Moderators: LyricalRico, nate33, montestewart
popper wrote:Hands - Agree it is not a good way to govern but this is what the voters decided. The economy shrank last quarter anyway (even with record stimulus) so I doubt this will be anything more than another bump in the road. Each party is running blocking maneuvers trying to impede the progress of their opponent. We will probably have to wait until 2014 elections for things to change one way or another.
hands11 wrote:popper wrote:Hands - Agree it is not a good way to govern but this is what the voters decided. The economy shrank last quarter anyway (even with record stimulus) so I doubt this will be anything more than another bump in the road. Each party is running blocking maneuvers trying to impede the progress of their opponent. We will probably have to wait until 2014 elections for things to change one way or another.
God help us.
popper wrote:hands11 wrote:popper wrote:Hands - Agree it is not a good way to govern but this is what the voters decided. The economy shrank last quarter anyway (even with record stimulus) so I doubt this will be anything more than another bump in the road. Each party is running blocking maneuvers trying to impede the progress of their opponent. We will probably have to wait until 2014 elections for things to change one way or another.
God help us.
He would probably like to but Dems voted him out of the platform at their last convention.
nate33 wrote:pine, I agree with all you said about the parties being unwilling to compromise. But I think you are underrating the anger the GOP base has with Christie and the way he boosted Obama's campaign right before the election. There was no need for Christie to have a photo op with Obama at that time. It totally undermined the GOP tactically in a close election.
All that said, I'd rather have Christie at the table helping with budget negotiations than just about anybody else. That guy knows how to make cuts to government and then communicate to the voters why the cuts are necessary.
Severn Hoos wrote:pine, thank you for posting - you are the glimmer of hope that keeps me (occasionally) still checking in to this thread. That said, two points, by way of suggestion/request:
1. If you start a sentence with "though you may think this is ideological I'm trying to be objective", you probably shouldn't end it with a term like "Teahadist." Just saying, it kinda undercuts the first statement. I used to hate it when Rush Limbaugh used the term "Feminazis" for a number of reasons, but the two most prominent are that it minimizes the evil of actual Nazis, and in the end it just undermined his own position. I'm not saying I'm offended by the term, just that by using it you are telegraphing that anyone who is even sympathetic to the very real concerns raised by the Tea Party is not worthy of consideration.
2. I prefer precision about "cuts" versus "reduced rates of increased spending". I can't speak to the specifics of the current situation, but often what is labeled as a "cut" is actually a reduction from, say a 10% year-over-year increase to a 5% increase.
That said, I do agree with you about the unwillingness to compromise (which, naturally, I believe goes both ways). My preferred candidate in 2012 would have been Mitch Daniels, who got in trouble for not "toeing the line" for the conservative purists. Unfortunately, given the incentives in place, I don't see much changing in the near future...
pineappleheadindc wrote:Severn Hoos wrote:pine, thank you for posting - you are the glimmer of hope that keeps me (occasionally) still checking in to this thread. That said, two points, by way of suggestion/request:
1. If you start a sentence with "though you may think this is ideological I'm trying to be objective", you probably shouldn't end it with a term like "Teahadist." Just saying, it kinda undercuts the first statement. I used to hate it when Rush Limbaugh used the term "Feminazis" for a number of reasons, but the two most prominent are that it minimizes the evil of actual Nazis, and in the end it just undermined his own position. I'm not saying I'm offended by the term, just that by using it you are telegraphing that anyone who is even sympathetic to the very real concerns raised by the Tea Party is not worthy of consideration.
2. I prefer precision about "cuts" versus "reduced rates of increased spending". I can't speak to the specifics of the current situation, but often what is labeled as a "cut" is actually a reduction from, say a 10% year-over-year increase to a 5% increase.
That said, I do agree with you about the unwillingness to compromise (which, naturally, I believe goes both ways). My preferred candidate in 2012 would have been Mitch Daniels, who got in trouble for not "toeing the line" for the conservative purists. Unfortunately, given the incentives in place, I don't see much changing in the near future...
LOL -- completely fair points to which I yield to you, Severn!
dobrojim wrote:read this piece by Glenn Greenwald http://tinyurl.com/bxvzm9x earlier
today including a bunch of the comments afterwards many of which seemed to be from
righties who complained that lefties won't criticize Obama for Exec power grabs.
Not sure how true that is generally and will say right here, it's not true of this
'lefty'. This kind of thing is just as wrong when Obama does it as when Bush did it.
pineappleheadindc wrote:P.S. To Republicans here. Do you think Christie has a shot to get out of the primaries.
Christie may be a liberal's worst nightmare. (Though Severn identifies Daniels correctly as being good for the GOP's appealing to the general electorate too.....but in this media-driven universe now, it's (sadly) important to have a little TV star quality. I wonder if Daniels has that?)
pineappleheadindc wrote:.
It's almost sequester time. At this stage in the game, there's no doubt that we'll at least be testing the waters of sequestration cuts. How long we're there is anyone's guess.
That we're hitting sequestration is a complete and total example of nobody talking to each other. And, though you may think this is ideological I'm trying to be objective, I blame the conservative media and the Teahadists. Republicans are actually afraid to do business with President Obama. They'll get primaried. Hell, CPAC didn't invite Chris Christie - a guy with a totally conservative policy record in NJ (attacked teachers unions, pro-life, not a real bleeding heart on illegal immigration)....that's a BLUE state. And he's got a public approval record in that blue state that's higher than Jesus. But work with the President for natural disaster relief of your own people and you're a RINO. And, you're supporting a marxist, socialist, Kenyan, who was only elected thanks to a (nonexistant) ACORN.
Point is, sequestration is stupid because the cuts don't come where they should (excepting some cuts to Defense, and the meat axe approach there is stupid). By exempting the vast majority of the Federal budget (social welfare programs), Congress missed the mark completely. And I thought Republicans WANTED to work on the impending deficit caused by these programs.
In his sequester replacement plan available on the White House website, one of the President's proposals is something that liberals hate. Chained CPI. In a normal world, even if you disagreed with everything else, you'd take that (Republicans), give him something small for his side, then propose the next thing (in concert with chained CPI)....raising the retirement age? means testing? Whatever. You'd chip away at the problem together, step-by-step, until you've made progress. Can't get all the way there in terms of deficit reduction? Not probs, you lock in what you have now then wait for the next opportunity to do more together.
Step by step, back and forth, eating the elephant one bite at a time. THAT'S the way to solve difficult problems needing collaborative response.
But, if you can't even get aid from the President for people flooded out of their homes and living in tents in wintertime without being attacked from your side, how are you going to work with the President on big things?
My dos centavos.
dobrojim wrote:I thought Boehner got 98% of what he wanted. Now he's acting like
he thinks this is horrible.
Ryan and the Mittster ran on a platform of closing loopholes
and reform (supposedly) to generate > revenues.
As per segment on Maddox, reducing spending is popular until
you actually say what it is you propose to reduce spending on.
The most popular thing (to reduce) is foreign aid which amounts to < 1% of
of the budget. Few, if any, generally described areas of the budget garner
> 50% approval in polling for spending cuts.
Biggest problem in Washington isn't 'in' Washington. It's gerrymandering.
