• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

CNN Poll: 70% see Dem's loss of Supermajority as good thing

Grim17

Grim17

Battle Ready
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 29, 2009
Messages
34,480
Reaction score
17,287
Location
Southwestern U.S.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
So much for the democrats excuses... Thank God the American public has awaken.

CNN Poll: Most Americans applaud Democrats' loss of supermajority
Posted: January 25th, 2010 01:00 PM ET

Washington (CNN) - Americans are divided on whether Democratic control of Congress is good for the country, according to a new national poll.

A CNN/Opinion Research Corporation survey released Monday also indicates that 7 in 10 Americans believe that the Democrats' loss of their 60 seat supermajority in the Senate is a positive move for the country.

Forty-five percent of people questioned in the poll said Democratic control of Congress is a good thing, with 48 percent disagreeing. The margin is within the survey's sampling error. But the results are a shift from last June, when 50 percent felt that Democratic control of both chambers of Congress was good and 41 percent felt it was bad for the country.

CNN Political Ticker: All politics, all the time Blog Archive - CNN Poll: Most Americans applaud Democrats’ loss of supermajority - Blogs from CNN.com
Click to expand...
 
Grim17 said:
So much for the democrats excuses... Thank God the American public has awaken.
Click to expand...

On the issue on whether or not Dems should have control of Congress, both sides seem to have equal support. 45% of Americans still want a democratically controlled Congress (while 48% don't).
 
Grim17 said:
So much for the democrats excuses... Thank God the American public has awaken.
Click to expand...

Would you be as afraid of a super majority if the Republicans had it?
 
Grim17 said:
Right now, yes. Too much blood in the water.
Click to expand...

Fair enough. And I agree. The GOP proved that even with a simple majority they couldn't be trusted with our money.
 
Bassman said:
And the Dimwitocrats have done better?? :rofl
Click to expand...

Hey Bassman! Good to see ya. Is this the same monster bass player from Whistlestopper?

And no. Of course not. I didn't say the Dems have done better. They've done exactly what I expected = spent our money at an even faster rate than the republicans. And that's saying something!
 
Winnb said:
Fair enough. And I agree. The GOP proved that even with a simple majority they couldn't be trusted with our money.
Click to expand...

I totally disagree. I said "supermajority" not majority.
 
Grim17 said:
I totally disagree. I said "supermajority" not majority.
Click to expand...

Fair enough. So you'd be fine with the GOP having a simple majority. I'm not sure I'd even like that. I'd rather everything be split 50/50. Even better would be 3 or 4 more parties each holding some power within our government. If for no other reason than to be a voice of opposition to the 2 major parties.
 
ScottD said:
On the issue on whether or not Dems should have control of Congress, both sides seem to have equal support. 45% of Americans still want a democratically controlled Congress (while 48% don't).
Click to expand...

It's all about how you phrase the poll. Same like with the healthcare polls.

If you phrase it: do you want gov. to take over healthcare? Majority answers no
If you phrase it: do you want the public option? Majority answers yes (or at least significantly higher yes's then the former)
 
That's roughly the approval rating of the healthcare bill, so I'm not surprised. Throw in a few extra who didn't like other proposals and some who just don't like supermajorities on principle, and there you have it.

I would not be afraid at all of Republicans having a supermajority plus the white house. I think you'd end up with some typical pork barrell stuff, which is systemic to our form of government, but not as bad as what we saw with the healthcare bill, and in the long run you'd end up with smaller government and less of it.
 
gopman said:
That's roughly the approval rating of the healthcare bill, so I'm not surprised. Throw in a few extra who didn't like other proposals and some who just don't like supermajorities on principle, and there you have it.

I would not be afraid at all of Republicans having a supermajority plus the white house. I think you'd end up with some typical pork barrell stuff, which is systemic to our form of government, but not as bad as what we saw with the healthcare bill, and in the long run you'd end up with smaller government and less of it.
Click to expand...

Come on Gopman. You're a really smart guy. There's no way you believe a GOP super majority would be good for this country. My God man look what they did with just a simple majority and the White House?
 
Winnb said:
Come on Gopman. You're a really smart guy. There's no way you believe a GOP super majority would be good for this country. My God man look what they did with just a simple majority and the White House?
Click to expand...

I think what they did was mostly good. Foreign policy was handled smartly and the fiscal response to the last recession was much better than the Democrats'. They could have done more, but like I said the shrinking of government is a gradual thing and it will take some time. In fact, despite the large jump in 2008 due to TARP, the budget deficit had been trending steadily down after the recession and wars at the beginning of the decade- see the attached chart from '04 to '07.

Bush Deficit vs. Obama Deficit in Pictures | The Foundry: Conservative Policy News.

Maybe more importantly, I think they are much better equipped to handle looming social security and medicare crises. Those issues will dwarf the fiscal budget pretty soon.
 
I agree with them.

I'll be dead honest. Trying to take my biases out of it, based simply on history and how politicians have shown themselves to be...

I think the best thing for this country, REALISTICALLY is generally to have a true conservative majority in Congress with a moderate democrat in the white house or vise versa.

Having full control of the two main legislation affecting branches of government is a recipe for disaster no matter what side has it in reality. Sure, in THEORY, as a conservative, it should be great to have all conservatives in power...but the reality of what that fact does to the principles of politicians was sadly on display in the past decade.
 
I agree that it's a good thing that they lost their supermajority. I think that kind of thing leads to nasty political infighting over time as one party runs rampant over the other while they're in control, then the other party goes even farther once the tables turn (as they inevitably will). It just leaves a bunch of people pissed off and doesn't really do much to help the country as a whole.
 
gopman said:
That's roughly the approval rating of the healthcare bill, so I'm not surprised. Throw in a few extra who didn't like other proposals and some who just don't like supermajorities on principle, and there you have it.

I would not be afraid at all of Republicans having a supermajority plus the white house. I think you'd end up with some typical pork barrell stuff, which is systemic to our form of government, but not as bad as what we saw with the healthcare bill, and in the long run you'd end up with smaller government and less of it.
Click to expand...

How would we have a smaller govt? Reagan didn't shrink the size of Govt and he is a DemiGod to Repubs. Typically Repubs outspend Dems.
 
I don't know what you consider a typical Democrat, but what about Barack Obama? He's on track to spend more than Reagan and Bush combined, both of whom lowered taxes and reduced the influence of government in our lives, with the notable exception of the Patriot Act, which was mostly necessary. I don't really think it's fair to consider military spending as it doesn't reflect size of government but worldwide conflict.
 
perhaps military should/shouldn't be counted yet Reagan saw a 270%(give or take) increase in our National Debt.....Bush saw close to double of our debt. Obama, while not my choice was handed 2 wars and a Recession/Depression(depending on who you talk to). Hoover did nothing and we got the great depression. Its far to early to see how this will work out but remember Reagan saw a increase in unemployment for 2 solid yrs into his term.
 
pugetsoundwa said:
perhaps military should/shouldn't be counted yet Reagan saw a 270%(give or take) increase in our National Debt.....Bush saw close to double of our debt. Obama, while not my choice was handed 2 wars and a Recession/Depression(depending on who you talk to). Hoover did nothing and we got the great depression. Its far to early to see how this will work out but remember Reagan saw a increase in unemployment for 2 solid yrs into his term.
Click to expand...

Did Bush not handle 2 wars and a recession? The difference is, after peaking in 2004, Bush chipped away at the deficit with the exception of TARP in 2008. Obama is truly spending like there's no tomorrow, using anything as an excuse to shower money on his preferred constituencies, and attempting to lock us into long term spending plans like the late health care bill that could bankrupt the country.
 
pugetsoundwa said:
perhaps military should/shouldn't be counted yet Reagan saw a 270%(give or take) increase in our National Debt.....Bush saw close to double of our debt
Click to expand...

Reagan and Bush also saw national security as a top priority.
 
Winnb said:
Fair enough. And I agree. The GOP proved that even with a simple majority they couldn't be trusted with our money.
Click to expand...

Yes, THAT batch acted like Democrats.

That's why the Americans rejected them in two consecutive elections.

The next batch of Republicans may have learned the lesson.

Only time can tell.
 
Zyphlin said:
Having full control of the two main legislation affecting branches of government is a recipe for disaster no matter what side has it in reality. Sure, in THEORY, as a conservative, it should be great to have all conservatives in power...but the reality of what that fact does to the principles of politicians was sadly on display in the past decade.
Click to expand...

No.

You're discussing what happens when the leaders of a political party who are willing to throw the impeachment trial of a perjured president solely because they don't want the VP to have a leg up on the 2000 presidential election become the leaders of a party with marginal majorities in both houses of Congress and have a liberal spend thrift president in office.

Note that this "majority", which didn't last very long at all, couldn't appoint the American justices Bush tried to appoint without major finagling with the socialist minority party.

That in itself would have been a good reason for supporting a super-majority in the Senate, just to get Americans on the courts to replace the old socialists who won't resign but will die someday.

As for the rest, if Reagan had had a Republican majority he would have been able to prevent the deficits the Democrats forced into the economy under his term.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom