Politics

[bmf175]

???????

If deals getting done in the middle is a thing of the past, democracy is doomed!!!!

Enter Socialism

Or should I say, Enter POTUS and Co.

 

[Polish Leppy 22]

???????

If deals getting done in the middle is a thing of the past, democracy is doomed!!!!

This is a republic, not a democracy.

 

[phgreek]

???????

If deals getting done in the middle is a thing of the past, democracy is doomed!!!!

...middle is not a little further left from the last concession dude...

 

[GoIrish41]

This is a republic, not a democracy.

Democracy as a concept not a specific government

 

[GoIrish41]

...middle is not a little further left from the last concession dude...

come on man. how many times has the left been force fed a sh1t sandwich. Let's talk about last year's budget talks when Boener bragged that he got 98% of what he wanted.

 

[ACamp1900]

come on man. how many times has the left been force fed a sh1t sandwich. Let's talk about last year's budget talks when Boener bragged that he got 98% of what he wanted.

I think there is a difference between flat out losing on an issue and actively working with the other side on things to find a solution that both can live with... we have not see the latter really at all for a long while. The debt ceiling and budget things were not compromises,.. they were political wars that ended poorly for the left... same thing with health care for the right...

For a good while there "compromise" to the left basically meant the right sitting down, shutting up and giving the left everything they wanted, or there wass no 'compromise'… now both sides are playing for those means... the health care drama was a perfect example of this… despite the left and the media’s representation of it the right had numerous bills and ideas about health care during that whole ordeal… the left wouldn’t hear any of it… not one f'ing word... elections have consequences remember?...

Reality is, for better or worse, right or wrong… the way that all went down basically ended bi-partisanship as we know it. Leppy made a very valid point… John Boh. McCain, Brown and others are quite moderate, yet the two sides still can’t find common ground. That health bill was a line in the sand that neither side will dare cross now… and I'm not just talking about politicans, many Americans (and we represent this) will never forgive the other side for that... good luck with it.

 

[irishpat183]

I'm not arguing and you don't need to talk down to me like I'm a 19 year old college kid. Deals getting done in the middle is a thing of the past. There are plenty of moderate Republicans (McCain, Scott Brown, etc) making deals but there are zero moderate Democrats in Congress (local levels are different).

If person A is having disagreements and "cutting deals" with person B, but person B is getting far more out of the deals than person A, person A will eventually look around and say, "Ya know what, enough of this. I'm getting screwed here."

This sums it up:

[/URL][/IMG]

 

[irishpat183]

http://hsgca.net/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/compromise_v21.png


Just in case you can't zoom in on the above

 

[ACamp1900]

This sums it up:

[/URL][/IMG]

This is awesome... even ACamp can understand it..

 

[irishpat183]

The left and their cries for "compromise" has left us bleeding out our rights.

In the name of what?

 

[phgreek]

This sums it up:

[/URL][/IMG]

...this about sums it up...and not just gun control

edit: oh sh!t...you already said that

 

[phgreek]

come on man. how many times has the left been force fed a sh1t sandwich. Let's talk about last year's budget talks when Boener bragged that he got 98% of what he wanted.

...yet we don't have a BUDGET....even that perverse and counterintuitive version of it they used to do (start out last year + 3% and go up from there)

Socially...we've been going left nearly since the inception of this nation save prohibition(not just booze but social conservatism of the time)...some good...some bad, but always moving left. Republicans have staked out the social conservative ground...or the social right....which seems oddly to get conflated with the Tea Party...IDK about the reality of that line smearing.

Fiscally...IMHO to truly be conservative...or right...you believe there is a budget, which is constrained by revenue to a large extent ( in fact I'm not sure when the definition lost the revenue context). You believe when revenue slips so should the budget be reduced. (By that definition NO ONE D or R has staked out the right.) We have failed to be budget neutral or reduce the budget for quite some time now. For instance, If ACA grows the IRS, HHS, and Medicaid then we better shrink Medicare (and we have), DOD/DHS, DOEd, and subsidies across the board for AG and food stamps, etc....because there is no revenue to support the increase in manpower and infrastructure

...Negotiating priorities that balance a budget, (ie eliminate deficit spending), and reduces outstanding debt...NOW THATS the kind of compromise that is SUBSTANTIVE, REAL and MATTERS...and frankly I don't care that someone with an "R" says they like a "deal"...its still a steaming pile if all it does is reduce deficit acceleration....and it is no kind of compromise from my perspective.

Generally speaking, anything that fails to be budget neutral, or a reduction is moving the government in a growth direction, and closer to being all things...and THAT is a very LEFT direction to be headed...simply slowing that down for a moment is not compromise. If you disagree with me calling the current fiscal direction left...call it up, down...but right is taken....

My perspective makes me a fiscal conservative...my willingness to make my representation feel wrath when they fail to heed that perspective makes me Tea Party I guess...although I've never been affiliated with anything political that I can recall...I'll accept "Tea Party" from the fiscal perspective...not sure there is a social perspective though...but then what would MSNBC have to talk about?

So to me it all looks left, socially and fiscally...and what DC calls compromise is, at best, a slower slide left... I hope they obstruct each other for decades...the less they do the better off we are...IMHO.

 

[GoIrish41]

I think there is a difference between flat out losing on an issue and actively working with the other side on things to find a solution that both can live with... we have not see the latter really at all for a long while. The debt ceiling and budget things were not compromises,.. they were political wars that ended poorly for the left... same thing with health care for the right...

For a good while there "compromise" to the left basically meant the right sitting down, shutting up and giving the left everything they wanted, or there wass no 'compromise'… now both sides are playing for those means... the health care drama was a perfect example of this… despite the left and the media’s representation of it the right had numerous bills and ideas about health care during that whole ordeal… the left wouldn’t hear any of it… not one f'ing word... elections have consequences remember?...

Reality is, for better or worse, right or wrong… the way that all went down basically ended bi-partisanship as we know it. Leppy made a very valid point… John Boh. McCain, Brown and others are quite moderate, yet the two sides still can’t find common ground. That health bill was a line in the sand that neither side will dare cross now… and I'm not just talking about politicans, many Americans (and we represent this) will never forgive the other side for that... good luck with it.

that seems like a fairly vacant distinction IMO. Losing on an issue means that one side wouldn't compromise, no?

 

[GoIrish41]

...yet we don't have a BUDGET....even that perverse and counterintuitive version of it they used to do (start out last year + 3% and go up from there)

Socially...we've been going left nearly since the inception of this nation save prohibition(not just booze but social conservatism of the time)...some good...some bad, but always moving left. Republicans have staked out the social conservative ground...or the social right....which seems oddly to get conflated with the Tea Party...IDK about the reality of that line smearing.

Fiscally...IMHO to truly be conservative...or right...you believe there is a budget, which is constrained by revenue to a large extent ( in fact I'm not sure when the definition lost the revenue context). You believe when revenue slips so should the budget be reduced. (By that definition NO ONE D or R has staked out the right.) We have failed to be budget neutral or reduce the budget for quite some time now. For instance, If ACA grows the IRS, HHS, and Medicaid then we better shrink Medicare (and we have), DOD/DHS, DOEd, and subsidies across the board for AG and food stamps, etc....because there is no revenue to support the increase in manpower and infrastructure

...Negotiating priorities that balance a budget, (ie eliminate deficit spending), and reduces outstanding debt...NOW THATS the kind of compromise that is SUBSTANTIVE, REAL and MATTERS...and frankly I don't care that someone with an "R" says they like a "deal"...its still a steaming pile if all it does is reduce deficit acceleration....and it is no kind of compromise from my perspective.

Generally speaking, anything that fails to be budget neutral, or a reduction is moving the government in a growth direction, and closer to being all things...and THAT is a very LEFT direction to be headed...simply slowing that down for a moment is not compromise. If you disagree with me calling the current fiscal direction left...call it up, down...but right is taken....

My perspective makes me a fiscal conservative...my willingness to make my representation feel wrath when they fail to heed that perspective makes me Tea Party I guess...although I've never been affiliated with anything political that I can recall...I'll accept "Tea Party" from the fiscal perspective...not sure there is a social perspective though...but then what would MSNBC have to talk about?

So to me it all looks left, socially and fiscally...and what DC calls compromise is, at best, a slower slide left... I hope they obstruct each other for decades...the less they do the better off we are...IMHO.

There are more ways than one to ensure we don't have defict spending. Raising taxes, for example, is viewed as a personal afront by the right. You mention where the cuts to make something deficit neutral can come from, but you don't mention corporate welfare programs, subsities for industrial farmers, Defense Department spending -- just areas that are favored by the left. Nobody on the left wants us to spend the country into oblivion either, it comes down to how we can raise revenue or where cuts can be made that need to be on the table. Painting everyone who seeks societal equity and fairness as a socialist or a tax and spend liberal isn't a good place to start a productive national conversation, and it falls on deaf ears with me -- particularly since the GOP has been every bit as much the party of deficit spending as the Dems.

 

[GoIrish41]

The left and their cries for "compromise" has left us bleeding out our rights.

In the name of what?

Which is preferable to you -- compromise or the GOP losing the House and having legislation rammed down their throats? Obamacare legislation didn't happen in a vaccum. It happened after 8 years of the left being overrun by the GOP on just about everything and them striking while the iron is hot when they controled both houses and the presidency.

 

[irishpat183]

Which is preferable to you -- compromise or the GOP losing the House and having legislation rammed down their throats? Obamacare legislation didn't happen in a vaccum. It happened after 8 years of the left being overrun by the GOP on just about everything and them striking while the iron is hot when they controled both houses and the presidency.

Really? 2 years of control under Bushy and control under Obama in the first term.


So at what point in time are you referring too?


And the fact remains..the public didn't want the ACA (at one point it was 60/40 agasint). So why did it get passed?


And there is NO COMPROMISE on rights guaranteed by the founding docs.

 

[GoIrish41]

Really? 2 years of control under Bushy and control under Obama in the first term.


So at what point in time are you referring too?


And the fact remains..the public didn't want the ACA (at one point it was 60/40 agasint). So why did it get passed?


And there is NO COMPROMISE on rights guaranteed by the founding docs.

Are we going to talk about why things get passed that the public doesn't want? If so, we should talk, too, about why things DON'T get passed when the public wants them. Immigration reform, expanded background checks, the list is long. It seems like cherry picking to dwell on the ACA when there are endless examples of legislaiton being blocked or jammed down the throats of the opposition because one party or the other is taking advantage of political advantage. And, again, those behaviors don't happen in a vaccum. They happen ON BOTH SIDES and not because the party in power are sore losers, but because they are obnoxiously bad winners. To me, that is where the hyper partisanship we are experiencing now has its genisis and neither party is free of blame for it.

 

[irishpat183]

Are we going to talk about why things get passed that the public doesn't want? If so, we should talk, too, about why things DON'T get passed when the public wants them. Immigration reform, expanded background checks, the list is long. It seems like cherry picking to dwell on the ACA when there are endless examples of legislaiton being blocked or jammed down the throats of the opposition because one party or the other is taking advantage of political advantage. And, again, those behaviors don't happen in a vaccum. They happen ON BOTH SIDES and not because the party in power are sore losers, but because they are obnoxiously bad winners. To me, that is where the hyper partisanship we are experiencing now has its genisis and neither party is free of blame for it.

You mean stuff liberals in big cities want?

I"d rather things don't get passed than something get rammed through that nobody wanted.

That's far more detrimental.

 

[Buster Bluth]

You mean stuff liberals in big cities want?

It must be nice to use that line for every argument thrown at the GOP.

 

[GoIrish41]

You mean stuff liberals in big cities want?

I"d rather things don't get passed than something get rammed through that nobody wanted.

That's far more detrimental.

Why is that? I could argue that allowing longstanding problems (that everyone knows are problems) go unattended to are far more problematic. Despite your dire predections for ACA, it may end up being a huge success and in the long view might not be viewed as detrimental at all. Every time someone gets shot by a person who shouldn't have a gun we are reminded how idiotic we have been about not passing sensible gun control legislation. The billions of dollars that are left on the table because illegal aliens are left in the shadows economincally are also a reminder of wasted potential that is brought about due to political inaction. Those are obviously detrimental. The ACA, maybe, maybe not.

 

[irishpat183]

It must be nice to use that line for every argument thrown at the GOP.

Like the "people/children/elderly are dying/starving in the streets" used by the left?

 

[irishpat183]

Why is that? I could argue that allowing longstanding problems (that everyone knows are problems) go unattended to are far more problematic. Despite your dire predections for ACA, it may end up being a huge success and in the long view might not be viewed as detrimental at all. Every time someone gets shot by a person who shouldn't have a gun we are reminded how idiotic we have been about not passing sensible gun control legislation. The billions of dollars that are left on the table because illegal aliens are left in the shadows economincally are also a reminder of wasted potential that is brought about due to political inaction. Those are obviously detrimental. The ACA, maybe, maybe not.

There is sensible gun legislation in place. "Sensible" is realizing that you're not going to prevent anything with new laws (hello war on drugs)

Immigration doesn't need reform...we need to follow the rules in place. If you're here illegally...GTFO. I don't care if your mom is here. Follow the rules

 

[GoIrish41]

Like the "people/children/elderly are dying/starving in the streets" used by the left?

Actually, you are the only one who I ever heard make that argument when you tried to put words in our mouths.

 

[GoIrish41]

There is sensible gun legislation in place. "Sensible" is realizing that you're not going to prevent anything with new laws (hello war on drugs)

Immigration doesn't need reform...we need to follow the rules in place. If you're here illegally...GTFO. I don't care if your mom is here. Follow the rules

Well Pat, one side doesn't get to decide what is OK and what is not. That's why there are two sides. If that is the position of one side, then that is the argument they should come to the table with. 90% of the country wants background checks and far more than half want immigration reform. If you are offended by the ACA being passed when "the country didn't want it" you should be mad about these items too. That you are not makes your whole argument about the ACA fall apart for me.

 

[irishpat183]

Actually, you are the only one who I ever heard make that argument when you tried to put words in our mouths.

You have your rhetoric, I have mine...LOL

 

[phgreek]

There are more ways than one to ensure we don't have defict spending. Raising taxes, for example, is viewed as a personal afront by the right. You mention where the cuts to make something deficit neutral can come from, but you don't mention corporate welfare programs, subsities for industrial farmers, Defense Department spending -- just areas that are favored by the left. Nobody on the left wants us to spend the country into oblivion either, it comes down to how we can raise revenue or where cuts can be made that need to be on the table. Painting everyone who seeks societal equity and fairness as a socialist or a tax and spend liberal isn't a good place to start a productive national conversation, and it falls on deaf ears with me -- particularly since the GOP has been every bit as much the party of deficit spending as the Dems.

that's the AG reference (should have been Ag or dept. of Agriculture) ...and I did say DOD...

Anyway...I meant cuts across the board...I just listed some...I'm looking for negotiations that matter with EVERYTHING on the table. Negotiations that do not reduce spending, or at least credibly show budget neutrality are a complete farce to me.

Raising taxes is the same as raising the debt ceiling in that it allows the consequences of ****** decisions, lack of character, and waste to be Dodged...any wander politicians figured out this game... and now have us in a place where that activity is habitual because it is rewarded via election/re-election...no one will demand it stop...well not enough people that is....and those who do are the ones being labeled.

Look at it this way...when we were running increased revenues after tax cuts...what did we do. I can tell you what we didn't do...we did not invest in technology to maintain service levels, and hold personnel costs constant or reduce them....like industry has generally done. We did nothing to use technology to stem Fraud waste and abuse. Put it this way...is there a reason personnel costs of government have not gone down relative to the service level in line with what has been achieved in industry? Is there a reason why we have not even begun to address the Fraud waste and abuse in government?

Increasing Taxes to raise revenue is simply another band aid for unfathomable mismanagement. To say ...but we need to raise taxes to get it right now...that's ALWAYS the case, and a copout for sucking a$$ for decades. Government needs to be forced to shrink...sorry we missed the window to strategically apply revenue when it was coming in...that would have made the reduction far less painful...hope we do it right on the next boom in the economy. One way or another we will shrink the federal government...it just may not be on our terms...and that would truly be sad.

...and I tried to make a distinction between conservative and R particularly in the realm of fiscal conduct...and that R spends about like D... Not painting anyone as anything...call it whatever you want...I'm saying what is called compromise is far from it when you look at it from a truly fiscal conservative perspective...thus a little less left than the left wants (D and R) is no compromise at all.

 

[phgreek]

Which is preferable to you -- compromise or the GOP losing the House and having legislation rammed down their throats? Obamacare legislation didn't happen in a vaccum. It happened after 8 years of the left being overrun by the GOP on just about everything and them striking while the iron is hot when they controled both houses and the presidency.

...well at least we are clear on the point that this was legislation of opportunity...

 

[GoIrish41]

...well at least we are clear on the point that this was legislation of opportunity...

Of course it was. Much of the legislation passed in the past few decades has been. It is what the Congress has become.

 

[phgreek]

Of course it was. Much of the legislation passed in the past few decades has been. It is what the Congress has become.

yep...

Its just shocking not to get a response like: "Its really a Republican Plan that is decades old, and well thought out", or "We have been thinking about this for 40 years" as some surrogate for a plan you could implement...Or a half dozen others feigning forethought on the scale needed here.

 

[ACamp1900]

Obamacare was passed to help common folk... you know, the people that insurance companies and republicans wanted to die quickly...


there was nothing political about it.