Can a party of "no" actually govern?

[Travis]

My hypothesis: for eight years the GOP turned itself into a party whose core motivation was being an obstacle to Obama and other perceived "liberals".

They screamed about how things shouldn't be done but never really gave reasons. We all know the real reason was a huge amount of butthurt over how W left in disgrace and Obama arrived with a wave of optimism. They just never got over it and devoted themselves to hating everything he proposed.

But now they are in power. Now they have no one to oppose. No one to stop. They seem like Ronin, wandering about with no purpose. So is it a surprise that they have accomplished nothing? That they seem to still be aiming to fight Obama even as Obama is content to windsurf around the world?

So, what do you think? Can a party built around saying "nope" actually become a party that does things?

 

[Octavo]

So, what do you think? Can a party built around saying "nope" actually become a party that does things?

Nope.

 

[Octavo]

So, what do you think? Can a party built around saying "nope" actually become a party that does things?

A less facetious reply:

Only if said party is actually able to articulate rational alternatives to whatever they've nope'd.

The problem is of course that as you point out in the OP, the GOP's opposition appears (to me at least) to be less about disagreement on rational grounds and more pure ideological disagreement. If you reflexively object to something, without first having examined why you're objecting and how you might change it, you're not going to get very far.

TL;DR: Nope.

 

[C_Felix]

Just look at repealing the ACA.

How many years did the Republicans have to come up with a plan; 6?

And now it is their turn and they don't have a plan.

I'm sure there could've been some on-going talks in a backroom somewhere. Something along the lines of, "Let us chip away at this. Let's get a framework of what we want in our version of the ACA."

But no.
It was only obstruct.

If the Republicans were intent on governing, they would've have (and should've) had a plan in place.

 

[Darat]

I'm regards to the ACA didn't they attempt to pass several bills etc and were only stopped by a presidential veto? If so why couldn't they just pull out one of the older bills and use that one.

 

[Beelzebuddy]

I'm regards to the ACA didn't they attempt to pass several bills etc and were only stopped by a presidential veto? If so why couldn't they just pull out one of the older bills and use that one.

They did. That was the one which failed by 9 votes, now that said votes were more than just show.

 

[Foolmewunz]

I'm regards to the ACA didn't they attempt to pass several bills etc and were only stopped by a presidential veto? If so why couldn't they just pull out one of the older bills and use that one.

Because they now have a President who will sign said bills. It was bread and circuses; they never intended to pass the various ACA/Obamacare repeals and knew that Obama would veto any such effort so could posture for hometown consumption.

Now that their posturing could become reality, they're reluctant to actually go through with it. A bill nearly identical to the one that just failed to pass did get through to Obama's desk in 2015. Of the Republicans who voted against it this week? All but one voted for it in 2015.

A perfect example of The Party of No. They don't have any idea what they want to do.

 

[Spindrift]

A perfect example of The Party of No. They don't have any idea what they want to do.

They lost their overriding operating dictum when Trump was elected. It used to be "Oppose anything and everything the president wants." They never had to worry about the consequences of not be able to get anything done because there was always Obama to blame it on.

 

[fuelair]

They can't even play with themselves well!!!!! Though they each do it a lot!!!!!

 

[fuelair]

And usually in a circle when they do!!!!

 

[bonzombiekitty]

I'm regards to the ACA didn't they attempt to pass several bills etc and were only stopped by a presidential veto? If so why couldn't they just pull out one of the older bills and use that one.

Because those previous votes were just token show votes. They knew they'd be vetoed and there was no way to override said veto. So they didn't care what the actually implementing the bill would mean. IMO, that should have been obvious to everyone. Now that there's a chance that such a bill COULD be implemented, they need to change their tune.

 

[Hlafordlaes]

The real problem is that it is impossible for the Republican Party to be honest about its agenda, which is to repeal the federal government itself, except for the military, which is shiny and has "ooooh" admiration chops. All the rest has to go. This is, in the end, hard to do publicly without tipping off your constituency that you detest their filthy misery down there in the plebe gutter. <<Shudder>>

- Taxes are criminal theft
- Only property gets to vote
- Poverty is a clear sign of inferiority
- Whites made the place, own the place, and want the place
- Rich? Oooooh, have any shiny objects? Love you! Kisses!!!
- Might, and might alone, makes right
- Science/facts are concoctions of a Jewish/atheist/commie conspiracy made to enslave good Christian freemen and deny God
- Bring back AH! 88!

What the GOP is now tripping over is the reality that their true agenda, shown for what it is, would be toxic to elections. How to throw the stone and hide the hand, this is the Republican dilemma.

 

[C_Felix]

I'm regards to the ACA didn't they attempt to pass several bills etc and were only stopped by a presidential veto? If so why couldn't they just pull out one of the older bills and use that one.

I must have missed that.

I dont' remember hearing an alternative plan.

I remember it being just a repeal vote.

I could be wrong.

 

[DevilsAdvocate]

I'm regards to the ACA didn't they attempt to pass several bills etc and were only stopped by a presidential veto? If so why couldn't they just pull out one of the older bills and use that one.

Most never made it through the Senate. I think only one made to Obama for a veto.

There were a few bills with minor changes to health care that actually made it into law. Republicans only proposed a few bills that might be considered health care reform (like Medicare vouchers) but those bills usually also included provisions that would undercut the ACA with the obvious intent of dismantling it. Most of the bills were to cut funding for ACA, eliminate certain provisions or eliminate key provisions that would effective kill the ACA, or bills to delay the implementation of certain parts of the ACA.

Some bills were just a flat out repeal with no mention of any sort of replacement. The first was the ‘‘Repealing the Job-Killing Health Care Law Act’’ (yes, that is actually the name) which was just two paragraphs to simply repeal the ACA as if it had never existed.

Here’s the full text of a 2015 “repeal and replace” bill passed by the House:

AN ACT
To repeal the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act and health care-related provisions in the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010, and for other purposes.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. REPEAL OF PPACA AND HEALTH CARE-RELATED PROVISIONS IN THE HEALTH CARE AND EDUCATION RECONCILIATION ACT OF 2010.
(a) PPACA.—Effective on the date that is 180 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (Public Law 111–148) is repealed, and the provisions of law amended or repealed by such Act are restored or revived as if such Act had not been enacted.
(b) Health Care-Related Provisions In The Health Care And Education Reconciliation Act Of 2010.—Effective on the date that is 180 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, title I and subtitle B of title II of the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010 (Public Law 111–152) are repealed, and the provisions of law amended or repealed by such title or subtitle, respectively, are restored or revived as if such title and subtitle had not been enacted.
SEC. 2. BUDGETARY EFFECTS.
The budgetary effects of this Act shall not be entered on either PAYGO scorecard maintained pursuant to section 4(d) of the Statutory Pay-As-You-Go Act of 2010.
SEC. 3. REPORTING REPLACEMENT LEGISLATION.
The Committee on Education and the Workforce, the Committee on Energy and Commerce, the Committee on the Judiciary, and the Committee on Ways and Means of the House of Representatives shall each report to the House of Representatives legislation proposing changes to existing law within each committee’s jurisdiction with provisions that—
(1) foster economic growth and private sector job creation by eliminating job-killing policies and regulations;
(2) lower health care premiums through increased competition and choice;
(3) preserve a patient’s ability to keep his or her health plan if he or she likes it;
(4) provide people with pre-existing conditions access to affordable health coverage;
(5) reform the medical liability system to reduce unnecessary and wasteful health care spending;
(6) increase the number of insured Americans;
(7) protect the doctor-patient relationship;
(8) provide the States greater flexibility to administer Medicaid programs while reducing costs under such programs;
(9) expand incentives to encourage personal responsibility for health care coverage and costs;
(10) prohibit taxpayer funding of abortions and provide conscience protections for health care providers;
(11) eliminate duplicative government programs and wasteful spending; or
(12) do not accelerate the growth of entitlement programs or increase the tax burden on Americans.

Passed the House of Representatives February 3, 2015.

So what we have is:

1. Repeal the ACA!
2. Don’t count the huge deficits! Pay-As-You-Go was a law passed in 2010 that said any increase spending in a bill has to be counterbalanced by equivalent spending cuts or revenue increases. In other words, a balanced budget type bill. Forget the deficit. Forget balancing the budget. Forget reduced spending. Forget this Pay-As-You-Go law. This law will ignore that law because this is a new law that ignores that old law.
3. Replace the ACA with the new plan! The new plan is: have House committees come up with a new plan. And it will be the best plan. The best! With more people insured, affordable coverage for pre-existing conditions, lower premiums, decreased spending, no tax increases, and if you like your plan you can keep it (unless it was a plan based on Obamacare, because that’s totally repealed). And I’m guessing ponies and rainbows for everyone as well.

This is the health care plan Republicans have been promising for that past 7 years: a promise of a health care plan.

 

[simonxlong]

Most never made it through the Senate. I think only one made to Obama for a veto.

There were a few bills with minor changes to health care that actually made it into law. Republicans only proposed a few bills that might be considered health care reform (like Medicare vouchers) but those bills usually also included provisions that would undercut the ACA with the obvious intent of dismantling it. Most of the bills were to cut funding for ACA, eliminate certain provisions or eliminate key provisions that would effective kill the ACA, or bills to delay the implementation of certain parts of the ACA.

Some bills were just a flat out repeal with no mention of any sort of replacement. The first was the ‘‘Repealing the Job-Killing Health Care Law Act’’ (yes, that is actually the name) which was just two paragraphs to simply repeal the ACA as if it had never existed.

Here’s the full text of a 2015 “repeal and replace” bill passed by the House:


So what we have is:

1. Repeal the ACA!
2. Don’t count the huge deficits! Pay-As-You-Go was a law passed in 2010 that said any increase spending in a bill has to be counterbalanced by equivalent spending cuts or revenue increases. In other words, a balanced budget type bill. Forget the deficit. Forget balancing the budget. Forget reduced spending. Forget this Pay-As-You-Go law. This law will ignore that law because this is a new law that ignores that old law.
3. Replace the ACA with the new plan! The new plan is: have House committees come up with a new plan. And it will be the best plan. The best! With more people insured, affordable coverage for pre-existing conditions, lower premiums, decreased spending, no tax increases, and if you like your plan you can keep it (unless it was a plan based on Obamacare, because that’s totally repealed). And I’m guessing ponies and rainbows for everyone as well.

This is the health care plan Republicans have been promising for that past 7 years: a promise of a health care plan.

You're exactly right. The problem is that what the Republicans have promised over and over again is that they are going to accomplish things which are, by definition, mutually exclusive. They've promised to repeal Obamacare with no one losing insurance and lower premium costs while also somehow removing the taxes necessary to pay for this. The reality is that the math doesn't work. Either you have to maintain or raise taxes or cut benefits.

The Republicans never thought they were going to have to deal with control in both houses and the White House. Now that they have the power, they can't act because no matter what they do, their base gets directly screwed. So many people have insurance because of Obamacare (or would lose insurance do to cuts) that everyone will have friends and / or a family member who will end up getting hurt and this will cost the Republicans states and districts where they have only a small majority. They could quite easily lose Congress and the Presidency for a long, long time.

 

[Civet]

I think it's significant that all of Trump's real wins seem to happen when he doesn't need Congress to do much of anything but not get in the way. They did give him a little starter money for his stupid wall though.

 

[C_Felix]

You're exactly right. The problem is that what the Republicans have promised over and over again is that they are going to accomplish things which are, by definition, mutually exclusive. They've promised to repeal Obamacare with no one losing insurance and lower premium costs while also somehow removing the taxes necessary to pay for this. The reality is that the math doesn't work. Either you have to maintain or raise taxes or cut benefits.

The Republicans never thought they were going to have to deal with control in both houses and the White House. Now that they have the power, they can't act because no matter what they do, their base gets directly screwed. So many people have insurance because of Obamacare (or would lose insurance do to cuts) that everyone will have friends and / or a family member who will end up getting hurt and this will cost the Republicans states and districts where they have only a small majority. They could quite easily lose Congress and the Presidency for a long, long time.

When the logger walked into the forest with his axe, the trees said to each other, 'Don't worry, the handle is one of us'

 

[Travis]

The anger over Obamacare was never over any matter relating to its exercise or functions. It was just radio talk show hosts yelling into a microphone that Obama is killing our country with his socialcommuIslamism. They got people riled up and opposing Obamacare was more about virtue signaling than any actual objection. Obama was bad. Liberals were bad. Obamacare, crafted by the DevilMuslim and embraced by Liberals (though not loved) therefore had to be bad regardless of what it actually did.

But it was one thing to chant things at rallies and post memes on facebook about how Obamacare was evil and destroying our country it is another thing when you actually have to replace it.

 

[Molinaro]

I'm regards to the ACA didn't they attempt to pass several bills etc and were only stopped by a presidential veto? If so why couldn't they just pull out one of the older bills and use that one.

Because it was all for show. They knew Obama would veto those bills. They also knew they were terrible bills that they did not actually want to be passed. They felt safe voting yes because of the guaranteed veto.

 

[Travis]

Last night it seemed like they were trying to replay the Obama years when they asked that the law they wanted to "vote" for not actually become law. They like to campaign as voting for laws they actually know would be awful if implemented.