Politics

[chicago51]

We all know who ACORN is....and they're anything BUT an "anti-poverty" group.

Gimmie a break. Talk about being delusional.

This is what I'm talking about Acorn doesn't exist! They've been gone since the end of March 2010.

 

[Ndaccountant]

All the GOP has done is try to repeal Obamacare 33 times. The only "jobs bills" they put forward are basically to repeal Dodd Frank. So we can deregulate everything and go back to the days of booms, busts, and bubbles.

I think the Obamacare repeal attempt count might be up to 34 as Ted Cruz tride to amend a Senate bill yesterday that would have defunded Obamacare.

That is a HUGE oversimplification.

 

[Polish Leppy 22]

I wouldn't call the election a landslide either.

GOP philosophy: Because the election was close we shoudn't compromise one inch and the side that won should have to do things 100% our way, even though we lost.

As far as losing goes we should not just look the presidency. The GOP lost Senate races in Indiana, North Dakota, Missouri, and Montana even though Barack Obama lost in everyone of those states, sometimes badly.

The GOP lost the House popular vote too. The only reason John Boehner is speaker is because of incredibily partisan drawn districts.

The 2010 election is still the biggest swing in House seats from D to R since the 1950s. Let's not paint a picture like conservatives are a radical minority that make up 15% of the population.

And as far as I'm concerned, Boehner is a pansy and I wouldn't care if he got the boot.

 

[irishpat183]

I wouldn't call the election a landslide either.

GOP philosophy: Because the election was close we shoudn't compromise one inch and the side that won should have to do things 100% our way, even though we lost.

As far as losing goes we should not just look the presidency. The GOP lost Senate races in Indiana, North Dakota, Missouri, and Montana even though Barack Obama lost in everyone of those states, sometimes badly.

The GOP lost the House popular vote too. The only reason John Boehner is speaker is because of incredibily partisan drawn districts.

Good lord. Let me count the ways of the districts in some of those blue cities...

 

[chicago51]

Good lord. Let me count the ways of the districts in some of those blue cities...

Are you saying the Democrats didn't win the House popular vote?

By the way I agree here in Illinois it is bad. I am for making sure we have fair districts everywhere.

 

[chicago51]

The 2010 election is still the biggest swing in House seats from D to R since the 1950s. Let's not paint a picture like conservatives are a radical minority that make up 15% of the population.

And as far as I'm concerned, Boehner is a pansy and I wouldn't care if he got the boot.

Oh Republican party in terms of campaigning deserves a great deal of credit for what they did in 2010.

Liberals likewise should be ashamed of 2010 for not showing up; as it was an epic disaster because that was the Census year. So even though the Democrats won in 2012 it was with the redrawn lines after the Census. Republicans took control of several swing states and redrew everything. It would take the Democrats winning the popular vote by 7 million to win back the House of Representives now.

 

[Irish8248]

Good lord. Let me count the ways of the districts in some of those blue cities...

its super fair in NY! Louis Slaughters district used to e called hte earmuff district because of how incredibly ridiculous the lines were drawn. One side of the street but not the other, youre neighbor down the street would be in but the guy behind you would be out.... you shouldnt need a gps to navigate your way through a street to see your constituents

 

[Irish8248]

Oh Republican party in terms of campaigning deserves a great deal of credit for what they did in 2010.

Liberals likewise should be ashamed of 2010 for not showing up; as it was an epic disaster because that was the Census year. So even though the Democrats won in 2012 it was with the redrawn lines after the Census. Republicans took control of several swing states and redrew everything. It would take the Democrats winning the popular vote by 7 million to win back the House of Representives now.

You are talking political psychology instead of ideology ... Not to derail the conversation, but this would be more approriate to analyze the why and what questions versus a general ideology of R vs D

 

[connor_in]

GOP philosophy: Because the election was close we shoudn't compromise one inch and the side that won should have to do things 100% our way, even though we lost.

WAIT A MINUTE....which nationally known politician is famously quoted as saying "I won" when someone was asked him about working with the other party...President Barrack Obama! When R presidents win you always hear from the D's and the press about how they R's need to compromise and work with the D's. When Obama won (with both houses of Congress you did not hear the reverse of that, that D's need to compromise with and work with R's, what you heard again was the R's need to compromise and work with D's. You still keep hearing that every day. Why is is that compromise always seems to mean from each party's starting point, the R's have to come over to D demands.

The GOP lost the House popular vote too. .

Ok...so you want to rewrite the Constitution so that it is strictly a national vote and not based on districts? Is that it? {Conversely, if you go by area (sq mileage), the R's represent more of the country.}

One of the things our brilliant founding fathers were concerned with was the tyranny of the majority. That is why so many things are set up as they are. From the check and balance system between the branches of governments to the way the house and senate were set up. I wish there was not the gerrymandering that there is. If you tried to implement a straight grid system though, my guess is that the wailing on both sides would be near biblical. Personally, I kind of wish they had never changed the senate. I see some advantages in how it is, but I also see the advantages in having it appointed by the states instead of via popular vote.

 

[chicago51]

What happen to this Republican party?

This is the 1956 Republican Party platform, wanted to highlight some things. Some things are very simular to today others not so much.

Republican Party Platforms: Republican Party Platform of 1956

Taxation and Fiscal Policy
The Republican Party takes pride in calling attention to the outstanding fiscal achievements of the Eisenhower Administration, several of which are mentioned in the foreword to these resolutions.

In order to progress further in correcting the unfortunate results of unwise financial management during 20 years of Democrat Administrations, we pledge to pursue the following objectives:

Further reductions in Government spending as recommended in the Hoover Commission Report, without weakening the support of a superior defense program or depreciating the quality of essential services of government to our people.

Continued balancing of the budget, to assure the financial strength of the country which is so vital to the struggle of the free world in its battle against Communism; and to maintain the purchasing power of a sound dollar, and the value of savings, pensions and insurance.

Gradual reduction of the national debt.
Gradual not overnight. Not irresonsibly which the Ryan Budget does

Then, insofar as consistent with a balanced budget, we pledge to work toward these additional objectives:

Further reductions in taxes with particular consideration for low and middle income families.

Top tax rate under Eisenhower was 91% the emphasis was tax cuts for low to middle class first. Not Paul Ryan who cuts only at the top.

Initiation of a sound policy of tax reductions which will encourage small independent businesses to modernize and progress.

Continual study of additional ways to correct inequities in the effect of various taxes.

Consistent with the Republican Administration's accomplishment in stemming the inflation —which under five Democrat Administrations had cut the value of the dollar in half, and so had robbed the wage earner and millions of thrifty citizens who had savings, pensions and insurance—we endorse the present policy of freedom for the Federal Reserve System to combat both inflation and deflation by wise fiscal policy.

The Republican Party believes that sound money, which retains its buying power, is an essential foundation for new jobs, a higher standard of living, protection of savings, a secure national defense, and the general economic growth of the country.


Business and Economic Policy
The Republican Party has as a primary concern the continued advancement of the well-being of the individual. This can be attained only in an economy that, as today, is sound, free and creative, ever building new wealth and new jobs for all the people.

We believe in good business for all business—small, medium and large. We believe that competition in a free economy opens unrivaled opportunity and brings the greatest good to the greatest number.

The sound economic policies of the Eisenhower Administration have created an atmosphere of confidence in which good businesses flourish and can plan for growth to create new job opportunities for our expanding population.

We have eliminated a host of needless controls. To meet the immense demands of our expanding economy, we have initiated the largest highway, air and maritime programs in history, each soundly financed.

We shall continue to advocate the maintenance and expansion of a strong, efficient, privately-owned and operated and soundly financed system of transportation that will serve all of the needs of our Nation under Federal regulatory policies that will enable each carrier to realize its inherent economic advantages and its full competitive capabilities.

We recognize the United States' world leadership in aviation, and we shall continue to encourage its technical development and vigorous expansion. Our goal is to support and sponsor air services and to make available to our citizens the safest and most comprehensive air transportation. We favor adequate funds and expeditious action in improving air safety, and highest efficiency in the control of air traffic.

We stand for forward-looking programs, created to replace our war-built merchant fleet with the most advanced types in design, with increased speed. Adaptation of new propulsion power units, including nuclear, must be sponsored and achieved.

We should proceed with the prompt construction of the Atomic Powered Peace Ship in order that we may demonstrate to the world, in this as in other fields, the peaceful uses of the atom.

Our steadily rising prosperity is constantly reflecting the confidence of our citizens in the policies of our Republican

Labor
Under the Republican Administration, as our country has prospered, so have its people. This is as it should be, for as President Eisenhower said: "Labor is the United States. The men and women, who with their minds, their hearts and hands, create the wealth that is shared in this country—they are America."

The Eisenhower Administration has brought to our people the highest employment, the highest wages and the highest standard of living ever enjoyed by any nation. Today there are nearly 67 million men and women at work in the United States, 4 million more than in 1952. Wages have increased substantially over the past 3 1/2 years; but, more important, the American wage earner today can buy more than ever before for himself and his family because his pay check has not been eaten away by rising taxes and soaring prices.

The record of performance of the Republican Administration on behalf of our working men and women goes still further. The Federal minimum wage has been raised for more than 2 million workers. Social Security has been extended to an additional 10 million workers and the benefits raised for 6 1/2 million. The protection of unemployment insurance has been brought to 4 million additional workers. There have been increased workmen's compensation benefits for longshoremen and harbor workers, increased retirement benefits for railroad employees, and wage increases and improved welfare and pension plans for federal employees.

Look the Republican party is talking about extending entitlements in fact bragging about it. They are bragging about raising the minimum wage!

In addition, the Eisenhower Administration has enforced more vigorously and effectively than ever before, the laws which protect the working standards of our people.

Workers have benefited by the progress which has been made in carrying out the programs and principles set forth in the 1952 Republican platform. All workers have gained and unions have grown in strength and responsibility, and have increased their membership by 2 millions.

The bragging about an increase in union membership not attacking unions.

Furthermore, the process of free collective bargaining has been strengthened by the insistence of this Administration that labor and management settle their differences at the bargaining table without the intervention of the Government. This policy has brought to our country an unprecedented period of labor-management peace and understanding.

We applaud the effective, unhindered, collective bargaining which brought an early end to the 1956 steel strike, in contrast to the six months' upheaval, Presidential seizure of the steel industry and ultimate Supreme Court intervention under the last Democrat Administration.

The Eisenhower Administration will continue to fight for dynamic and progressive programs which, among other things, will:

Stimulate improved job safety of our workers, through assistance to the States, employees and employers;

Continue and further perfect its programs of assistance to the millions of workers with special employment problems, such as older workers, handicapped workers, members of minority groups, and migratory workers;

Strengthen and improve the Federal-State Employment Service and improve the effectiveness of the unemployment insurance system;

Protect by law, the assets of employee welfare and benefit plans so that workers who are the beneficiaries can be assured of their rightful benefits;

Protecting welfare?

Assure equal pay for equal work regardless of Sex;

What? No war on woman?

Clarify and strengthen the eight-hour laws for the benefit of workers who are subject to federal wage standards on Federal and Federally-assisted construction, and maintain and continue the vigorous administration of the Federal prevailing minimum wage law for public supply contracts;

Workers rights?

Extend the protection of the Federal minimum wage laws to as many more workers as is possible and practicable;


Continue to fight for the elimination of discrimination in employment because of race, creed, color, national origin, ancestry or sex;

Provide assistance to improve the economic conditions of areas faced with persistent and substantial unemployment;

Revise and improve the Taft-Hartley Act so as to protect more effectively the rights of labor unions, management, the individual worker, and the public. The protection of the right of workers to organize into unions and to bargain collectively is the firm and permanent policy of the Eisenhower Administration. In 1954, 1955 and again in 1956, President Eisenhower recommended constructive amendments to this Act. The Democrats in Congress have consistently blocked these needed changes by parliamentary maneuvers. The Republican Party pledges itself to overhaul and improve the Taft-Hartley Act along the lines of these recommendations.


Human Welfare and Advancement

Health, Education and Welfare
The Republican Party believes that the physical, mental, and spiritual well-being of the people is as important as their economic health. It will continue to support this conviction with vigorous action.

Republican action created the Department of Health, Education and Welfare as the first new Federal department in 40 years, to raise the continuing consideration of these problems for the first time to the highest council of Government, the President's Cabinet.

Through the White House Conference on Education, our Republican Administration initiated the most comprehensive Community-State-Federal attempt ever made to solve the pressing problems of primary and secondary education.

Four thousand communities, studying their school populations and their physical and financial resources, encouraged our Republican Administration to urge a five-year program of Federal assistance in building schools to relieve a critical classroom shortage.

The Republican Party will renew its efforts to enact a program based on sound principles of need and designed to encourage increased state and local efforts to build more classrooms.

Our Administration also proposed for the first time in history, a thorough nation-wide analysis of rapidly growing problems in education beyond the high schools.

The Republican Party is determined to press all such actions that will help insure that every child has the educational opportunity to advance to his own greatest capacity.

We have fully resolved to continue our steady gains in man's unending struggle against disease and disability.

We have supported the distribution of free vaccine to protect millions of children against dreaded polio.

Republican leadership has enlarged Federal assistance for construction of hospitals, emphasizing low-cost care of chronic diseases and the special problems of older persons, and increased Federal aid for medical care of the needy.

We have asked the largest increase in research funds ever sought in one year to intensify attacks on cancer, mental illness, heart disease and other dread diseases.

We demand once again, despite the reluctance of the Democrat 84th Congress, Federal assistance to help build facilities to train more physicians and scientists.

We have encouraged a notable expansion and improvement of voluntary health insurance, and urge that reinsurance and pooling arrangements be authorized to speed this progress.

We have strengthened the Food and Drug Administration, and we have increased the vocational rehabilitation program to enable a larger number of the disabled to return to satisfying activity.

We have supported measures that have made more housing available than ever before in history, reduced urban slums in local-federal partnership, stimulated record home ownership, and authorized additional low-rent public housing.

We initiated the first flood insurance program in history under Government sponsorship in cooperation with private enterprise.

We shall continue to seek extension and perfection of a sound social security system.

We pledge close cooperation with State, local and private agencies to reduce the ghastly toll of fatalities on the Nation's highways.

 

[GoIrish41]

1) This dialogue and coming together garbage isn't going to get us anywhere and isn't going to make many people happy. We have two big parties clearly defining the two directions they'd like to take the country, and in our history they couldn't be further apart.

I've said it before and I'll say it again. If we could have another political civil war with no blood spilled and split the country into two, I'd move to a red state tomorrow and not shed a tear. The conservatives could run their states as they wish and wouldn't have any democrats taxing and spending them into oblivion. The progressives could run their blue states without any republican "obstruction" and would have no republicans to blame. Everyone gets what they want and no excuses.

2) If obama getting 51% of the country to vote for him is an @$$ whipping, ND crushed Pitt last year in football.

I'd call getting beat by 130+ electoral votes an a** whipping. That is how elections are won and the GOP was not anywhere close.

 

[Polish Leppy 22]

I'd call getting beat by 130+ electoral votes an a** whipping. That is how elections are won and the GOP was not anywhere close.

130 electoral votes, sure. Still equals 51% of the voting population lol

 

[Buster Bluth]

The GOP has no concept of reality.

Pot, meet kettle.

 

[connor_in]

Pot, meet kettle.

See, I would be afraid to use that line because considering the reference to the actual saying, that would mean that since I am an R saying that I must be r@c!$t.

 

[chicago51]

See my comments in bold.

WAIT A MINUTE....which nationally known politician is famously quoted as saying "I won" when someone was asked him about working with the other party...President Barrack Obama! When R presidents win you always hear from the D's and the press about how they R's need to compromise and work with the D's. When Obama won (with both houses of Congress you did not hear the reverse of that, that D's need to compromise with and work with R's, what you heard again was the R's need to compromise and work with D's. You still keep hearing that every day. Why is is that compromise always seems to mean from each party's starting point, the R's have to come over to D demands.

Have you read Obama's plan to reduce the deficit. I have some reservations and you may to but the thing is cleary a compromise. The GOP has not compromised an inch on the budget negoiations.

Ok...so you want to rewrite the Constitution so that it is strictly a national vote and not based on districts? Is that it? {Conversely, if you go by area (sq mileage), the R's represent more of the country.}

No the House voting shouldn't be national. What I want to point out is when win one side wins the popular House vote by 1.3 million votes (which is close when looking at the entire nation) and you are the minority by over 30 seats something doesn't seem right about that. Part of it is certainly population patterns. They fact is Democrats are packed in small areas so it understable that districting may not favor them. If the Democrats had say a 8 to 10 seat minority I would chalk it up to stricktly population patterns; I mean Bush had a narrow electoral victory despite losing the popular vote but it was close, sometimes the system is not completely right. When you see a 33 seat majority (which is not that close) despite getting less votes nation wide I have to cry foul.

One of the things our brilliant founding fathers were concerned with was the tyranny of the majority. That is why so many things are set up as they are. From the check and balance system between the branches of governments to the way the house and senate were set up. I wish there was not the gerrymandering that there is. If you tried to implement a straight grid system though, my guess is that the wailing on both sides would be near biblical. Personally, I kind of wish they had never changed the senate. I see some advantages in how it is, but I also see the advantages in having it appointed by the states instead of via popular vote.

I think the Senate is fine the way it is elected. You run into districting issues at the state level so you again have gerrymandered elected officals picking the Senate. The Democrats won Senate races in Montana and North Dakota so its not like the Senate is skewed only to urban area voters.

I think filibusters need to be change. They should have to be public. You can have the 60 vote threshold but you should have to get up on floor and make at least a brief statement to why the heck you are opposing something. It doesn't have to be rant but you should have to be on floor and make a statement no more having the secretary call into the office for you.

I like Senator Jeff Merkley's filibuster idea. His idea was to make 41 votes needed to keep a filibuster rather than 60 votes need to break it. So the minority party has to be on the floor united to stop something. Filibustering should not be easy. So if the majority leader decides to call cloture on a filibuster at say 4:00 AM you have to show up to stop it.

 

[irishpat183]

Obama's plan to reduce the deficit?

[/IMG]

 

[chicago51]

Obama's plan to reduce the deficit?

Sorry we offend you.

 

[Ndaccountant]

What happen to this Republican party?

This is the 1956 Republican Party platform, wanted to highlight some things. Some things are very simular to today others not so much.

Republican Party Platforms: Republican Party Platform of 1956



Top tax rate under Eisenhower was 91% the emphasis was tax cuts for low to middle class first. Not Paul Ryan who cuts only at the top.

.

Funny thing about that tax period and the often discussed Bush Tax cuts.

First, in the 1950's, the lowest tax brackets were 16-28% and over 75% of the population paid at this rate. Today, thanks to the evolution of tax credits, between 45-50% pay no income tax at all. Of the ones that do pay income tax, 1-15% is the biggest tax bracket.

One of the biggest changes outside of the 90% income tax you mention is the fact that in the 1950's about 20% of the population did not have a tax liability, which has more than doubled since then. You know why? The Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993expanded the earned income tax credit. The second change was the Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997 which created a $500 per-child tax credit for families earning less than $110,000.
In 1990, there were 23.8 million nonpayers, but as a result of these legislative changes, 2000 arrived with 32.5 million nonpayers. That was a percentage increase of 36 percent while the total number of tax filers in the nation grew by only 13 percent. Entering the 2000s with one in four tax filers owing nothing, the nonpayers pool was supercharged by the Bush tax cuts in 2001 and 2003—especially by the doubling of the child credit to $1,000. By 2004, when the credit expansion was fully phased in, the number of nonpayers increased by 10.5 million, a 32-percent jump in the space of four years.

Based on IRS data, what do you think maximum income a married couple with two kids can earn and pay no Federal Income Tax in 1993 (in 2010 dollars)? $23,717. In 2010 that number was over $50k.

We can talk about tax rates at the top and I think we should close deductions and count carried interest as income, but let's not forget that the evolution of the tax code has certainly benefit lower and middle class families too. We talk all the time about stagnant wages since 1970 on a real basis and that might be true. But has anyone looked at after tax pay?

 

[chicago51]

Obama's plan to reduce the deficit?

What do call this: The Sequester - The President's Plan | The White House

 

[chicago51]

Funny thing about that tax period and the often discussed Bush Tax cuts.

First, in the 1950's, the lowest tax brackets were 16-28% and over 75% of the population paid at this rate. Today, thanks to the evolution of tax credits, between 45-50% pay no income tax at all. Of the ones that do pay income tax, 1-15% is the biggest tax bracket.

One of the biggest changes outside of the 90% income tax you mention is the fact that in the 1950's about 20% of the population did not have a tax liability, which has more than doubled since then. You know why? The Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993expanded the earned income tax credit. The second change was the Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997 which created a $500 per-child tax credit for families earning less than $110,000.
In 1990, there were 23.8 million nonpayers, but as a result of these legislative changes, 2000 arrived with 32.5 million nonpayers. That was a percentage increase of 36 percent while the total number of tax filers in the nation grew by only 13 percent. Entering the 2000s with one in four tax filers owing nothing, the nonpayers pool was supercharged by the Bush tax cuts in 2001 and 2003—especially by the doubling of the child credit to $1,000. By 2004, when the credit expansion was fully phased in, the number of nonpayers increased by 10.5 million, a 32-percent jump in the space of four years.

Based on IRS data, what do you think maximum income a married couple with two kids can earn and pay no Federal Income Tax in 1993 (in 2010 dollars)? $23,717. In 2010 that number was over $50k.

We can talk about tax rates at the top and I think we should close deductions and count carried interest as income, but let's not forget that the evolution of the tax code has certainly benefit lower and middle class families too. We talk all the time about stagnant wages since 1970 on a real basis and that might be true. But has anyone looked at after tax pay?

Don't look now but you just made the case we got a revenue problem in this country.

 

[Polish Leppy 22]

Sorry we offend you.

This is laughable.

 

[GoIrish41]

This is laughable.

It's easy to do a hit and run swipe at a post. Explain why it is laughable? There is nothing factually inaccuarate in the post. So, I'd be interested in knowing why it is laughable from the guy who almost daily advocates in his posts for dividing the country into two, which I find laughable at best.

 

[Buster Bluth]

The wonders of capitalism were on display yesterday in Vatican City:

 

[Ndaccountant]

Don't look now but you just made the case we got a revenue problem in this country.

Im sorry, you must forget what I have personally said I believe. To recap, I believe we do need to increase income taxes, just not a % increase on the wealthy. I believe we need take the coporate income tax to 0, we need to close carried interest deduction, we need to limit mortgage interest and eliminate the state income tax deduction. I believe we need to limit Scorp, LLC and Partnership tax benefits. I also believe we need to limit tax brackets, I prefer 3 level, 15%, 25% and 35%. Interest and dividends cap at 25%. I believe about 25% of the population that is not paying income tax needs to start.

I am firmly against a VAT, I welecome free trade, want drastic lobbying reform, love term limits for politicians and believe we need to re-emphasize science and math to our youth. We need to take full advantage of our energy boom and use it to flex our muscle worldwide. Combining a simple income tax code, 0 corporate income tax, dirt cheap energy and a large population that is both eager and willing to spend and work and you have a recipe for success.

We need pro growth measures and those are all pro growth.

 

[DSully1995]

Chicago, I dont think you want republicans to bring up the slavery issue, I do believe there is a limit to how far back we should go to see party ideals, 30 years?

 

[GoIrish41]

WAIT A MINUTE....which nationally known politician is famously quoted as saying "I won" when someone was asked him about working with the other party...President Barrack Obama! When R presidents win you always hear from the D's and the press about how they R's need to compromise and work with the D's. When Obama won (with both houses of Congress you did not hear the reverse of that, that D's need to compromise with and work with R's, what you heard again was the R's need to compromise and work with D's. You still keep hearing that every day. Why is is that compromise always seems to mean from each party's starting point, the R's have to come over to D demands.



Ok...so you want to rewrite the Constitution so that it is strictly a national vote and not based on districts? Is that it? {Conversely, if you go by area (sq mileage), the R's represent more of the country.}

One of the things our brilliant founding fathers were concerned with was the tyranny of the majority. That is why so many things are set up as they are. From the check and balance system between the branches of governments to the way the house and senate were set up. I wish there was not the gerrymandering that there is. If you tried to implement a straight grid system though, my guess is that the wailing on both sides would be near biblical. Personally, I kind of wish they had never changed the senate. I see some advantages in how it is, but I also see the advantages in having it appointed by the states instead of via popular vote.

I got one. Which nationally know candidate won by an even smaller margain than Obama and said in a press conference immediately following the election, "I have banked some political capital and now I intend to spend it.

Square miles do not vote, people do.

I agree with the last bolded point, and although I believe it is unfortunate I think it should happen anyway. Gerrymandering is stacking the deck, and stacking the deck is cheating ... there is no getting around that and both sides do it.

 

[GoIrish41]

The wonders of capitalism were on display yesterday in Vatican City:

wow. that is a pretty amazing transition in under a decade.

 

[connor_in]

See my comments in bold.

Replies to Bolded comments

1) You are being disingenuous in your comment that R's have not given an inch. R's have called discussions and compromise on many occasions and many times have simply been ignored for the sake of politics. The "grand bargain" is a classic example. The discussions were for certain compromises, and when the administration saw that a deal was getting close, they asked for more R accomodation to make the agreement more and more of what the D's wanted in their original proposal. When R's saw the negotiations were not in good faith and their compromises worth nothing, they backed away from the table.

2) You say the House vote should not be national and then you again go on to bemoan the situation. Maybe your next election strategy is to spread your D's out around the nation and not just coop yourselves up in large metropolises where the D identification rate is 70%+. That is not anybody else's fault but that of your own political party members choosing.

3) The reason for the original way of senate voting was that the House members were responsible for their voters and the Senate was more representative of their state's interests. But anymore since there is almost no such thing as state's rights...

as far as filibusters...that was not in the original post and I have not discussed it and will not...the only thing I will say on them is that if you look back, whoever has the majority at the time always wants the rules for filibuster adjusted

 

[ACamp1900]

It's easy to do a hit and run swipe at a post. Explain why it is laughable? There is nothing factually inaccuarate in the post. So, I'd be interested in knowing why it is laughable from the guy who almost daily advocates in his posts for dividing the country into two, which I find laughable at best.

Are you guys serious, do you honestly believe this?? I guess it maks it easy when you actually kid yourself into feeling it's that cut and dry.

If republicans do it they are liberal, so it counts for us, if dems do it well, they are dems, it counts for us... conservatives /repbs get credt for nothing except killing babies and hating blacks... conservatives don't want to see an end to waste and fruad and have the gov. out of their lives,... they just use that excuse to hide the fact that they hate how black people can vote....

I hve trouble finding any respect poltically for those who even half way plays with or buys into this BS... I would say it's all lies, and has nothing to do with bringing us to common ground and fixing things...all it is a pawn in the play for power, period. In fact garbage like this is why half of the libs in this thread are on my ingore list as I get tired of reading how bad conservative leaders are at name calling while anyone not of the left is painted a Nazi... just sad to see this game being played by you. Honestly insulting.

 

[chicago51]

Chicago, I dont think you want republicans to bring up the slavery issue, I do believe there is a limit to how far back we should go to see party ideals, 30 years?

You make a good point.

The Republican party was at one time the liberal party from econonomy to rights of African Americans etc. Basically from Lincoln to Teddy Roosevelet the Repubicans were the "liberals" it wasn't until Woodrow Wilson in 1920 that the Democrats got a progressive president. Lincoln if you recall started the income tax. Teddy Roosevelt was a true progressive populist and did alot for the working class and unions. TR also broke up the big banks.

It wasn't until Woodrow Wilson when Democrats started to get more progressive. Republicans began a to get more conservative during the 1920s. Then after market crashed FDR ushered in the New Deal which was a huge liberal swing for the Democratic Party. The Nixon and Eisenhower were moderates even though they had an R by their name, I would even say Eisenhower was almost a liberal.

I could care less if you have an R or a D next to your name. I am more concerned with rather your policies are aimed at helping working people. I probably should express my grief not with the Republican party but with those that favor austerity economics.