PDA

View Full Version : In Blind Poll, Republicans Choose Progressive Budget Solutions Over Their Own Party's



Cigar
02-28-2013, 12:41 PM
When the Business Insider polled registered voters and asked for their preferences among three Congressional plans floated to avoid the looming "sequestration" cuts in Washington, they found that when stripped of their partisan labels, the policies most favorable to the majority were those offered by the progressive wing of the Democratic caucus.

The poll found that in addition to beating the House Republican plan and the Senate Democrat's plan overall, "more than half of respondents supported compared to sequestration and a fifth of respondents were opposed."


To describe the poll's approach, the Insider explains: "Surveys have found that asking people about just titles of plans or telling people who proposed policy, changes the results, so the point of this poll was to see what people thought of the plans when they were fully explained, but also stripped of partisan labels."

In fact, without the proper labels, the poll found that a majority of Republican respondents rejected the official plan put forward by the House GOP leadership.

http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2013/02/27-7


We really didn't need a Poll to prove this fact correct ... The President has been saying this for 4 years.

... and if you don't believe me ... just read the responses to this Thread

Peter1469
02-28-2013, 01:28 PM
That is why I think we are going to crash the USD. Nobody wants to fix the deficit and debt. They want to add to it.

Chris
02-28-2013, 01:29 PM
The President has been saying this for 4 years.

What's the Prez been saying four four years--consistently?

Cigar
02-28-2013, 01:30 PM
That is why I think we are going to crash the USD. Nobody wants to fix the deficit and debt. They want to add to it.


If the President can only make his plan look like it's coming from The GOP :wink:

Cigar
02-28-2013, 01:31 PM
What's the Prez been saying four four years--consistently?

The GOP says NO to even their own plans ...

killianr1
02-28-2013, 03:02 PM
The Prez makes plan that have no solution in order to stay in constant crisis (the sequester and his none solution).

Chris
02-28-2013, 03:31 PM
If the President can only make his plan look like it's coming from The GOP :wink:

But the GOP will just say no.

Chris
02-28-2013, 03:32 PM
The President has been saying this for 4 years


What's the Prez been saying four four years--consistently?


The GOP says NO to even their own plans ...

Never heard him say that.

Cigar
02-28-2013, 03:33 PM
But the GOP will just say no.

Good point ...

Chris
02-28-2013, 03:40 PM
Good point ...

We agree!! :slap2:

nic34
02-28-2013, 04:00 PM
Today's poll (http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/polling/post-poll-obama-endorsement-drag-path/2013/02/12/3230d18a-750b-11e2-9889-60bfcbb02149_page.html) from the Washington Post and Capital Insight shows something interesting: When Obama lends his name to proposals on immigration, climate change or the war in Afghanistan, support drops.
Without Obama's name, 78 percent of Democrats, 60 percent of Republicans, and 70 percent of independents support a path to citizenship as part of comprehensive immigration. But when you associate that proposal with the president, support drops to 75 percent of Democrats, 61 percent of independents, and just 39 percent of Republicans -- a 21 point decline. Likewise, without Obama's name, 65 percent of Democrats, 32 percent of Republicans, and 51 percent of independents support measures to address climate change. With his name attached, Democratic and independent support increases -- to 71 percent and 55 percent, respectively -- but Republican support dips even further, to 24 percent.
Just so we're clear, there's nothing else driving the shifts. Republicans endorse an idea, then they learn Obama agrees with them, then they reject the idea they'd just endorsed.
With this sentiment prevailing in Congress and with rank-and-file GOP voters, one starts to understand how and why compromise is quite literally impossible -- if Obama expresses support for his own proposals, Republicans say no, and if Obama expresses support for GOP proposals, Republicans still say no.

It creates an environment in which the two sides can't even negotiate, because one side won't take "yes" for an answer.

Is the moral of the story that the president should simply say nothing, and make his positions on issues a national mystery?

http://maddowblog.msnbc.com/_news/2013/02/12/16938476-why-the-gop-opposes-ideas-it-supports?lite

Chris
02-28-2013, 04:07 PM
I don't think our government was designed for compromise, it's very structure into 3 branches, and two houses, etc, is intended to counteract itself, to in a sense guard the wolf guarding the henhouse. And then there's the people to check the government, or should, but we grow apathetic.

Mainecoons
02-28-2013, 04:16 PM
We don't trust Obama, bottom line. He lies, misrepresents and hides so much that you can believe in anything that issues from him or his administration.

They're all a pack of liars but this bunch has set a new gold standard for the practice. If you want to really understand how people are beginning to feel, check the polls on how they feel about government in general these days.

Chris is correct, the Constitutional design of the Federal government was intended to keep it limited and checked. That has clearly failed.

nic34
02-28-2013, 04:26 PM
I don't think our government was designed for compromise, it's very structure into 3 branches, and two houses, etc, is intended to counteract itself, to in a sense guard the wolf guarding the henhouse.

You forget the other player... corporations.

Throughout the nation's history, the states have had .... and still have .... the authority to give birth to a corporation, by granting a corporate charter, and to impose the death penalty on a corporate wrongdoer by revoking its charter. (Hello BP)

Now they are considered "people" thanks to corrupt politicians and the SCOTUS.

........but I'll believe that when Texas executes one.

Chris
02-28-2013, 04:37 PM
You forget the other player... corporations.

Throughout the nation's history, the states have had .... and still have .... the authority to give birth to a corporation, by granting a corporate charter, and to impose the death penalty on a corporate wrongdoer by revoking its charter. (Hello BP)

Now they are considered "people" thanks to corrupt politicians and the SCOTUS.

........but I'll believe that when Texas executes one.

Why must you constantly invent these strawmen, nic, here that I forget the other player, corporations?

You and I have discussed enough times the nature of crony capitalism, the colusion of business and government, for you to know I do not forget them.

The question even so is what has that to do woith your earlier point and my subsequent counterpoint about compromise or contention as the foundation of our government?

Chris
02-28-2013, 04:56 PM
Nic, you think I forget corporations, think again:


President Obama's greatest strategic accomplishment during his first term was his recruitment of big business to join the existing collection of special interest groups within the Democratic Party.

The national impact of Obama's collusion with big business can't be overlooked. Big business helped deliver his biggest political achievement, ObamaCare, and it recently contributed to his victories with the fiscal cliff negotiations and the temporary extension of the debt ceiling.

The addition of huge corporate lobbying infrastructures to the existing left-wing coalition of unions, environmental activists, minority and feminist interest groups will fundamentally transform the special interest lobbying force in Washington. And as long as big business can profit from an expanding government, CEOs representing many corporations will support the progressive agenda of increased spending and government control over individual lives.

...The challenge facing the small government movement in 2013 is clear: to shrink the size and cost of government, we must push big business out of Obama's left-wing coalition.

@ The Dangerous Partnership Between Big Business and Government (http://www.realclearmarkets.com/articles/2013/02/14/the_dangerous_partnership_between_business_and_gov ernment_100148.html)

nic34
02-28-2013, 05:17 PM
This no-compromise congress is a relatively new development... just look up the number of filibusters in the last 4 years. But that isn't the only reason for it, the billionaire elite know exactly what they're doing setting up their korporatist kingdom... starting with citizens united.

The Bellotti decision cracked open the door of campaign finance law, and the Citizens United majority blew that door off its hinges. The Court announced that, when it comes to campaign spending rights, the “identity of the speaker” is irrelevant and an impermissible basis upon which to repress the flow of money speech. What matters is the “speech” itself, never the speaker—a doctrine that would have come in handy for the public employees, public school students, whistleblowers, prisoners and minor-party candidates whose free-speech rights have been crushed by the conservative Court because of their identity as (disfavored) speakers.

---

But even if this incoherent doctrine goes no further, the surging stream of corporate and billionaire spending has already made a sweet difference for the Republican Party, which despairs of the nation’s demographic and cultural changes and depends on a mix of right-wing propaganda and voter suppression to confuse and shrink the electorate. Indeed, the potency of Citizens United became clear in the same year the decision was released.

Support for a constitutional amendment to reverse Citizens United is growing because, as Justice Stevens objected, 
”A democracy cannot function effectively when its constituent members believe laws are being bought and sold.” An amendment to allow for reasonable regulation of campaign expenditures and contributions would empower Congress to return corporations to the economic sphere. It would also solidify the public’s interest in campaign disclosure and, as Harvard professor Laurence Tribe has observed, the much-eroded interest in building a public financing system that makes participating candidates at least minimally competitive with privately financed candidates.

One must charitably assume Scalia’s utter ignorance of Jefferson’s political philosophy and how much the Sage of Monticello feared the rise of a “single and splendid government of an aristocracy, founded on banking institutions, and moneyed incorporations,” which he foresaw “riding and ruling over the plundered ploughmen and beggared yeomanry.” The Citizens United era bears a disturbing resemblance to Jefferson’s nightmare vision of what might happen if corporate power swallowed the government. But Justice Scalia and the other juriscorporatists managing our scales of justice know just what good wishes to offer the “plundered ploughmen and beggared yeomanry” of our day, and the rest of the people we call the 99 percent: “May the odds be ever in your favor.”

http://www.thenation.com/article/169915/citizens-united-and-corporate-court?page=0,1

Now, explain why in the world WOULD republicans "compromise" as they had in the past....?

Chris
02-28-2013, 05:31 PM
The design of our government had little to nothing to do with Jefferson and mainly to do with Madison. It was designed to be contentious, to force members of Congress to choose to be part of the government or part of the opposition--see Connelly's James Madison Rules America: The Constitutional Origins of Congressional Partisanship, or watch Connelly present the ideas here: James Madison (http://cato.ramp.com/m/audio/47223726/james-madison.htm).


You seem desperate trying to link only Reps to corruption when Dems are just as much in the thick of it.