triangulation

[Clubfoothead]

man, you gotta love it. during the election, all the people who carry water for him are all, "he's such a pragmatic moderate, that's what I really love about him."

 

I never considered him a pragmatic moderate.

 

[cliaz]

How bipartisan of the Republicans. They care about one thing and one thing only . . their agenda, and damn what happens to anyone else. How American of them

 

Same with the Democrats. And that is the problem. The two party system is not working. As much as everyone knocks the Tea Party I am hoping they pull themselves together and become a third, established party that different from Republicans and Democrats. The sad reality is that we, the masses, have very little say or pull in to what our 'elected' officials do. Our country is run by special interest groups and giant corporations.

 

Maybe it is time to do what the French did back in the day and simply ignore the government and stand up our own then push the old aside. I'm down for a few of these so called elected officials being put to the guillotine

[TimC]

Cliaz, ever since you moved to the South and became one of us Rebels, you're making alot more sense.

[cliaz]

Cliaz, ever since you moved to the South and became one of us Rebels, you're making alot more sense.

 

The South shall rise again....with me at the helm - Vote Cliaz for Confederate President in 2012!

 

I promise a confederate flag on every truck and a walmart on every corner

[redrumjuice]

This is the gordian knot that GWB won political points for, that was NEVER intended to be long-term, but will always be a rallying cry for the freakin politicians. Thanks for the legacy you Penny Laneing moran GWB . . .

 

You must be to young to remember, the sunset clause was the only way tom daschel would sign off on it, otherwise they filibuster. History, learn it.

[bpwallace49]

Same with the Democrats. And that is the problem. The two party system is not working. As much as everyone knocks the Tea Party I am hoping they pull themselves together and become a third, established party that different from Republicans and Democrats. The sad reality is that we, the masses, have very little say or pull in to what our 'elected' officials do. Our country is run by special interest groups and giant corporations.

 

Maybe it is time to do what the French did back in the day and simply ignore the government and stand up our own then push the old aside. I'm down for a few of these so called elected officials being put to the guillotine

 

So you are saying that the left hasnt compromised versus the right in the last 2 years?

 

Both parties are crap, but that is patentely false.

 

I had high hopes for Perot and his party . . but until the campaigning playing field is leveled to fund people running on their PLATFORM and not how much money they can squeeze out of their respective bases, nothing will be changed.

[Azazello1313]

Pretty much public record versus hyperbole at this point, with concrete examples of how Obama and the left have compromised from their original intent versus . . . . what again from the right?

 

concrete examples of compromising obama's original intent in order to reign in the more moderate members of his own party. this is what passes for "bipartisan compromise" in your book?

[bushwacked]

"Pragmatic Moderacy" as we all know, is an English phrase that means “give the Republicans exactly what they want.”

[cliaz]

So you are saying that the left hasnt compromised versus the right in the last 2 years?

 

Both parties are crap, but that is patentely false.

 

I had high hopes for Perot and his party . . but until the campaigning playing field is leveled to fund people running on their PLATFORM and not how much money they can squeeze out of their respective bases, nothing will be changed.

 

I am saying these political threads, talking about right vs left, dem vs rep, taxes this, reform that, everything is a gigantic waste of time and energy. You can no more argue your political view point than anyone else. Politics and religion are two topic I always tell my people to never bring up in conversation. The only time people bring up either is when they want to argue about them or force their view. It is folly to think your POV is right and expect people who do not share it to suddenly see the light and vice versa for anyone else. And yes, I just used the word 'Folly'

[Square]

concrete examples of compromising obama's original intent in order to reign in the more moderate members of his own party. this is what passes for "bipartisan compromise" in your book?

Do some of you ever think you put a little too much time/hope/energy into the parties instead of just considering what is better for America? The top earners (en mass) no longer need this temporary tax cut. If the last few years haven't been enough, nothing ever will. If the economy is too fragile, than they can keep the cuts for the other people for 2 years. Claiming to be fiscally responsible while promising to spend more money and bringing in less with no clear plan (or credible history on either side of the aisle) of cutting government spending is lunacy. Some of you are too worried about your "side" winning or making the other "side" look bad. I've voted for both parties enough to know they are all full of chit.

[Clubfoothead]

Same with the Democrats. And that is the problem. The two party system is not working. As much as everyone knocks the Tea Party I am hoping they pull themselves together and become a third, established party that different from Republicans and Democrats. The sad reality is that we, the masses, have very little say or pull in to what our 'elected' officials do. Our country is run by special interest groups and giant corporations.

 

I'm going to have to disagree somewhat here. Sure both parties are $hit, but many on both sides probably see one as closer to what they believe than the other. It's why I'd call myself a liberal not a democrat despite voting for democrats 80% of the time.

 

I'm pretty sure the extension of the Bush tax cuts were atop the tea partiers priority list. This was a great exercise in compromise extortion on their part. I'd suggest embracing getting just what you voted for. If this isn't part of the tea party mandate, nobody told Boehner.

[Azazello1313]

who knews that obama just had to follow the advice of his recent budget secretary and move slightly to the center on this issue for me to be praising him and all his resident sackleeches to be pulling their hair out

[cliaz]

I'm going to have to disagree somewhat here. Sure both parties are $hit, but many on both sides probably see one as closer to what they believe than the other. It's why I'd call myself a liberal not a democrat despite voting for democrats 80% of the time.

 

I'm pretty sure the extension of the Bush tax cuts were atop the tea partiers priority list. This was a great exercise in compromise extortion on their part. I'd suggest embracing getting just what you voted for. If this isn't part of the tea party mandate, nobody told Boehner.

 

To clarify, I am not a tea party supporter. I was using them as an example. Both parties are $hit and both parties are just as guilty about stuff they point the finger to about the other. Our federal government needs an enema and to trim itself down a bit.

[Square]

who knews that obama just had to follow the advice of his recent budget secretary and move slightly to the center on this issue for me to be praising him and all his resident sackleeches to be pulling their hair out

I still don't know how "center" means that he should continue tax cuts for the rich along with further funding government programs that we don't have money for. I'd assume the right wants fiscally responsible polices, and neither of these actions follow that. What am I missing?

 

So is spending more and bringing in less money, good for America? Yes or No.

[redrumjuice]

So is spending more and bringing in less money, good for America?

 

They have PLENTY of money. We need to starve washington, not give them more. When will you get that part? Why so dense?

 

Members of Congress requested almost 40,000 earmarks worth more than $100 billion directed to their home districts and states for the current fiscal year

[Square]

They have PLENTY of money. We need to starve washington, not give them more. When will you get that part? Why so dense?

 

Members of Congress requested almost 40,000 earmarks worth more than $100 billion directed to their home districts and states for the current fiscal year

Although most people don't take you seriously enough to talk to, I'll give it a try.

 

So which is more likely to happen?

 

1) We let tax cuts for the rich expire and slowly reign in spending.

 

2) We starve Washington and everyone in the land agrees with rjuice. The politicians decide they are the problem and vote themselves out of office. The US becomes the 1920s utopia of laissez faire economics and limited federal government that you dream of.

[redrumjuice]

Although most people don't take you seriously enough to talk to

 

You can't handle reality.

 

tax cuts for the rich

 

You saying that lets anyone who doesn't already know, realize exactly what you are. You don't matter, you are already braindead and can't think for yourself.

 

Do you like buying caddilac escalades for congress peoples kids to drive? Of course you do, just 'tax the rich'.

[bpwallace49]

concrete examples of compromising obama's original intent in order to reign in the more moderate members of his own party. this is what passes for "bipartisan compromise" in your book?

 

Actually I would think that compromise means that both sides give a little in order to accomplish an overall goal in the best interests of all.

 

"Obama's original intent"? Really? I have been on record pretty much forever on how stupid it is to rail on Obama when 1.) the people in charge of actually doing the legislationj consists of fringe elements (Pelosi for example, whom I loathe) and 2.) He has shown quite a bit of willingness to come to compromise on issues, which has strayed from campaign rhetoric (hence why driveby,redrum, caddy, etc get all hot and bothered about "breaking campaign promises")

 

Not having a public option was a compromise, not really sure how you can argue otherwise. It was giving something back to come to a more centrist view. (putting aside that the bill has major major flaws that were not addressed, and this is in no way an endorsement of that bill) Establishing a fiscal commision was originally a republican supported idea . . . until Obama suggested it. Then it was the spawn of the debbil.

 

I hate that the compromise only works in one direction lately, toward the right. That isnt compromise. We could get a helluva lot more accomplished if instead of blatently pandering to the uber-rich, the right actually had an "Adult conversation" regarding their own caucas and voting block to see if instead of "do what we say or we will continue to block everything and vote no", they could actually begin to compromise.

 

Compromise doesnt mean "give us what we want no matter what". It means be a part of the solution and work towards a goal that benefits everyone, instead of a select few. What if the right and Obama went even further and said "Ok, lets extend the tax cuts two years. At which time they expire UNLESS enough spending cuts in defense, medicare, earmarks, wherever in gubmnet can be cut to pay for them to be permanent?" Would THAT give everyone an impetus to get off their butts and accomplish something? Hell, it holds EVERYONE in Congress accountable then! It aslo hold Obama accountable for either making it happen, or immediately get booted out of office for failing to do so. It also means that BOTH parties are held to task to get this done instead of a childish "we will take our ball and go home if we dont get what we want" mentality.

 

Why wont they do so? Cause it creates accountability for republicans and Democrats. And neither side is adult enough to handle that accountability.

[cre8tiff]

You can't handle reality.

 

That's rich from someone already on their second alias for being an @$$hat, eh, H8Tank?

 

Why the admins allow your insult-driven no-brain arse back in here in the first place is the real mystery.

Edited December 7, 2010 by cre8tiff

[Azazello1313]

let me reiterate that real govt spending is up 60% in the last decade. the key to taming the deficit is reigning in that beast.

 

I would have actually been pretty pleased if they let the tax cuts expire for everybody, that would make a dent in the deficit over the next few years. it would also be pretty bad for the economy at a bad time, but the deficit problem is large and untractable enough I would have taken that as a good sign. extending them for everyone but the evil rich would have barely made any dent, it would have been simply a token class warfare gesture, the dying gasp of the pelosi congress. instead, the president and a bipartisan group in congress took the fairly sensible step of trying to shore up the economy NOW by extending current tax rates for just the next couple of years. raising taxes now is a herbert hoover move. I can see that position, but I can also see the position that the deficit problem is too big and too deep not to raise taxes on everybody right now, and if you don't take medicine now the medicine will never be taken. I guess overall I feel like there's enough momentum behind the bowles-simpson thing and reforming spending more generally that the long-term deficit picture will be brought into focus in the near future. the economy really IS in a bad place right now, these measures should help in the short term.

[bpwallace49]

let me reiterate that real govt spending is up 60% in the last decade. the key to taming the deficit is reigning in that beast.

 

I would have actually been pretty pleased if they let the tax cuts expire for everybody, that would make a dent in the deficit over the next few years. it would also be pretty bad for the economy at a bad time, but the deficit problem is large and untractable enough I would have taken that as a good sign. extending them for everyone but the evil rich would have barely made any dent, it would have been simply a token class warfare gesture, the dying gasp of the pelosi congress. instead, the president and a bipartisan group in congress took the fairly sensible step of trying to shore up the economy NOW by extending current tax rates for just the next couple of years. raising taxes now is a herbert hoover move. I can see that position, but I can also see the position that the deficit problem is too big and too deep not to raise taxes on everybody right now, and if you don't take medicine now the medicine will never be taken. I guess overall I feel like there's enough momentum behind the bowles-simpson thing and reforming spending more generally that the long-term deficit picture will be brought into focus in the near future. the economy really IS in a bad place right now, these measures should help in the short term.

 

So make the tax cuts permanent after two years IF enough cuts are made in gubmnet spending to offset the revenue drop. I think we both know that no politician in Washington DC has the balls to make that kind of proposal, because then they could actually be help responsible instead of pointing fingers at each other.

 

But for the love of God dont just punt the decsion of those tax holidays down the road to be another political football in two years . . . do something to either eliminate them or pay for them long term. Paying for them long term would be best, but then figure out how . .

[cliaz]

That's rich from someone already on their second alias for being an @$$hat, eh, H8Tank?

 

Why the admins allow your insult-driven no-brain arse back in here in the first place is the real mystery.

 

How dare you speak to The One in such a manor. If it were not for his glorious wisdom and keen eye on political affairs, this world would be much worse off. I say we convert December 12th to H8-a-red-juice day and celebrate the man, nay - the legend that is H8.

 

Before anyone starts, I call dibs on making the 30 ft banner and party gifts

[Jimmy Neutron]

"Pragmatic Moderacy" as we all know, is an English phrase that means “give the Republicans exactly what they want.”

 

I'm going to give Obama the benefit of a doubt here. I think he caved early in this as an arrow in the dems 2012 quiver. i don't know how long the repubs would have held out on the unemployment benefits, but it'll be good populist play for dems to tout what the DOP did to keep tax cuts for the wealthy.

 

I think it would have been best to let the Bush tax cuts expire for all but those earning over a miillion (Judas! Did I just agree with Schumer?!), extend the unemployment benefits and commit to budget cuts to pay for all of it.

 

We're also putting the cart before the horse. This is merely an agreement between Obama and the GOP leadership - it sill has to pass both houses and I think that's far from a foregone conclusion.

[CaP'N GRuNGe]

man, you gotta love it. during the election, all the people who carry water for him are all, "he's such a pragmatic moderate, that's what I really love about him." and during the last two years, when he basically handed the keys to nancy pelosi and let her steer the legislative agenda (and the democratic party's electoral hopes) leftward off a cliff, they STILL tried to beat that drum and say the he's a pragmatic moderate, but the party of 'no' just won't play along.

 

now, the moment he shows the first inkling of actually BEING a pragmatic bipartisan moderate, the same people are crying "DEFEAT!!!! LUNACY!!1!! GMOZ!!!!!!11!"

 

 

Negative Ghost Rider. It's a move he had to make and I'm glad he did. Would I have liked to have seen the tax cuts stripped out for the wealthy? Probably, but I can see the argument of wrong time to do so. Happy to see you're finally coming around to realize he actually is a pragmatist. Now, I'd like to see some leadership from him with a real push to put together a long term plan to implement many of the debt commission's proposals, gradually implementing them as the recovery takes better hold.

 

One more thing, regarding tax cuts. I still don't see how anyone can argue with a straight face that preserving these tax cuts for the wealthy insures new jobs. Preserves current jobs? Yeah, probably so.

 

Jobs are created based upon consumer demand. Until that goes up, we'll continue to see companies tightening their belts and building up their balance sheets. The tax cut extension for the middle class at least is tied to the level of demand in the economy. And that (IMO) is the driving force of whether or not a recovery will actually happen and how fast.

 

(Disclaimer: The above is my non-economist educated opinion. It makes sense to me anyways.)

Edited December 8, 2010 by CaP'N GRuNGe

[CaP'N GRuNGe]

well I basically agree with outgoing obama budget director peter orszag. now is a really bad time to raise taxes. send them all back up in 2 years if need be, but don't throw that at an incredibly feeble "recovery" right now. best thing they can do about the deficit right now is come up with a long-term plan (the bowles-simpson thing is a great start) for bending some unsustainable cost curves downward while providing for robust economic growth.

 

I agree with this. Only with politicians they'll probably try kick the can down the road yet again.