure they were. I don't think Obamacare was especially bipartisan.

And it got filibustered.  And what about everything else?  Appointments and treaties and such?  It took forever to get the new Start treaty through.

And then it passed.

Even ignoring that the majority could do away with the filibuster if they so chose, the Democrats had a filibuster proof majority for a while.

But in practice they did not have a filibuster proof majority.  The Start treaty was a no brainer, yet it languished for months.  Not to mention just getting routine appointments is like pulling teeth.

[Darth Wagtaros]

And then it passed.

Even ignoring that the majority could do away with the filibuster if they so chose, the Democrats had a filibuster proof majority for a while.

An opportunity that should have been used better, I think.

I think that what the members of parties say they want doesn't really match with what they want. Case in point: I don't think the republicans are unified by the idea of actually reducing spending.

Well no, they never have been.  They are usually united in saying they want it, that's about as far as it's ever gone.

[Admiral Yi]

But in practice they did not have a filibuster proof majority.

In practice there was disagreement between progressives and Blue Dogs that had to be worked out.  Which has nothing to do with the issue of Democrats being more cooperative than Republicans.

[CountDeMoney]

Chris Christie just went Jersey mental on the House Republicans and Beohner for skipping the Hurricane Sandy Relief package.