Which Party Has Been Obstructing Congress For The Past 6 Years

Will the Democrat's succeed in obstructing the building of Pres. Trump's wall for the next 2 to 6 years? What do you think?

It won’t be just the Democrats. Right now there are 16 states currently suing and more set to sue if Trump taps the federal money meant for them. Then we will see the rancher and farmers sue due to the overreach of his eminent domain usage. If you think Clivon Bundy was bad, imagine a whole state of landholders who bought into the Jade Helm/FEMA camps in closed WalMarts conspiracy theories being told they have to give up valuable grazing/water/planting land to the government! By the time every suit rotates through the courts, appellate courts and quite possibly SCOTUS, which Trump will undoubtedly lose some of the cases, it will be 6 to 10 years before a single shovel breaks ground. Bear in mind, no matter how much he wants to put Goebbels “Tell a lie loud enough and often enough and it becomes the truth” theory to the test, the vanity project is not being built at this time. There is a barrier along much of the border already and people dig under, climb over or swim around it now. His crazy assertion of an ‘invasion’ (a word used by the White Supremacist terrorist who murdered 49 people this past week) of 1 million immigrants (something that his own CBP figures do not support) is something he pulled out of the air. The only humanitarian crisis is of his administration’s making.

Were Democrats obstructionist during George W. Bush's presidency?

Not even a little.The GOP controlled the House of Representatives for the first 6 of Bush's 8 years in office. Under the rules of the House, things a pretty much straight forwardly democratic. The GOP controlled the house for 6 years and nothing anti-Bush ever saw the light of day.In the Senate, it was a little more nuanced. The GOP controlled that house most of the time Bush was in office, but they never had a 60-seat super-majority necessary to overcome a filibuster.But it really didn't matter. It wasn't until Obama took office and the Democrats controlled the Senate for his first two years in office did the GOP break with 200-odd years of tradition and filibuster literally everything. As the Democrats had a majority, but not 60-seats, they controlled all the committees, but it only takes a minority of Senators to require a bill to get 60 seats.As they never had 60 seats, absolutely nothing got done from the minute Obama took office.Before the Democrats lost control of the Senate, they used their majority to change the rules such that routine legislation would not be subject to filibuster (60 votes instead of simply 51). The GOP mocked them, saying they might come to regret surrendering that control, but it really hasn't mattered. Because they know anything reactionary the GOP passes would be vetoed by Obama and they don't have enough votes to override a veto, they have simply done nothing to avoid appearing ineffectual.So the Democrats haven't been obstructive in the Senate like the GOP did because the GOP constrained itself.

Why can Republicans get away with obstructionist tactics, whereas Democrats cannot?

I don’t think it’s that Democrats can’t obstruct and get away with it. After all, 30 years ago, Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-MA) kicked off the modern era of judicial nominations obstruction with his “Robert Bork’s America” speech. And more recently, during the George W. Bush Administration, Democrats - though working from Congressional minorities at the time - managed to kick up such a storm over President Bush’s Social Security reform proposals that they never even came up for a vote in Committee. And that was in 2005. A year later, Democrats rode their opposition to President Bush to majorities in the House and Senate, so they definitely got away with it then!We’ve just concluded an 8-year Democratic Presidency, one that started with unified Democratic control of Congress. Which meant that Democrats were in the position of needing to pass their agenda and Republicans in the position of opposing it. So there’s probably a bit of recency bias here: Republicans spent the Obama Administration opposing his policies (and winning back Congress and the White House while doing it), so one naturally thinks of obstructionism as a tried-and-true Republican tactic.There’s also a bit of a structural point to discuss: in general, Democrats are more likely to want government to take action to combat perceived social problems, while Republicans are more likely to want government not to act. Naturally, obstructionism in Congress is more effective when paired with the latter view.I’m also inclined to think that denouncing obstructionism is a bit too “inside baseball” as a campaign tactic, particularly in the 21st century. Twenty years ago, before the Internet was nearly as prolific, before cable news had taken quite so much hold of politics, and when people generally had fewer media choices, negative ads criticizing a candidate for voting against something were pretty effective. But I’m honestly not sure how good they are at changing voters’ minds anymore. Ohioans were barraged with negative political ads this campaign cycle, mostly from Sec. Clinton’s campaign - yet she still lost the state by 8 points! Consumers have more media choices nowadays than they ever have before, which means they’re easily able to avoid political ads if they’re so inclined.And that’ll make candidates’ (and their consultants’) jobs quite a bit harder in coming election cycles. It’s hard to pitch your views or take down your opponent if you can’t get voters’ attention.

U.S. Economy in 2015: Are Republicans in the US Congress obstructionists?

Yes. They and their predecessors, working most often for smaller government, have for more than two centuries voted against bills they thought would do no good for their country.I hope that we can depend on President Obama not to be an obstructionist, and to sign the Keystone Pipeline legislation. Obviously I hope that he will sign everything that Congress sends him, and by announcing ahead of time that he will do that, I hope he clears the way for the new Republican Congress to get a great deal done.I don't expect that, of course - it's a joke. I expect President Obama to obstruct in every way he can legislation that he believes isn't in the interest of the country, as he sees it.However, I expect Republicans to be more obstructionist in the long haul. Republicans believe that government sometimes causes problems, and that some problems can't be solved by new laws and regulations and most particularly not by new big spending programs. They want a functioning government; they are not anarchists. But they are less likely to think of the Congress that passes the largest number of bills as the best Congress. What is this, piecework?