Poll: Percentage of Americans Identifying As Republican Has Dropped Since Trump Won

[PLC1]

I do not recall hearing that the deficit was the reason Democrats opposed the bill - and to their credit it would be comical on its face to hear them make such an argument after spending the last 8 years adding almost $10 trillion in debt to our current fiscal situation.

That said, I think tax reform will ultimately be popular and I hope Republicans shove it down the throats of Donnelly, Manchin, McCaskill, and Heitkamp.

The deficit was not why the Democrats opposed the bill. They opposed the bill because it was written by Republicans, just as the Republicans will oppose any bill written by the Democrats. Welcome to the hyper partisanship of Washington DC.

 

[BigRob]

Are you better off than you were a year ago ?
Demonstrably so. All the donkeys ever produced were disappointments.

Exactly - its not what was tweeted last month, its not what clever Hitler comparisons some liberal can make, its not screams of racism or how many times SNL can make fun of Trump....its the economy stupid!

If average workers see their checks go up and are feeling generally better off, the rest if just noise.

 

[dogtowner]

The deficit was not why the Democrats opposed the bill. They opposed the bill because it was written by Republicans, just as the Republicans will oppose any bill written by the Democrats. Welcome to the hyper partisanship of Washington DC.

Trouble is every bill that came out of the donkey camp was a disaster.

 

[Old_Trapper70]

Are you better off than you were a year ago ?
Demonstrably so. All the donkeys ever produced were disappointments.

Leave it up to a lying coward to take credit for something he had nothing to do with. All you repugnant ones ever gave the country was division, obstruction, and a reason for a civil war.

 

[Old_Trapper70]

Trouble is every bill that came out of the donkey camp was a disaster.

Only because your Repugnant Party insured it would be so. Then too, once your repugnants took control what bills by the Democrats were allowed to come forward?

 

[PLC1]

Trouble is every bill that came out of the donkey camp was a disaster.

Well, they were all written by Democrats, and therefore suspect.

 

[Old_Trapper70]

Well, they were all written by Democrats, and therefore suspect.

Still no answer from the doggie of the House as to what bills written by the Democrats were allowed to come forward to a vote. Nothing new about him making unsubstantiated claims though just as there is nothing new about him still kissing Trumps ring.

 

[BigRob]

The deficit was not why the Democrats opposed the bill.

I know - just taking a quick shot at your comments that "no one cares about the deficit anymore".

They opposed the bill because it was written by Republicans, just as the Republicans will oppose any bill written by the Democrats. Welcome to the hyper partisanship of Washington DC.

In that case I hope they can sell to their constituents that "I voted against lowering your taxes because the bill had a Republican's name on it" - particularly in the vulnerable Senate seats that Democrats have to defend in 2018. If the tax bill turns out to be popular, they are going to have some problems.

 

[BigRob]

Still no answer from the doggie of the House as to what bills written by the Democrats were allowed to come forward to a vote. Nothing new about him making unsubstantiated claims though just as there is nothing new about him still kissing Trumps ring.

Why should the majority party let bills by the minority party move forward? Often such legislation is fundamentally differing from the concepts and principles that the majority party got elected on to begin with.

The Speaker is free to disregard the informal Hastert Rule as he/she sees fits - but at the end of the day, why is it the responsibility of the majority party to move legislation for the minority party?

 

[Old_Trapper70]

I know - just taking a quick shot at your comments that "no one cares about the deficit anymore".

Republicans haven't since they needed an excuse to invade Iraq if not before like during the Reagan Tax Cuts.

In that case I hope they can sell to their constituents that "I voted against lowering your taxes because the bill had a Republican's name on it" - particularly in the vulnerable Senate seats that Democrats have to defend in 2018. If the tax bill turns out to be popular, they are going to have some problems.

Won't be hard once the "left" figures out their taxes are not declining.

 

[Old_Trapper70]

Why should the majority party let bills by the minority party move forward? Often such legislation is fundamentally differing from the concepts and principles that the majority party got elected on to begin with.

The Speaker is free to disregard the informal Hastert Rule as he/she sees fits - but at the end of the day, why is it the responsibility of the majority party to move legislation for the minority party?

It is called bi-partisanship, or compromise, the very idea that the government was founded on. Slavery being the prime example.

Then too, the Republicans spent 6 year whining about, and lying about, how they were kept out of the ACA process.

 

[BigRob]

Republicans haven't since they needed an excuse to invade Iraq if not before like during the Reagan Tax Cuts.

Ok.

Won't be hard once the "left" figures out their taxes are not declining.

The simple fact is that on average the bill will cut taxes for people across all income levels - and the cuts will likely be extended by a future Congress rather than allowing them to expire and allow a broad tax increase across all income levels.

The average person on the "left" is going to see a tax cut just like the average person on the "right" will.

 

[BigRob]

It is called bi-partisanship, or compromise, the very idea that the government was founded on. Slavery being the prime example.

I'm sorry - I just cannot take your statement seriously. We need bi-partisanship and compromise because in the past those things gave us such high minded institutions like SLAVERY!!!?? There are plenty of good arguments to be made here - but you have missed them all.

What it mostly seems to be is that the calls for "working together" and "bi-partisanship" increase dramatically among the party that is out of power. The balance will shift again in the future and Republicans will be calling for the same thing. But at a base level, the majority party doesn't have any obligation to take your legislation or ideas seriously - let alone expend time on them and give them a vote.

The legislative process is not supposed to be easy. In no way is the system designed for someone to throw out an idea (particularly in the House) and be entitled to an up or down vote. I am not sure why we expect politicians to suddenly put aside politics when they get into office. It is not a bad thing that Congress is a political entity - let it act like one.

If the voters in a particular district do not like how their representatives conduct themselves they can vote them out - and just because you have an opinion doesn't mean you are entitled to win the election. I personally loathe the member of Congress who represents the district where I live...but guess what - she goes out and she wins reelection every two years - and I readily accept that my opinion is not reflective of the district as a whole.

Then too, the Republicans spent 6 year whining about, and lying about, how they were kept out of the ACA process.

It's almost like the party out of power increases their calls for "compromise" and "bi-partisanship" to suit their political purposes huh?

 

[Openmind]

I'm sorry - I just cannot take your statement seriously. We need bi-partisanship and compromise because in the past those things gave us such high minded institutions like SLAVERY!!!?? There are plenty of good arguments to be made here - but you have missed them all.

What it mostly seems to be is that the calls for "working together" and "bi-partisanship" increase dramatically among the party that is out of power. The balance will shift again in the future and Republicans will be calling for the same thing. But at a base level, the majority party doesn't have any obligation to take your legislation or ideas seriously - let alone expend time on them and give them a vote.

The legislative process is not supposed to be easy. In no way is the system designed for someone to throw out an idea (particularly in the House) and be entitled to an up or down vote. I am not sure why we expect politicians to suddenly put aside politics when they get into office. It is not a bad thing that Congress is a political entity - let it act like one.

If the voters in a particular district do not like how their representatives conduct themselves they can vote them out - and just because you have an opinion doesn't mean you are entitled to win the election. I personally loathe the member of Congress who represents the district where I live...but guess what - she goes out and she wins reelection every two years - and I readily accept that my opinion is not reflective of the district as a whole.



It's almost like the party out of power increases their calls for "compromise" and "bi-partisanship" to suit their political purposes huh?

You are so wrong again!
The GOP didn't have ANY interest in working with President Obama or Democrats. . .in fact, they tried (thankfully, were not entirely successful) to block EVERYTHING that was proposed!

And, What do you have to propose instead of a two party system? A ONE party system. . .a dictatorship, as Trump would love to get? You obviously are not interested in a MULTI-party solution, with the logical outcome to have to COMPROMISE with other parties to obtain a majority!

Also, obviously, in a REAL world, an IDEAL world, voters would have their choices without interferences. . .but in America especially, this is absolutely NOT what happens. . .not since Citizen United that the GOP loves so much, not with the likes of Koch brothers, and the greed of so many politicians who are eager to feather their nest, even if it means accepting "help" (false propaganda and. . .we may find out. . .laundered money funding) from foreign powers and religious sects, such as the Christian Talibans (yes, I am talking about the Evangelical corporate hypocrites).

Get real!

 

[dogtowner]

Well, they were all written by Democrats, and therefore suspect.

All based on dem policy which is demonstrably ineffective.