Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Community > MacNN Lounge > Political/War Lounge > Debt ceiling: blame

Debt ceiling: blame (Page 4)
Thread Tools
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 13, 2013, 04:26 PM
 
"Stuff needs to be done"? Unfortunately, the "stuff" he wants to do is often bad for the country's economy. He's not the typical "liberal", but more of a darker shade of Bush (neo-con), which we didn't need.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 13, 2013, 04:27 PM
 
Originally Posted by Shaddim View Post
"He's not the typical "liberal", but more of a darker shade of Bush (neo-con), which we didn't need.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 13, 2013, 04:58 PM
 
For an example you don't even have to go past Obamacare, which began as one thing and basically ended up as Republican legislation very similar to legislation passed by the Republican nominee. Yet Republicans still cry fowl over Obamacare as if it is some evil disease despite it basically being all about private insurance, what Republicans have always preferred, plus a few concessions for pre-existing conditions and students being on their parents plan which many Republicans even seem to like.

I simply cannot process this alternate reality where first term Obama was my way or the highway. That is all kinds of reality distortion.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 13, 2013, 05:03 PM
 
Originally Posted by Shaddim View Post
"Stuff needs to be done"? Unfortunately, the "stuff" he wants to do is often bad for the country's economy. He's not the typical "liberal", but more of a darker shade of Bush (neo-con), which we didn't need.

On civil liberties, yes. On the economy he has taken a mixed approach, and likewise for social issues.

Left/right labels don't seem to serve Obama well. I think he's pretty sincere when he says that he is interested in working with the best ideas, whatever they are, regardless of where they come from. The problem with his first term is that Congress largely wasn't terribly interested in putting forth good ideas, they were simply interested in seeing Obama fail, and where good ideas existed they were drowned and overlooked by the rest of the party just trying to bide their time until 2013.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 13, 2013, 09:04 PM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
Who said I was talking about skin tone?
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 13, 2013, 10:00 PM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
This paragraph is staggering.
Staggering? That's a little over the top isn't it?

For example, our perceptions couldn't be more different. Shocked? I'm not. People disagree. Debate is a worthy and necessary endeavor. When "I disagree" becomes, "filibuster threat!", you have gridlock. But that's not necessarily bad as I told Dakar and gridlock itself is nothing new.

Obama's current tactics are an adjustment to his failed first term tactics in which he tried to reach out and compromise with a Congress on a whole range of issues that was taking a "my way or the highway" approach and was more interested in seeing Obama fail than it was getting stuff done.
Are you going to try to tell me there weren't Democrats, in leadership, that wanted Bush to fail? I think this is small-ball. A President has to rise above it, not succumb to and perpetuate cynicism by suggesting that this antagonism is somehow uniquely Republican or recent to his Presidency. If by tactics you mean bribing politicians and Unions with waivers from his signature legislation and kickbacks behind closed doors, yes. Failure? No, it worked and "This is a big f___ing deal!" remember? It's not as if the Senate has fallen in lock-step behind him either. Why? Because his policies are contentious. This is simply factual whether you agree with the policies or not. Immigration and welfare reform can be handled by executive order as will gun control which is effective because you save a lot of people (D's) from having to put their names on things. I suspect we'll see an unprecedented number of executive orders before Obama leaves office. Otherwise, we've got budgeting problems out of the Obama Administration and the Senate (sometimes between the two) and there aren't any Tea-parties or Republicans behind those failures.

Stuff needs to get done. It is perfectly understandable that Obama would be taking this tone now given his experience over the last four years. Maybe he'll revert back to being willing to compromise if Congress shows that they are interested in being productive.
This is not a new tone and productive is subjective, always has been.
ebuddy
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 13, 2013, 11:32 PM
 
ebuddy: how many of these last minute "deals" such as the fiscal cliff did we have under Bush? Name some compromises the Republicans made in Obama's first term, and I'm sure we'll have no problems topping your list with the compromises the Democrats made in both quantity and magnitude.

Don't do the false equivalency thing here.
     
Senior User
Join Date: May 2009
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 14, 2013, 03:56 AM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
Don't do the false equivalency thing here.
Sometimes all you can do is laugh and
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 14, 2013, 07:35 AM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
ebuddy: how many of these last minute "deals" such as the fiscal cliff did we have under Bush? Name some compromises the Republicans made in Obama's first term, and I'm sure we'll have no problems topping your list with the compromises the Democrats made in both quantity and magnitude.
When is the last time we've dealt with these kinds of numbers? I'm not playing a "who compromises more" game as I've already indicated what you get with compromise. Your party's willingness to compromise has lead to a continued erosion of civil liberties, exploding debt and deficits, unprovoked military action, Gitmo remaining open, rendition continues, warrantless wiretapping, Drone attacks on American citizens, corporate croneyism, etc...

I don't think checks and balances are worth a hill of beans if "check" becomes somehow immoral. What is immoral is failing to accept the foundation of our system by continuing to play an end-around against it.

Don't do the false equivalency thing here.
False equivalency thing? I don't know, name another President who has submitted a budget late as frequently as Obama has done? Name the last time the White House Press Secretary accused the other party of wanting to "blow up the economy" or framed them as terrorists? The President. Deficits regularly exceeding a trillion dollars? When is the last time a Senate majority leader refused to even bring an appropriations bill to the floor of the Senate? When's the last time we've had a single piece of legislation, admittedly unread -- that meddles with more than a 6th of GDP? Or the last time a sitting President used his pulpit to publicly deride Justices of the Supreme Court for not seeing things his way? Or taken unprecedented action in revoking previously issued coal permits without explanation or laid moratoriums on domestic commerce or abuse recess appointment powers while Congress is in session? When you repeatedly abuse your office in an unprecedented way running an end-around the separation of powers and the legislative process while bringing your views to the American public in such a divisive manner, you will be met with skepticism and opposition. Compromise is how we got here and compromise among Democrats - no republicans at all - is how we ended up with legislation like the ACA that looks like a Barbi doll head on a stuffed alligator.
ebuddy
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 14, 2013, 07:38 AM
 
Calling all progressives:

Originally Posted by anyonearguingebuddy
ppppbbbbbblllllllttttttt
Originally Posted by screener
yeah, what he said!
ebuddy
     
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 14, 2013, 08:49 AM
 
Originally Posted by Shaddim View Post
Who said I was talking about skin tone?
I was hoping the joke gif would indicate it wasn't a serious accusation. I figure at worst you chose that wording on purpose as a joke on top of your opinion.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 14, 2013, 01:33 PM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
When is the last time we've dealt with these kinds of numbers? I'm not playing a "who compromises more" game as I've already indicated what you get with compromise. Your party's willingness to compromise has lead to a continued erosion of civil liberties, exploding debt and deficits, unprovoked military action, Gitmo remaining open, rendition continues, warrantless wiretapping, Drone attacks on American citizens, corporate croneyism, etc...

I don't think checks and balances are worth a hill of beans if "check" becomes somehow immoral. What is immoral is failing to accept the foundation of our system by continuing to play an end-around against it.


False equivalency thing? I don't know, name another President who has submitted a budget late as frequently as Obama has done? Name the last time the White House Press Secretary accused the other party of wanting to "blow up the economy" or framed them as terrorists? The President. Deficits regularly exceeding a trillion dollars? When is the last time a Senate majority leader refused to even bring an appropriations bill to the floor of the Senate? When's the last time we've had a single piece of legislation, admittedly unread -- that meddles with more than a 6th of GDP? Or the last time a sitting President used his pulpit to publicly deride Justices of the Supreme Court for not seeing things his way? Or taken unprecedented action in revoking previously issued coal permits without explanation or laid moratoriums on domestic commerce or abuse recess appointment powers while Congress is in session? When you repeatedly abuse your office in an unprecedented way running an end-around the separation of powers and the legislative process while bringing your views to the American public in such a divisive manner, you will be met with skepticism and opposition. Compromise is how we got here and compromise among Democrats - no republicans at all - is how we ended up with legislation like the ACA that looks like a Barbi doll head on a stuffed alligator.


Deflect much?
     
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Maryland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 14, 2013, 01:38 PM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
Deflect much?
The irony.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 14, 2013, 01:40 PM
 
Here we go again... Everything is ironic on the internet, didn't you get the memo?
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 14, 2013, 01:47 PM
 
I'm not interested in playing the "who is worse" game either. I was hoping that my "come up with a list" challenge was a hypothetical one, and the point of saying that is to rebuke this silly notion that the Republicans have been interested in compromising. You've deflected that point by saying "you know what you get with compromise", so it sounds like you aren't interested in defending your own point?

If compromise is bad and what the Democrats want is most certainly bad, I guess the only solution in your mind is for the Democrats to go "okay guys, you know best, you call the shots and we'll just go along"?
     
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 14, 2013, 01:51 PM
 
FYI, ebuddy, I am working on a response to the post from the last page. Just taking my time and trying to bring more resolution and substance to it than most.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 14, 2013, 03:01 PM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
Deflect much?
That's it? Most of his points are entirely valid, yet you continue to support said *********gery? "But look at Bush!" If you all are still comparing Obama to that wanker, then the enormity of his failure is beyond reckoning.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 14, 2013, 03:04 PM
 
Originally Posted by Shaddim View Post
That's it? Most of his points are entirely valid, yet you continue to support said *********gery? "But look at Bush!" If you all are still comparing Obama to that wanker, then the enormity of his failure is beyond reckoning.

The vast majority of his points address civil liberties, which I've never defended Obama for.
     
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Maryland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 14, 2013, 03:34 PM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
The vast majority of his points address civil liberties, which I've never defended Obama for.
Really? I see more points about the economy and contentious executive actions regarding business than civil liberties.

Here. I'll repost omitting the civil liberties ones for you.

Originally Posted by ebuddy
When is the last time we've dealt with these kinds of numbers? I'm not playing a "who compromises more" game as I've already indicated what you get with compromise. Your party's willingness to compromise has lead to a continued erosion of civil liberties, exploding debt and deficits, unprovoked military action, Gitmo remaining open, rendition continues, warrantless wiretapping, Drone attacks on American citizens, corporate croneyism, etc...

I don't think checks and balances are worth a hill of beans if "check" becomes somehow immoral. What is immoral is failing to accept the foundation of our system by continuing to play an end-around against it.

False equivalency thing? I don't know, name another President who has submitted a budget late as frequently as Obama has done? Name the last time the White House Press Secretary accused the other party of wanting to "blow up the economy" or framed them as terrorists? The President. Deficits regularly exceeding a trillion dollars? When is the last time a Senate majority leader refused to even bring an appropriations bill to the floor of the Senate? When's the last time we've had a single piece of legislation, admittedly unread -- that meddles with more than a 6th of GDP? Or the last time a sitting President used his pulpit to publicly deride Justices of the Supreme Court for not seeing things his way? Or taken unprecedented action in revoking previously issued coal permits without explanation or laid moratoriums on domestic commerce or abuse recess appointment powers while Congress is in session? When you repeatedly abuse your office in an unprecedented way running an end-around the separation of powers and the legislative process while bringing your views to the American public in such a divisive manner, you will be met with skepticism and opposition. Compromise is how we got here and compromise among Democrats - no republicans at all - is how we ended up with legislation like the ACA that looks like a Barbi doll head on a stuffed alligator.
There, I struckout the civil liberties portions for you. Care to give it another go?
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 14, 2013, 03:38 PM
 
Originally Posted by Snow-i View Post
Really? I see more points about the economy and contentious executive actions regarding business than civil liberties.

Here. I'll repost omitting the civil liberties ones for you.



There, I struckout the civil liberties portions for you. Care to give it another go?

Gitmo remaining open and rendition are also civil liberties issues, and I have responded to ebuddy already:

I'm not interested in playing the "who is worse" game either. I was hoping that my "come up with a list" challenge was a hypothetical one, and the point of saying that is to rebuke this silly notion that the Republicans have been interested in compromising. You've deflected that point by saying "you know what you get with compromise", so it sounds like you aren't interested in defending your own point?

If compromise is bad and what the Democrats want is most certainly bad, I guess the only solution in your mind is for the Democrats to go "okay guys, you know best, you call the shots and we'll just go along"?
This was the point I was making in this specific instance, that was it. I'm not interested in being pulled into another debate about the righteousness of Obama's handling of the economy or anything other than what I've written about compromise, or lack thereof.
     
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Maryland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 14, 2013, 03:42 PM
 
Originally Posted by screener View Post
Besson covered the "party of stupid" label.
Not my fault you didn't know where it came from.
Fox didn't cover it?
My point about you adding absolutely nothing to conversation with hit and run potshots with PR terms still stands.
     
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Maryland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 14, 2013, 03:44 PM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
Gitmo remaining open and rendition are also civil liberties issues, and I have responded to ebuddy already:



This was the point I was making in this specific instance, that was it. I'm not interested in being pulled into another debate about the righteousness of Obama's handling of the economy or anything other than what I've written about compromise, or lack thereof.
Deflect much? You still haven't addressed any of his points in response to your narrowly defined "interests".
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 14, 2013, 04:13 PM
 
Originally Posted by Snow-i View Post
Deflect much? You still haven't addressed any of his points in response to your narrowly defined "interests".

Okay, so you have an issue with my deflection of ebuddy's original deflection?

What I did wasn't a deflection, it was shining the light back on my original point and the original deflection, avoiding an endless deflection loop. What I did in preventing that infinite deflection loop probably also prevented some blackholes and cross-dimension asteroids from hitting the moon, or something, so you're welcome.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 14, 2013, 04:15 PM
 
Screener: these guys do have a point, your posts are generally consistently snipey.
     
Senior User
Join Date: May 2009
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 15, 2013, 03:38 AM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
Screener: these guys do have a point, your posts are generally consistently snipey.
If it walks like a duck, I pull out my six shooter and let loose.
Sometimes long winded posts are tiresome, especially ebuddy's .
Really?, Obama is at fault for republican obstructionism?
I give you credit for trying, you have more patience than I do.

By the way, I post in the threads where "stupid" shows it's ridiculous face.

Snow-i,
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 15, 2013, 03:44 AM
 
Originally Posted by screener View Post
If it walks like a duck, I pull out my six shooter and let loose.
Sometimes long winded posts are tiresome, especially ebuddy's .
Really?, Obama is at fault for republican obstructionism?
I give you credit for trying, you have more patience than I do.

By the way, I post in the threads where "stupid" shows it's ridiculous face.

Snow-i,

It is usually a good idea to not have a grammatical error one word away from calling somebody stupid.
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 15, 2013, 07:01 AM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
FYI, ebuddy, I am working on a response to the post from the last page. Just taking my time and trying to bring more resolution and substance to it than most.
No problem Dakar, I'm looking forward to it. And for what it's worth, the joke gif had me on the floor. It's not often I sit by myself, laughing out loud, but there you have it.
ebuddy
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 15, 2013, 07:19 AM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
This was the point I was making in this specific instance, that was it. I'm not interested in being pulled into another debate about the righteousness of Obama's handling of the economy or anything other than what I've written about compromise, or lack thereof.
All I'm saying is the higher the stakes, the more contentious the politics; the less apt the opposition will be toward compromise... and that's not always a bad thing. Democrats came very close to stopping Obama on the ACA, but eventually relented to party pressure. I don't think compromise is always a good thing. Silence on any number of things they've historically opposed is a sort of compromise that has lead to a continued erosion of civil liberties and I don't see this as a good thing. Compromise gives the impression of progress when there are too many instances where compromise wasn't progress at all. Sequestration was a compromise for example.

It's not a deflection, it's an observation and a worthy grievance if I might say so myself.
ebuddy
     
Senior User
Join Date: May 2009
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 15, 2013, 01:24 PM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
It is usually a good idea to not have a grammatical error one word away from calling somebody stupid.
Geezuz h cristuz.
     
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Maryland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 15, 2013, 01:28 PM
 
Originally Posted by screener View Post
If it walks like a duck, I pull out my six shooter and let loose.
Sometimes long winded posts are tiresome, especially ebuddy's .
Really?, Obama is at fault for republican obstructionism?
I give you credit for trying, you have more patience than I do.

By the way, I post in the threads where "stupid" shows it's ridiculous face.

Snow-i,
Do you have anything of value to add to the conversation? Care to discuss the topic the rest of us are discussing? No? Didn't think so, back to ignore for you.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 15, 2013, 02:10 PM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
All I'm saying is the higher the stakes, the more contentious the politics; the less apt the opposition will be toward compromise... and that's not always a bad thing. Democrats came very close to stopping Obama on the ACA, but eventually relented to party pressure. I don't think compromise is always a good thing. Silence on any number of things they've historically opposed is a sort of compromise that has lead to a continued erosion of civil liberties and I don't see this as a good thing. Compromise gives the impression of progress when there are too many instances where compromise wasn't progress at all. Sequestration was a compromise for example.

It's not a deflection, it's an observation and a worthy grievance if I might say so myself.

Even if you felt this way, one could make the case that the Republicans have been unwilling to compromise even on relatively unimportant issues.
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 15, 2013, 06:25 PM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
Even if you felt this way, one could make the case that the Republicans have been unwilling to compromise even on relatively unimportant issues.
Such as?
ebuddy
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 15, 2013, 06:33 PM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
Such as?

How about higher than average percentage of blocked appointments? Do Republicans really care that much about who is running the US Fish and Wildlife service, for example?
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 15, 2013, 07:26 PM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
How about higher than average percentage of blocked appointments? Do Republicans really care that much about who is running the US Fish and Wildlife service, for example?
I don't recall this, do you have a link?
ebuddy
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 15, 2013, 10:41 PM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
I don't recall this, do you have a link?
The Most Important Nominations Held Up by GOP Senators | The Nation
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 16, 2013, 09:09 AM
 
This reminds me of a FB post I saw recently from a friend of mine who along with many others I'm afraid -- have only recently availed themselves of the political process since Obama took office. She said; "did you see that smug look on Boehner's face during the State of the Union Address?!?" and another friend of ours piped up; "they just hate black people." Okay... they've obviously never watched a State of the Union address before. Boehner maintained a very deliberate poker-face throughout and was actually quite gracious to the President. What they're referring to is the practice of remaining seated on points you may not agree with while others from the President's side of the aisle take to their feet; an ancient practice that again -- they just don't know about and so therefore, it must be because they hate the black President.

Democrats threatened to hold not some, but all of Bush's Executive appointees on at least two occasions; one being a threat to block all appointments unless $6 billion was authorized for a comprehensive levee, flood control and coastal restoration program in Louisiana. Again, having nothing to do with the quality of the nominee. Democrats kept Congress open pro-forma to ensure Bush would not use recess appointment -- look familiar? In fact, you'll see quite a lengthy list of stalled, blocked or filibustered Bush judicial nominees. As of March 2012, the Senate confirmed more of Obama's nominees than it had in Bush's second term 129-120. According to this Congressional record taken in December of 2011, Harry Reid gave kudos to the Senate for "doing a good job" on Judicial appointments while other Democrats maintained that the President "doesn't have standing to complain about Judicial vacancies" because of his lack of making names available for those empty posts. Democrats held up more than 200 Bush administration executive and judicial branch nominations, including those from the Federal Communications Commission, the Federal Election Commission, Office of Legal Counsel at the Justice Department, and the National Labor Relations Board. In Bush's 8 years in office, he created 33 czar titles and Obama in 4 years has created an unprecedented 38. Even so, the Senate has only failed to confirm 5 more of them than the Senate failed to confirm during Bush's two terms in spite of the fact that Obama is creating these new posts at more than double the pace of his predecessor.

Though I cannot find a specific percentage of total blocked posts as your article had done, I have no reason to believe their rate of denial is unprecedented. In short, the more you read of the processes used to block Bush appointments, the more glaring the hypocrisy of this complaint today.

Otherwise, why shouldn't Republicans hold up an appointment to the US Fish and Wildlife service that hasn't had a Director in more than 7 years and wants to make unused land entirely unavailable for energy exploration?
ebuddy
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 16, 2013, 09:24 AM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
This reminds me of a FB post I saw recently from a friend of mine who along with many others I'm afraid -- have only recently availed themselves of the political process since Obama took office. She said; "did you see that smug look on Boehner's face during the State of the Union Address?!?" and another friend of ours piped up; "they just hate black people." Okay... they've obviously never watched a State of the Union address before. Boehner maintained a very deliberate poker-face throughout and was actually quite gracious to the President. What they're referring to is the practice of remaining seated on points you may not agree with while others from the President's side of the aisle take to their feet; an ancient practice that again -- they just don't know about and so therefore, it must be because they hate the black President.

Democrats threatened to hold not some, but all of Bush's Executive appointees on at least two occasions; one being a threat to block all appointments unless $6 billion was authorized for a comprehensive levee, flood control and coastal restoration program in Louisiana. Again, having nothing to do with the quality of the nominee. Democrats kept Congress open pro-forma to ensure Bush would not use recess appointment -- look familiar? In fact, you'll see quite a lengthy list of stalled, blocked or filibustered Bush judicial nominees. As of March 2012, the Senate confirmed more of Obama's nominees than it had in Bush's second term 129-120. According to this Congressional record taken in December of 2011, Harry Reid gave kudos to the Senate for "doing a good job" on Judicial appointments while other Democrats maintained that the President "doesn't have standing to complain about Judicial vacancies" because of his lack of making names available for those empty posts. Democrats held up more than 200 Bush administration executive and judicial branch nominations, including those from the Federal Communications Commission, the Federal Election Commission, Office of Legal Counsel at the Justice Department, and the National Labor Relations Board. In Bush's 8 years in office, he created 33 czar titles and Obama in 4 years has created an unprecedented 38. Even so, the Senate has only failed to confirm 5 more of them than the Senate failed to confirm during Bush's two terms in spite of the fact that Obama is creating these new posts at more than double the pace of his predecessor.

Though I cannot find a specific percentage of total blocked posts as your article had done, I have no reason to believe their rate of denial is unprecedented. In short, the more you read of the processes used to block Bush appointments, the more glaring the hypocrisy of this complaint today.

Otherwise, why shouldn't Republicans hold up an appointment to the US Fish and Wildlife service that hasn't had a Director in more than 7 years and wants to make unused land entirely unavailable for energy exploration?


So why is it that when people on the left bring up the Bush administration your attitude is that what Obama is doing is inexcusable because you can't live in the past and he should be responsible for what exists in the present, yet here you are giving the Republicans a free pass because of what occurred in the past?
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 16, 2013, 04:45 PM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
So why is it that when people on the left bring up the Bush administration your attitude is that what Obama is doing is inexcusable because you can't live in the past and he should be responsible for what exists in the present, yet here you are giving the Republicans a free pass because of what occurred in the past?
You're the one who brought up the "higher than average percentage of blocked appointments" angle. If you don't look at the past, how can you figure an average?
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 16, 2013, 05:27 PM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
So why is it that when people on the left bring up the Bush administration your attitude is that what Obama is doing is inexcusable because you can't live in the past and he should be responsible for what exists in the present, yet here you are giving the Republicans a free pass because of what occurred in the past?
The entire crux of our conversation had been on precedent. Giving them a pass? I was congratulating them on blocking the US Fish and Wildlife Service appointment based on the information in the link you provided. I did this in context of indicating why it is people believe the Republicans are being unfair. They don't know what unfair is because they've only just now begun paying a modicum of attention to the political process and lack perspective.
ebuddy
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 16, 2013, 07:49 PM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
The entire crux of our conversation had been on precedent. Giving them a pass? I was congratulating them on blocking the US Fish and Wildlife Service appointment based on the information in the link you provided. I did this in context of indicating why it is people believe the Republicans are being unfair. They don't know what unfair is because they've only just now begun paying a modicum of attention to the political process and lack perspective.

No, our entire conversation was not on precedent.

You claimed that Obama's approach has been a "my-way-or-the-highway" approach, inferring that he was been unwilling to compromise. My point is that it was the Republicans who have been unwilling to compromise.

You deflected this by saying that not compromising is not necessarily a bad thing, which of course still doesn't change the fact that the Republicans have been unwilling to compromise, it just deflects the focus of this argument elsewhere.

I pointed out that if you felt that way about compromise, it still doesn't change the fact that Republicans can been unwilling to compromise even on relatively unimportant issues. You asked for an example, I gave you one.

Now you are shifting this argument to be about precedent, and you are further deflecting the argument by saying that they should be congratulated by blocking 20% of the appointees, including this one (an argument I'll never understand given that we have far more important problems to solve other than who gets to be the fish guy). Precedent is irrelevant, unless you are okay with me hauling our arguments about the precedent that Bush era policies set - a tactic that you seem to despise. What I'm arguing about is the here and now, the 20% blocking (which is clearly documented as a high). It doesn't matter whether you think this blocking was appropriate, it matters that it exists, and it supports my argument.

This is of course one example of lacking compromise, there are many other examples one can make, but I'm not going to make other examples at offering any, because it seems like you are more interested in deflecting and distorting truths rather than admitting that perhaps you were wrong on this point. I feel that you probably agree with me, because you are trying to twist this into the righteousness of non-compromise in these instances, rather than the question of whether compromise was made or not.

Do you still feel that Obama has been the one unwilling to compromise?
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 17, 2013, 09:45 AM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
Do you still feel that Obama has been the one unwilling to compromise?
You're still missing the point. There are three primary reasons why Republicans seem unwilling to compromise and I've been very consistent here. They are as follows;
  1. For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction. I maintain this President and related policy agendas are highly contentious which begets a highly motivated, opposite reaction. It only follows logically. If you're going to insist that the measures Republicans have taken are somehow above average in hostility, show me some solid evidence that they're not simply responding to above average hostility. Your argument began to break down under a more thorough examination of the evidence, that's all.
  2. The use of legislative tactics such as cloture have been used to demagogue Republicans with an offensive posture of filibustering instead of the truth which is that Republicans are in an unmistakably defensive posture and are responding to the policies and legislation laid out before them. If "I disagree" always equals "FILIBUSTER THREAT!" bringing an end to all debate through cloture... well then that's a cloture problem and has nothing to do with some unprecedented, hostile Republican abuse of the political process. Otherwise, people in government will disagree as they always have.
  3. Too many people who espouse the narrative you're trailing here lack perspective because they have only begun paying close attention to the political process since Obama took office and interpret what has always been a tough game as somehow uniquely personal against Obama the man, instead of Obama the politician. This is the only reason someone would make the point you're making with the US Fish and Wildlife Service appointment as a close examination of the evidence suggests that hostile Democrats throughout history have held up appointments based on far less relevant political positions than what was offered of Republican opposition to such a seemingly unimportant post. Why is this important now you ask? Good question... the post hasn't had a Director in 7 years so you'll have to ask Obama, but I can tell you the one Obama appointed would seek to make unused land entirely unavailable for energy exploration which of course, as you know is going to be a major point of contention between politicians. See point #1.

BTW, your memory fails you.
Originally Posted by besson
ebuddy: how many of these last minute "deals" such as the fiscal cliff did we have under Bush?
Do you still need to know how it is Bush came up or are you going to acknowledge that as usual, we're discussing what you seemingly wanted to discuss until you could no longer address the litany of facts against your argument. Facts I gave you in response such as unprecedented, repeatedly late budget submissions, accusations of "terrorism" for political opposition, deficits regularly exceeding a trillion dollars, an outright refusal to bring appropriations bills to the Senate floor, a single piece of legislation that meddles in more than a 6th of GDP, public derision of Supreme Court Justices, revoking energy development licenses without cause, moratoriums on energy development without cause, and abuses of recess appointments while Congress remains in session. These all feed into point #1, but you don't want to accept facts -- you want to maintain that Republicans are interested in destroying the country because they don't like Obama, the man. That's just silliness founded on a basic lack of knowledge around the history of our political process.

My broader point on compromise is that it's not always a good thing. Compromise is how any number of things for which you and I oppose, came into existence. It was merely to provide some perspective, not to deflect or redirect the conversation as I have otherwise been very consistent on the three main points above that you've been struggling to address.
ebuddy
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 17, 2013, 10:14 AM
 
Do I still feel that Obama has been the one unwilling to compromise?

Obama has compromised to the extent that it would bolster his chance of winning a second term in office, not unlike his Republican counterparts. On those matters not available to the public eye for a host of reasons throughout his first term, Obama has been entirely unwilling to compromise and now that maintaining office is no longer a concern, it follows that he would be even less willing to compromise. Yes.

As an aside to address some earlier points -- some have maintained that Obama's health care insurance overhaul is a Republican idea. That's ignorant. There had been proposals from conservative think-tanks dating back to the 80's under a system that looks little like our system today -- for mandatory catastrophic care exclusively and had nothing to do with the massive overhaul that is the Affordable Healthcare Act including the creation of exchanges for the untold millions of uninsured refugees who will be dumped into the exchanges managed by the Centralized authority like a public utility in making the government the insurer's consumer, not the patient. It also didn't try to mitigate the damage of its own creation by mandating a tax penalty for comprehensive care. For starters.

Trust me, this is no conservative dream or Republican contrivance regardless of whatever it was you read in a New York Times opinion piece.
ebuddy
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 17, 2013, 11:43 PM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
Do I still feel that Obama has been the one unwilling to compromise?

Obama has compromised to the extent that it would bolster his chance of winning a second term in office, not unlike his Republican counterparts. On those matters not available to the public eye for a host of reasons throughout his first term, Obama has been entirely unwilling to compromise and now that maintaining office is no longer a concern, it follows that he would be even less willing to compromise. Yes.

What issues has Obama been entirely unwilling to compromise on?
     
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Maryland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 18, 2013, 12:23 AM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
What issues has Obama been entirely unwilling to compromise on?
Healthcare.
Taxing the rich.
Taxing the poor (via healthcare).
Taxing businesses, all of them.
The deficit.
The debt.
Drone strikes on American citizens.
Government spending.
Government expansion.
Being honest and transparent about Benghazi.
Appointing Czars with no congressional oversight.
Submitting a budget on time.

The list goes on. It'd be a much shorter list if you could demonstrate examples of him compromising. It doesn't count if he had no other choice because of political opposition.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 18, 2013, 01:24 AM
 
Originally Posted by Snow-i View Post
Healthcare.
Not true. The final Obamacare was absolutely nothing like the original one proposed that he really wanted.

Taxing the rich.
This is not entirely true, he compromised on upping the bracket in which one is considered rich

Taxing the poor (via healthcare).
Taxing businesses, all of them.
The deficit.
The debt
Government spending.
Government expansion.
You'll have to be more specific here.

Drone strikes on American citizens.
What legislation has existed that would define these boundaries better?

Being honest and transparent about Benghazi.
Okay.

Appointing Czars with no congressional oversight.
I don't see how he has much of a choice in this matter given that 20% of them have been blocked by the Republican senate.

Submitting a budget on time.
Okay, although to be fair, this is also the job of congress.

The list goes on. It'd be a much shorter list if you could demonstrate examples of him compromising. It doesn't count if he had no other choice because of political opposition.
Why doesn't it count? It counts if legislation was ultimately passed rather than blocked outright. If this doesn't count, the only legislation that would be fair game as per your criteria would be legislation that the Republicans choose to find zero fault in, which is unrealistic since there are obvious ideological differences, and political games to be played.
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 18, 2013, 07:10 AM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
Not true. The final Obamacare was absolutely nothing like the original one proposed that he really wanted.
There isn't a single Republican proposal in it. What you're talking about is the fact that he didn't get an outright single-payer scheme, but it was Senate Democrats that stopped this and several of them had to be strong-armed by their ilk and bribed by the President to support even the current manifestation of the ACA such as the Cornhusker Kickback and waivers to Unions -- all behind closed doors I might add. That's right about the time Pelosi was running around talking about having to pass it to know what's in it. Republicans wanted a means of purchasing insurance across state lines - denied.

This is not entirely true, he compromised on upping the bracket in which one is considered rich
Again, this was compromise with Democrats. Republicans didn't want any tax increases remember? They finally relented to tax increases based on a number of spending cuts, but Obama delivered on none of them which is why when the debt ceiling negotiations came up, Republicans decided to play hardball... before compromising and increasing the debt ceiling. The problem was that Schumer and others supported the cutoff at one million dollars (Biden gaffed as much as if he wasn't aware of the President's plan) which fit more neatly in the President's narrative about "millionaires" when in fact the original proposal was on those @ $250k, now at $400k. What spending cut accompanied this tax increase? A dollar amount in cuts-to-revenue was agreed upon between Boehner and Obama and at the last minute Obama reneged by upping the revenue piece. Republicans requested a cap on spending - denied. They requested entitlement reforms - denied. They requested a balanced budget amendment - denied.

*Edited to add
Okay, although to be fair, [the budget] is also the job of congress.
No. The entire process begins with the President submitting a budget to Congress and the House and Senate subsequently author budget resolutions around the President's requested budget. This process has been broken since 2009 and there isn't a single Republican behind this failure.
( Last edited by ebuddy; Feb 18, 2013 at 07:32 AM. )
ebuddy
     
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 19, 2013, 10:51 AM
 
Question(s): What does everyone think the point of the confirmation process is? What are legitimate and illegitimate criteria to reject a candidate on? Is there a point where a filibuster or hold becomes detrimental or unethical?

Edit: I started a new thread for this
     
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 19, 2013, 02:10 PM
 
Apologies, it's a mega-post. I foresee myself tapping-out to my own creation in the future.

Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
This is no different than any Democratic hopeful that loses an election. I'm not into the fashionable loathing of the Tea Party. They're just a bloc of people and they will be as easily motivated by a quality candidate. The Republicans need more quality candidates, that's all.
Sure it's different. This is not the herd culling itself from within. It's an organized separate political group targeting candidates based on anti-establishmentarianism and ideological purity. That's not necessarily a bad thing from the perspective of principle. Politically speaking, however, this may be short-sighted.


Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
I grant you, Obama's my-way or the highway approach is taking them aback. It has been a long time since they've dealt with such a combative and contentious a President. The more contentious the policies and the methods of communicating them, the more contentious the politics. Kennedy's platform was smaller government, less taxes, and getting to the moon not unlike Bill Clinton in many respects-- with a lot of stuff you can really support. This ain't your father's Democratic Party, but contentious politics is nothing new. It simply requires an adjustment in strategy. The Republicans need to speak directly to the American people and they need quality representatives to do the speaking.
This.. I don't know how to respond. Do you have specific instances in mind? ACA which was "shoved" through, lost its public option. The latest thing I could think of was the Fiscal Cliff negotiations, and it was John Boehner who walked away and then tried to pass his own plan sans budget cuts (irony of ironies!). Really can't think of any other landmark registration ATM.


Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
There's no doubt that Republicans must reconcile some of their differences between them, but this is a good and necessary fight of ideals. Compromise is how we go to war, generally. Compromise is how we tax too little, or too much. Compromise is how we spend too much or focus too little on this group of people or that. By not standing up a staunch, dedicated bloc of principled Democrats, they've had to compromise on Gitmo, warrantless wiretapping, Drone attacks, and unprovoked military action, among other things; is this a good thing? You might be able to argue it's a greater-good thing because they've maintained office, but is that alone a sign of progress?
Quite honestly on most of these I think you're confusing compromise for political expediency or a complete lack of principles.

Our tax rates were definitely a compromise. However when they exist in the quantum state of 'too high' and 'too low', I think it's the best thing we can get. For example, I don't see the Democrats standing firm and letting all tax cuts expire so taxes get raised on the rich as a beneficial action compared to compromising on the level. Conversely, I think the Republicans letting all tax cuts expire rather than just raising them on the rich is equally stupid (At this economic juncture).



Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
The collective knows Republicans are fighting Democrats, but they don't know what Republicans are fighting for. There's a difference between fighters and freedom fighters, bullies and those seeking justice of some sort.
I dunno man, I don't think it's that people don't know what the Republicans are fighting for, it's that they don't demonstrate how they're going to do it. They use vague phrases like "base broadening" and "revenue-neutral". In fact, their goals can sometimes seem paradoxical. They claim the deficit is their top priority but one of their biggest planks is always tax cuts. Hell, sometimes they claim tax cuts are the way to reduce the deficit!



Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
The idea is (and supported by most) that we need a stronger border presence and we need to stop the influx of new, illegal immigrants. You're right, when the message is focused more on illegals than it is on crime prevention, you are more clearly against one thing than for another thing. You're fighting people, but it's not clear what you're fighting for.

The Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 signed into law by Reagan. It was amnesty. A lot of conservatives supported amnesty then and now as long as it carries with it tighter controls on the border. They got the former, not the latter.
Gotcha. Okay, but that (theoretically) only addresses half the problem. What is the Republican solution for the illegals already here? I have no problem with enforcing the laws, but I don't think it's economically, politically, or logistically feasible to deport them. And as farmers in many southern states demonstrated a few years ago, in a few cases it's actually detrimental.

(I won't even ask how they will pay for this)



Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
Yes, but gay marriage is not a polarizing or important enough matter that it'll lose you elections unless you botch the message. Support of gay marriage is not the key to a Republican resurgence and opposition could be destructive to them if delivered in too hostile a fashion.
Another solid point. Here's another thought – Republicans only need to weather its implementation and, so long as they do not run on a platform to repeal it, it will fade into the background, no longer turning off younger more socially liberal conservatives. I wouldn't hold my breath, however.


Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
I assumed you had heard the common usage of the term means-tested with regard to entitlements. We would have more for those who have less if the money was focused on the ones with less. Instead, too many entitlements are going to those who do not need them and it's putting a strain on available resources for those who truly do. This is what I mean by compassionate, but effective and small.
So how do you means test? What is your 'limit'. And what happens if out of compassionate, effective, and small, you can only have two?

(For example – drug testing welfare recipients? Sound hella reasonable to me. I believe Florida did this. Turns out the cost far outweighed the benefits, and the hit rate was lower than I imagine the cynics ever imagined. So drug testing turns out to be good on principle but awful in practice.)


Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
I completely agree and yet there are many thousands who do not avail themselves of opportunities for advancement. Tell the guy making $30k a year that he can double his money, but he'll be responsible for 30 other people and have to work some nights. This changes things. Now you have to want advancement.
Do we actually have a dearth of these people that positions are going unfilled? In an economy with 7.9% unemployment, I'm guessing no.

The point was that anyone who complains about taxes while in those rarer positions is taking their increased disposable income for granted. Doubly so, given the rise in income inequality. Triply so, since they're likely smart enough to realize that as your pay increases so does your responsibility both professionally and economically.


Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
I think it's a google problem and getting worse. I'll concede the point instead of wading through the mire of hype around the recent election to get to some semblance of a polling history on which party holds the public's trust on the economy. I can say Republicans have got to be very careful here and this is where they hold the greatest opportunity. Instead of being against welfare moms, illegals, food stamp recipients, and the majority of households receiving some form of government aide; they need to more clearly articulate what it is they are for and provide a positive image people can stand behind.
I'm not looking for concessions, so that's not necessary. For all we know we represent a legitimate divide in perception. I was sharing my perception, perhaps a product of being a child of the 90s.


Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
Ultimately, sequestration is a slow-down of growth and not really a cut at all and I'm glad Rand Paul had an opportunity to articulate this last night. Republicans need to do a more effective job of selling reasonable people on why more money from you is not necessary unless and until we've done what we can to address the spending problem. Most acknowledge a spending problem and in this you may be in the minority.
Here's where I become a paradox –

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/31/bu...h-quarter.html
The federal government helped bring the economic recovery to a virtual halt late last year as cuts in military spending and other factors overwhelmed the Federal Reserve’s expanded campaign to stimulate growth.
So if we cut spending we'll hurt the fragile economy. Fantastic. And we can't raise taxes across the board because that too will hurt the economy. So what the hell are we supposed to do?

Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
Most businesses understand what happy employees can do for them. I don't work for tyrants and I'd be willing to bet you don't either.
In an economy with high unemployment, I think you are wildly mistaken. Companies cut jobs to save money then work the remaining employees harder to make up for the difference. Employees don't complain because, hey, at least they still have a job. Proof.

Employees Work Longer Hours, Take Less Time Off Since Recession's Start, Study Says
"Employees generally don't mind doing more with less especially when economic conditions are tough," said Ryan Johnson, CCP, Vice President of Research for WorldatWork in a press statement. "But when this drags into multiple years, and they start to hear anecdotes of recovery, they become less understanding."
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
The shame is a company that wants its employees to get a $1500 bonus must pay them $2700.
To paraphrase Allen Iverson:

I mean listen, we're sitting here talking about bonuses, not wages, not wages, not wages, but we're talking about bonuses. Not the wages that I go out there and work for every day like it's my last, but we're talking about bonuses man. How silly is that?"
Hyperbolic to be sure, but I am incredulous. You're complaining about taxes on bonuses. Who even gets bonuses? Especially excluding Wall Street and its bonuses that aren't bonuses. Let me reiterate my point in a different manner.

The complaint is the the rich pay an unfair portion of the taxes (particularly compared to decades ago). My underlying point is, the portion of total income taxes they pay increased because the portion of total income they get also increased (i.e., their 'problem' is a direct result of their success – Or their greed, depending on how you think increased income the cause of income equality is).

This past recession is a perfect example:
To Obama: Inequality Is Worse Than You Think - Bloomberg

Average income for the bottom 99 percent fell by almost 12 percent -- by far the largest two-year decline since the Great Depression. The drop erased all the bottom 99 percent's gains from 2002 to 2007. 

But average income for the top percentile fell an even faster 36 percent. The sharp decline was due mostly to the collapse of the stock market, resulting in much smaller realized capital gains. 

Before you shed a tear for the top 1 percent, consider this: From 2009-2011, their income grew 11.2 percent. The average family income at the same time rose a modest 1.7 percent, and the bottom 99 percent's shrank by 0.4 percent. 

In other words, the top 1 percent captured 121 percent of the income gains in the first two years of the recovery.
Holy *****ing shit!

So the rich are getting richer while the rest are actually getting poorer. And go ahead and click on the research link. You'll see that even when the average american was getting insane gains in the 90s (20%!) The top were literally doubling their income grabbing almost half the growth. Let me repeat that: During the Clinton Boom, the Top 1% captured almost half the growth in income. It only got worse the past decade.

And I'm supposed to believe taxes on bonuses is the problem?
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 19, 2013, 09:30 PM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
Apologies, it's a mega-post. I foresee myself tapping-out to my own creation in the future.

Sure it's different. This is not the herd culling itself from within. It's an organized separate political group targeting candidates based on anti-establishmentarianism and ideological purity. That's not necessarily a bad thing from the perspective of principle. Politically speaking, however, this may be short-sighted.
You can be ideologically pure, you just can't be socially inept. Reasonable people can disagree, unreasonable people lose elections. It's all in the delivery.


This.. I don't know how to respond. Do you have specific instances in mind? ACA which was "shoved" through, lost its public option. The latest thing I could think of was the Fiscal Cliff negotiations, and it was John Boehner who walked away and then tried to pass his own plan sans budget cuts (irony of ironies!). Really can't think of any other landmark registration ATM.
Turns out you thought of a way to respond. Instances? Yours. ACA was shoved down the Democrats' throats. They had long-abandoned any hope of Republicans only to realize it wouldn't mean a thing if they couldn't get enough Democrats into the champaign room. Boehner walked after they had agreed on a cuts to revenue ratio that Obama broke by pushing more revenue into the deal. Repeatedly.

Quite honestly on most of these I think you're confusing compromise for political expediency or a complete lack of principles.
Compromise is always expediency unless you have a room full of people who think entirely alike. Of course, politicians' integrity is always a factor.

Our tax rates were definitely a compromise. However when they exist in the quantum state of 'too high' and 'too low', I think it's the best thing we can get. For example, I don't see the Democrats standing firm and letting all tax cuts expire so taxes get raised on the rich as a beneficial action compared to compromising on the level. Conversely, I think the Republicans letting all tax cuts expire rather than just raising them on the rich is equally stupid (At this economic juncture).
There is a threshold at which people will become frustrated. It can be displeasure at the lack of stewardship in govt or the level at which they're being taxed. I don't think Tea Parties happen by accident nor do I believe they'd have an appreciable impact, good or bad, if they didn't resonate with a large number of people. Compromise on the rate may just be giving folks a false sense of progress when there's no benefit to the action; going beyond stupid into the realm of the clinically insane.

I dunno man, I don't think it's that people don't know what the Republicans are fighting for, it's that they don't demonstrate how they're going to do it. They use vague phrases like "base broadening" and "revenue-neutral". In fact, their goals can sometimes seem paradoxical. They claim the deficit is their top priority but one of their biggest planks is always tax cuts. Hell, sometimes they claim tax cuts are the way to reduce the deficit!
Like I said, Republicans need better teachers. The terms above have principles behind them and I'd agree that those principles need to be articulated more clearly. It can be demonstrated how policies affect commerce, confidence, and the economy. But it includes sacrifice which must be handled very carefully.

How are tax cuts harming Federal receipts? You'd have to show me the declining federal receipts following a cut to convince me tax cuts are contributing to the deficit. I mean, that's how you pay for things. Otherwise you just have a classic spending problem that tax increases aren't going to solve.

Gotcha. Okay, but that (theoretically) only addresses half the problem. What is the Republican solution for the illegals already here? I have no problem with enforcing the laws, but I don't think it's economically, politically, or logistically feasible to deport them. And as farmers in many southern states demonstrated a few years ago, in a few cases it's actually detrimental.

(I won't even ask how they will pay for this)
You lost me here. I was talking about amnesty and not wanting to round people up. How will we pay for not doing this any more?

I'll get back to you...
ebuddy
     
Mac Elite
Join Date: Apr 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 20, 2013, 03:24 PM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
What is the Republican solution for the illegals already here? I have no problem with enforcing the laws, but I don't think it's economically, politically, or logistically feasible to deport them. And as farmers in many southern states demonstrated a few years ago, in a few cases it's actually detrimental.
Why? Because Americans weren't willing to do the jobs of illegals? Maybe if our government didn't pay Americans not to work with all the free handout programs.... They would... work... I know I must sound insane when I say stuff like that.


Do we actually have a dearth of these people that positions are going unfilled? In an economy with 7.9% unemployment, I'm guessing no.
7.9% unemployment! Sounds horrible! Maybe the unemployed should go to one of those farmers looking for laborers after their employees get deported.
In an economy with high unemployment, I think you are wildly mistaken. Companies cut jobs to save money then work the remaining employees harder to make up for the difference. Employees don't complain because, hey, at least they still have a job. Proof.
Why would it make mathematical sense to pay a few exhausted employees at an overtime rate, when you could just hire more people, who are less tired, at the lower, normal rate? It wouldn't be because of government imposed fines for hiring (aka payroll tax); or because of all the discriminatory accusations risk/lawsuits a company takes on every time they hire someone who they may need to let go in short time.

Sometimes I think we should look to other countries for how they do things. In many, unemployment is just called "seasonal work". And it's not a big deal because they prepared for times of unemployment by having a savings, a word not familiar to most Americans who have come to expect a government free handout or safety net for everything.
You're complaining about taxes on bonuses. Who even gets bonuses? Especially excluding Wall Street and its bonuses that aren't bonuses.
Anyone who's skilled and actually makes a good amount of money for the company. Especially the ones who go above and beyond the average competing coworker. People who are easily replaced don't get bonuses.
The complaint is the the rich pay an unfair portion of the taxes (particularly compared to decades ago).
Are "the rich" in a lower tax bracket than everyone else?

This past recession is a perfect example:
Yup a perfect example of what turtle7 and I have been saying is going to happen all along; for years now.
To Obama: Inequality Is Worse Than You Think - Bloomberg

Holy *****ing shit!

So the rich are getting richer while the rest are actually getting poorer. And go ahead and click on the research link. You'll see that even when the average american was getting insane gains in the 90s (20%!) The top were literally doubling their income grabbing almost half the growth. Let me repeat that: During the Clinton Boom, the Top 1% captured almost half the growth in income. It only got worse the past decade.
It's called inflation inflation inflation inflation. Inflation.... inflation inflation. Inflation? Inflation! I've been trying tirelessly to drill it into everyone's head for a while. Class disparity, this is exactly what inflation driven recessions/depressions do; as opposed to deflation depressions which are actually a good thing. This is what happens when government and "the rich" yet useless wall street, brainwashingly scares everybody into thinking civilization will collapse if you don't bail them out.

So government convinced everyone that they needed to print trillions of dollars which would devalue your money, making you poorer. Then the government gives printed money to its wealthy corporate friends to offset the loss in value they would have taken from inflation. Government continues to use printed money to buy any depreciated assets from wallstreet/corporation/and-friends at almost full price, driving prices up even higher, so that poorer you and the rest of middle class have an even harder time affording such assets; because wall street and friends shouldn't be subject to market flux like the rest of us. And it all made perfect sense at the time because it was disguised as government-interference-with-the-economy; government rescuing civilization, which of course is always a good thing.

Now government and friends have more leverage over you.
We will now join the ranks of every other country who has tried the government interference inflation solution; Argentina, Zimbabwe, japan, Union Soviet Socialists Republic, Weimar Republic (which led to world war 2).

DISCLAIMER: Yes I understand the government does not actaully "print" money. The word "rich" is used loosely. Not all rich people are the same. Not all people you would call "rich" get any benefits from inflation or government bailouts.
it's not about you
     
 
Thread Tools
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 02:30 PM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2015 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd., Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.3.2