Senate Fiscal Cliff Doomsday Countdown Thread

I don't know how anybody can look at Congress right now and say... "yeah, just the perfect amount of obstruction... there's no obstruction problem!"

We know that the House has stayed Republican, even though more people overall voted for Democratic House candidates. Should we require that the House needs 60% to get anything done too? They can't even get anything done now!

The House, the Senate, the Presidency, and the SupremeCourt/Constitution balance everything out. The Senate is supposed to work on a simple majority, that's how it was intended. It's time we say "enough" and get back to that, get back to how it's supposed to work. And actually "work"!

Fixing the House will be harder. I really think it can only be solved by throwing those Tea Party and other ultraconservatives out of office in '14. There's idiot Democrats too, but they're not posing the same problem.

 

KnightWriter: Oh, I agree. Still, getting rid of the filibuster wouldn't have helped with that.

Maybe if we're lucky enough we'll face the same wave of voter rage in 2014 that the Democrats got caught up in 1994. Congress' approval ratings are dropping so low that something has to happen.

Summer Dreamer: Sure, those are venues. But there's problems with all of them-the President's veto can be overruled, the Supreme Court is appointed for life and isn't all that predictable, and in the case of a majority Republican Senate/House (not completely unlikely in the future given how entrenched the House Republicans are in their districts) there's zero potential recourse on the Senate floor for a Democratic minority.

 

There's no way to fix the House until 2020. Democrats will probably retain the presidency through then, and perhaps the Senate. Republicans will maintain their hold on the House because of gerrymandering.

The only rage most Republicans in the House are concerned about is the kind that will drive them out of office in favor of even more conservative candidates.

 

KnightWriter: I suppose-not sure what's significant about 2020, though. Mind illuminating me?

The irritating part is that the Tea Party is incredibly unpopular on a national level. The only reason it still even holds seats is because of gerrymandering.

 

Congressional districts are redrawn every ten years, based on Census results.

 

Oh, okay. Didn't know that-thanks.

 

Yup.

I don't find the compromise currently being floated to be too objectionable. But the Democrats, now or going forward, absolutely should not cave on Medicare or Social Security. Not only do I think it's bad policy, but the Republicans will turn around and blame them for it. Furthermore, there is no mandate for it. Which leads me to my main point.

I agree with you that this whole debt crisis is manufactured and hugely hypocritical considering virtually all Republicans sat silent during the Bush years. Anyway, both candidates did campaign on calling for debt reduction, so I think there is a mandate for it. As we know, Obama won. He won by more than Bush ever did. The Democrats kept the Senate, and as you pointed out, they won over one million more votes in House elections. In other words, if there is going to be this manufactured debt crisis created by the Republicans, the Democrats get to have some of their initiatives included...at the very least. It's hard to negotiate when one party has a gun to the head of the economy, but at some point you can't just give in. Hopefully there are enough Republicans who can compromise and work something out. Either way, there was no call for cutting Social Security, and the only changes that I recall in Medicare being proposed were proposed by the side that lost (Ryan's voucher plan). This isn't to say some changes could be made, but I don't think they should start from the POV of the side that lost.

Happy New Year everyone.

 

Give it two hours...

 

Two key points:

1) The House districts won't be redrawn until 2022, because there isn't enough time between the Census (in April 2020) and the primaries for the general election to process the data and redraw the districts.

2) The Democrats have a long history of gerrymandering, too. That's a large part of how there are so many Democrat-leaning "majority minority" districts out there.

Of course, I've long advocated that districts should be drawn based on a non-biased algorithm designed to make them as 1) compact, and 2) equal in population as possible. Other factors, such as racial makeup, shouldn't even enter into the question. Unless there is a standardized way to create districts in a non-partisan manner that isn't designed to favor incumbents, we'll continue to see both sides use gerrymandering to hold on to power.

Of course, that's also why my suggestion will never be implemented.

 

There are far more safe Republican districts than Democratic ones.

 

This. Maybe the Democrats have used gerrymandering in the past, but it's the GOP/Tea Party that's abused it the most as of late.

 

Because there are more state legislatures controlled by Republicans.

If you look in Democrat-controlled legislatures, you find the exact same gerrymandering going on right now. And if the Democrats controlled those other legislatures, they'd gerrymander them just as much as the Republicans are.

You aren't actually upset about gerrymandering. What you are upset about is that the gerrymandering is being done by people you don't like. Just like none of you expressed any real concerns about the filibuster when the Democrats were using it to block the Republicans, but now that the Republicans are using it, it needs to go. That is 100%, grade-A pure hypocrisy.

 

The filibuster was never used as much in the past by either side as it has been by Republicans in recent years. That's a fact.

I don't think either party should gerrymander, because it ends up being counterproductive. Republicans are so disconnected now that even though Democratic candidates combined got a million more votes than Republican candidates, the GOP still maintained control of the House. This encourages Republicans to be much more confrontational than they should be, and will damage their chances of retaking the White House in 2016.

There weren't too many occasions to express concern about the filibuster in decades past, mostly because neither side used it much.

 

And prior to the Democrats taking power in the Senate in 2007, no one had used the filibuster more than they had 2000-2006. You had plenty of chances to complain about that, but you didn't.

Essentially, your side escalated during that time, and now you are complaining because their own tactics have now been turned back on them.

Your objections are all based on the fact that your ox is getting gored right now, rather than some principled stand.

 

so it's itsy bitsy teeny tiny wittle baby deal now, more ****ery later. why can't these people grow some balls and do some major reforms/cuts?

 

Raises hand - I've been looking for a job since May. I live alone. My "savings" may carry me a month - or two.

I fear I soon will accept a minimum wage job that won't pay the bills - and no, I don't live expensively. But at a level that exceeds minimum wage (and I believe Washington has the highest min wage in the country).

So I guess wish me luck for my Thursday job interview...and hope I make it to round two after an interview a couple of weeks ago.

 

Looks like the payroll tax break they put in place for the last two years is a goner.

2% extra right outta there.

 

OH GOD MY PAYCHECK IS GOING DOWN BY 2% THE ****ING SKY IS FALLING

 

For the millions of Americans, living basically paycheck to paycheck right now, yeah it is.

 

Hey, 'sup, one of those millions. No it isn't.

 

For someone making 50K a year that is a thousand dollars. I'd say that is a decent amount of money.

 

Ah, so it only becomes a decent amount of money at high pay scales. Of course. No wonder the Republicans want to cut taxes for the rich, 2% from them is like $5k, which is even more than $1k!

 

The payroll tax is one of the most regressive forms of taxation out there. It impacts the working and middle classes far more than the rich capitalists.

So no, you're assertion is incorrect.

 

yeah but that pays for stuff like social security and medicare, and we couldn't possibly mess with that stuff! no, no sir! forget it!

 

50k is just about the median household income. Not exactly a high pay scale.

And yes, the payroll taxes are highly regressive. But unlike Crem I don't feel the need to imply that the programs that the tax funds should be cut because of it. The burden should be shifted to those who can better afford it.