Do republicans in congress actively try to decrease people's trust in the federal government?

I may have asked this at some point before, I don't really remember, but let me ask very directly, do republicans in congress actively try to decrease people's trust in the federal government?

It's absolutely true that much of the republican base doesn't have much faith in the federal government and wishes to see it's reach be shortened or put another way see the government be shrunk. Supposedly they would like to see more power be then transferred to state governments. With that said do republicans in congress try to make this come true by actively sabotaging federal government programs in an effort to get more people on board with the idea that the federal government should not be trusted?

Also if you are a republican, are you okay with this tactic should it be used?

That is explicitly the case, yes.

More they want to spend money on what benefits themselves........and not the country.

What a stupid question , of course not. That would also be counter-productive since they are the government, so they would work on people distrusting themselves.

But ask some republicans and its the democrats and ask the far-left and its the republicans.

Yes, they most certainly do. You need to understand the the primary goal of a Republican politician it's to unburden the wealthy from taxation and regulation. This is why they are put into office. One way they do this is by defunding government programs so they fail, knowing that their voters are too dumb to put two and two together. When the programs they defund fail, they turn around and say "you see! Government doesn't work."

It's a party of idiots from the top to the bottom.

One thing Republicans do is blame Democrats. Their uneducated fan base believes them. That's why talking heads are so important to that party. You have to brainwash people. Also the wealthy will always vote Republican because they know they will be taken care of by that party. What normal working people need to do is study how policies affect them. But they won't. Easier to believe a talking head that lies through his teeth.

@LJS9502_basic: We just had 8 years of a President who blamed republicans for everything. They both do it, please don't try and say differently.

Bush did **** the country up.........not a lie.

Way to parrot the talking heads, showing just how easy it really is.

Lol basic, not sure if that was humor in ya.

If I were a Republican, I probably would.

Why? Without power it is impossible to establish policy that advantages you and those who share your worldview. As example: How do you keep the immigrants out of California if Californians set their own immigration policy?

Yeah, kinda. I was actually reading this article about how when Democrats were in power every talking point from Republicans was about the deficit. Any time a Democrat proposed something it was "oh, but the deficit!" Now that they theoretically have the votes to pass tax cuts and their plan will probably add to the deficit reporters are asking about their previous statements about the deficit being important. Some of them are outright saying that deficits are important when it comes to Democratic policies and unimportant when it comes to Republican policies. Republicans are modern day sophists, and it works.

Part of the reason it works is because they know how to perpetually portray themselves as victims. Oh, the Democrats are in power? Well they're ruining the country, everything is their fault. Oh, we're in power? Well, everything is the Democrats' fault, they're sabotaging our initiatives. Oh, our tax policies in Kansas are failing miserably? It's because we haven't gotten every little thing we wanted, even though we've gotten 99% of it. It's always the Pelosis, Boxers, and Schumers, who secretly control the power behind every major decision in America, even when we hold all of the legislative power.

And it works. Although Americans distrust Congress at record levels, they trust their own members of Congress in just about opposite proportion. This is a result of political polarization. People aren't necessarily paying attention to what their members of congress are doing, they're paying attention to what they're saying. If congressmen reach their constituents on an emotional level then people just assume it's the nefarious others who don't share their values that are ruining the country.

@theone86: What you're describing in your first paragraph is this.

@mattbbpl: Yeah, assuming all those Republicans are operating on the theory that taxes must be cut to decrease spending. Are they all cutting pork for their own districts, though? Are they voting to cut military spending? Are they even going after medicare? To me, this is basically code for "these programs are hugely popular and they work fairly well, so it's political suicide to vote against them. We don't want to disappoint our donor class, though, so we'll sidestep the whole issue of trying to attack the very popular spending and just peddle pseudo-economics."

@theone86: That strategy isn't an economic one, it's a political one designed to do exactly what you describe - lower tax revenue via tax cuts, increase the deficit, and then, during a Democratic administration, proclaim that the deficit is an issue and that it's due to a "spending problem, not a tax problem."

Rinse and repeat between each election cycle win/loss.

@mattbbpl: Well, I mean in theory the goal is to eventually reduce spending, not just rack up spending when Republicans are in power. Spending is too high, it's too high because we spend money we don't have. If we cut off taxes, we won't be able to use debts as much as we currently do and all spending will decrease. That's the theory, but it holds for Republicans as well, or at least it should.

@theone86: holy shit, welcome back!

The American federal government does a fine job doing that on its own.

@perfect_blue: Thanks, good to be back!

And you think the democrats are any better? when they are in power it's the republicans fault for not wanting to work together, when they are in opposition it's the republicans fault

Also while Republicans remove the filibuster, the democrats want to bring it back, so what does that tell you about how the democrats work....

Couldn't tell you what they say. I don't watch them. Apparently you do. Nonetheless I looked at the state of the country.

Of course. The GOP actively decries the federal government but their voters overwhelming support programs run and funded by it (irony alert).

Yes, they absolutely are better. Democrats don't come out on day one of a Republican presidency and declare it's their number one priority to make the president one term. Democrats don't use committees as political tools to run smear campaigns against Republicans. Democrats don't filibuster every single judicial candidate and prevent a Republican president from appointing a Supreme Court justice in order to turn the judiciary into their partisan tool. Democrats don't run a targeted campaign to control statehouses in census years so that they can redraw the entire electoral map to favor them. Democrats don't expand the power of governors when they're in power, then reduce it to almost nothing when they lose an election.

Do you know what Democrats do? Democrats put Republican proposals in their healthcare legislation in order to start a cross party conversation and get some Republican participation. Democrats reach across the aisle in good faith, even when the other side makes it plain they're not operating in good faith. Democrats put bills through committee and welcome public comments and CBO scores. Democrats have been sticking to the political norms that have prevented Congress from going off the rails, Republicans haven't.

There are plenty of Democrats who want to remove the filibuster, there was a bill introduced a few years back that was only a few votes shy. And if Republicans hate the filibuster so much then why haven't they removed it yet? Why did they employ it in record numbers during Obama's presidency? Oh yeah, that's right, because they only hate these things when they can be used against them, when they're the ones using them it's suddenly A-OK. Like I said, sophists.

Brilliant post. I recommend reading the political brain by weston. It exposes a lot of the plays by both parties

Yes, they have set themselves up as both the victim and the perpetrator. They dont care about their base so much as their bottom line. Its all a facade to keep their uneducated supporters "happy" and point the finger at dems. Trump has been in office for a year and these nitwits are still blaming Obama, you cant argue with that level of stupid. Just point and laugh.

You must be extremely young. I was in my teens when Bush was in office, but everyone could see how atrocious he was(Dick Chaney was the worst). Trump is following to be just as bad....maybe even more.

But your lacking brain wants to continue Obama, eventhough he spent his presidency cleaning up after bush. And the next president will spend his terms cleaning up after trump, and then you idiots will vote in anotther republican and the cycle will continue.

@theone86:

well said, especially on the victim/blame part. Only the GOP will look at a problem and go "It will fix itself, someone else will take care of it". Dems look at it say "We should fix it that". GOP counters with "no you'll just make it worse".

yup. GOP = small government, or they want small government. Ironically their constituents are the people that depend the most on government handouts, they take the most from corporations.

He did not just screw up the country, he literally altered it's trajectory. I mean you can't really say specifically what was going to happen if we didn't get Bush or if 9/11 didn't happen or if we didn't invade Iraq and all that...

...but you can damn well sure say that Bush probably changed the course of the US more than any president in recent history, good or bad, and its influence on world. I am more inclined to say bad. I don't say this to give him credit, I don't think he was really aware of the "big picture" at the time, but the way he changed things is just crazy.

You know how in sci-fi or horror movies you have like the person who can "sense" things, like a force user, and they're like "Oh...wow, dude, I just felt like a huge disturbance, yo" Well they felt that when Bush was president.

Damn now I'm all pissed. Was watching Obama videos last night (I miss that guy) now I'm going back two presidents to another turd, now I'm thinking about our current turd. Blech.

@mrbojangles25: Yes, it all comes full circle and the American people keep falling for the same trap. I wont lie, I think trump will get a second term, that is how low my faith in the American voter is.

I don't actually think he will. Too many scandals and no policies seem to be norm.

Then your ability to mindlessly parrot is even more impressive!

@mrbojangles25: ... Uh corporate democrats support most of the same things as republicans, they are just not as blantant about it.. Take the EPA for instance, as President Obama spouted off about caring for the environment, the EPA was being influenced under his watch by corporations for their own benefit.. The Paris Accord was a toothless display that did absolutely nothing that all the fossil fuel heads supported because it didn't affect them.

Hilary Clinton outside of a few social wedge issues (that she only started supporting relatively recent in her career like gay marriage), was basically a republican deep in the corporate pockets and all in favor of continuing the foreign policy that was started with Bush Jr..

If you keep going "Yeah but Person A does it too, so Person B isn't that bad when he does X, Y, and Z" you're never really going to have a good frame of reference because your standards are always shifting. You will always have to choose the lesser of two evils (hopefully, someday soon, three choices...but still evil)

I mean imagine doing that in real life. Let's say you have a daughter, and I have a daughter. Now these daughters are beautiful and talented, and they're getting to be college-aged and we are thinking about their future. So you, in your wisdom, you decide to encourage your daughter to play sports because she is really good. Sometime she doesn't want to, so you need to pressure her a little bit, but deep down you know she likes it and in the end it will get her a college scholarship and ultimately be for her benefit.

My daughter is also beautiful and talented. But instead of encouraging her natural atheleticism, I decide to pimp her out to all my friends and charge them money. I collect this money and then store it away for her college fun. She comes home crying but I say it's OK, it will be over in a couple years, and it's all for the greater good and she will go to college.

You see the difference? In one example, you whore your daughter out just a tiny little bit. You make her do something she doesn't want to do but it's good for her and good for you; she might never even touch a basketball after college because she is so sick of the sport and suffers some mild psychological issues from all your badgering and might resent you for it, but damn is she thankful for your support and that degree.. In the other example, I whore my daughter out a lot and it's good for me and not really good for my daughter; hell she might go to college and still not amount to anything.

But no, it's not that bad, because we both whored our daughters out, doesn't matter to what degree. People will be like "Hey did you hear that guy down the street whored his daughter out to all his friends?" and some other guy will be like "Yeah I heard another dad whored his daughter out for basketball" and it's like whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa?! Not the same NOT THE SAME AT ALL!

TL;DR: I guess what I am getting at is this: you can't say Obama is as bad a Trump because he sold a bit of the EPA to some corporations when Trump literally hired the EPA's equivalent of the antichrist to head the EPA

Yes and by choosing the lesser of two years for years we were faced with the choice of Hillary Clinton and Trump, two of the worse candidates in history.

I'm sorry, but the idea that getting every country on board (with the exception of one) with set goals on mitigating Climate Change isn't toothless. It may not be enough, but it's the single most important step the world has ever taken to deal with climate change. Before that there was simply no global plan whatsoever.

It was a toothless plan that all the fossil fuel industries supported, you know the group that would be hit hardest from this economically.. It was a empty promise there just to keep the environmentalist happy, it didn't actually do anything substantial.. Meanwhile Clinton, the person President Obama supported, was pro fracking.. One of the most destructive practices to the environment.. And the so called pro environmental party candidate was for it.

In history? I know American history is pretty short but I don't think Clinton is one of the worst in history. Maybe one of the most underwhelming, but worst? Trump...too early to tell.

But agree with you on the "choosing the two" part, it'd be nice if we had more viable choices. Or people realized we did. My parents still think I'm throwing my vote away when I vote third party.

@Mercenary848: I brought up Obama because he always blamed repubs. Constantly. I also pointed out they all did it.

Also, I have never seen anyone, well one other, who has such low self esteem that they feel the need to constantly try and belittle everyone else. You want to have discussions, that's fine. But grow up.

If coming up with a plan that the fossil fuel industry supports is your measurment of "toothless" then sure it's toothless. On the other hand it made the situation better by essentially getting the world at large to agree to collectively work together to mitigate climate change, and you can see many countries working towards the goal of C02 emition reduction and elimination by switching to clean energy who were not doing so before the agreement.

The idea that this isn't an improvement or is toothless is silly in my opinion.

@Serraph105: This thread illustrates the pitfalls of the all-or-nothing mentality quite well. And right now the SC looks like it will deal a strong blow to US unions, which likely wouldn't occur if the Republicans hadn't gotten to nominate Gorsuch to the SC.

If you choose to sacrifice the better because it isn't perfect, the door is left open for the worse (or nothing, in the case above).

@Chutebox: can you give examples, or are you just regurgitating propaganda?

Also what does self-esteem have to do with anything. You spout nonsense.

@Mercenary848: Dude, all you do is try and insult others to try and make yourself feel better about yourself. It's pretty clear.

You really need me to dig up all the instances trump, obama, dems, and Republicans blamed the other party?

Can you dig one up where it wasn't the fault of the republicans? Don't get me wrong, Obama blamed Bush for the shitty economy and the republicans for filibustering plenty of times, but did he blame them for shit that wasn't actually their fault? It may have been tiring to hear about if you side with republicans more so than democrats, but people should credit a person for their own actions.

@Serraph105: Well, I'm not going to look through all that. But whether it's based on fact or blaming someone for making terrible decisions, I've seen them all do it and it's childish to me.

Why should anyone be held responsible for the actions of another if it's a fact that it wasn't their fault? It's far more childish to blame someone else in my opinion.

@Serraph105: I didn't say that. I'm saying it's childish because it does nothing. One side will agree while the other side will throw their hands in the air and cry victim. It's tiring.

When, exactly, did President Obama blame Republicans?

@theone86: I'm assuming you mean besides all the times he blamed the Republican president before him?

Sorry, on phone. https://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2010/08/02/obama-blames-bush-and-gop/

I'll be more than happy to csrry this on tomorrow morning though. It's late haha

@kittennose: he's not parroting the talking heads, he's just telling the truth, something you may be allergic to.

Difference between truth or lies though.