Keukasmallies Posted December 1, 2012 Share Posted December 1, 2012 I've about had it with the current pi$$ing contest between republicans and democrats (neither deserve capital letters). While I may be an old duffer, I still haven't heard of a reasonable course of action out there to address our upcoming fiscal debacle (made by the DC crew themselves a year ago), nor have I heard of a set of negotiating points upon which to base negotiations that don't include the gotcha concept. We elected these fools, we finance their play in the sand box that is our nation's capitol, and, finally, we keep sending them back term after term to do the same non-productive things! If you always do what you always did, you always get what you always got. Seriously, Louise Slaughter, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid have our backs in this time of near fiscal meltdown? John Boehner, Lindsay Graham, et. al. are our friends? Any legal, non-criminal remedies come to mind? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
/dev/null Posted December 1, 2012 Share Posted December 1, 2012 America doesn't have the government it wants but it has the government it deserves. Our illustirous leaders are a reflection of American society. Childish, self centered, impulse driven, instant gratification Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted December 1, 2012 Share Posted December 1, 2012 I've about had it with the current pi$$ing contest between republicans and democrats (neither deserve capital letters). While I may be an old duffer, I still haven't heard of a reasonable course of action out there to address our upcoming fiscal debacle (made by the DC crew themselves a year ago), nor have I heard of a set of negotiating points upon which to base negotiations that don't include the gotcha concept. We elected these fools, we finance their play in the sand box that is our nation's capitol, and, finally, we keep sending them back term after term to do the same non-productive things! If you always do what you always did, you always get what you always got. Seriously, Louise Slaughter, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid have our backs in this time of near fiscal meltdown? John Boehner, Lindsay Graham, et. al. are our friends? Any legal, non-criminal remedies come to mind? So, trillion dollar + annual deficits are a pissing contest? The dems refuse to see that their course takes us to Greece. For them, compromise consists of agreeing with their position. What is so wrong with Boehner's position? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob's House Posted December 1, 2012 Share Posted December 1, 2012 I know it's the new norm to show the world just how reasonable we are by playing the "both sides do it" line; but when one side is clearly in the wrong, can we just call it like it is and have enough balls to not worry about what douche bag might call us out for it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dayman Posted December 1, 2012 Share Posted December 1, 2012 We should just have PPP hash it all out Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
/dev/null Posted December 1, 2012 Share Posted December 1, 2012 We should just have PPP hash it all out Paul Ryan vs Barack Obama in the Octagon Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted December 1, 2012 Share Posted December 1, 2012 I know it's the new norm to show the world just how reasonable we are by playing the "both sides do it" line; but when one side is clearly in the wrong, can we just call it like it is and have enough balls to not worry about what douche bag might call us out for it? In this particular case, though, "both sides do it" is entirely accurate and reasonable. Each side of the aisle refuses to be flexible on their own dogma, and is putting the good of their party over the good of the country. News flash: there IS no solution to this that falls along any dogmatic lines. Both sides are going to have to give something up. Republicans are going to have to agree to raise taxes. Democrats are going to have to agree to cut spending. That's called "compromise". Otherwise, their party dogma is going to get run over by fiscal karma. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob's House Posted December 1, 2012 Share Posted December 1, 2012 In this particular case, though, "both sides do it" is entirely accurate and reasonable. Each side of the aisle refuses to be flexible on their own dogma, and is putting the good of their party over the good of the country. News flash: there IS no solution to this that falls along any dogmatic lines. Both sides are going to have to give something up. Republicans are going to have to agree to raise taxes. Democrats are going to have to agree to cut spending. That's called "compromise". Otherwise, their party dogma is going to get run over by fiscal karma. Last I heard a bunch of Republicans were backing off their no tax hike pledge. In the meantime the Democrat plan is tax hikes + spending hikes (definite tax hikes & proposed future spending cuts = no spending cuts = spending hikes. Mama didn't raise no fool). The R's have plenty to be criticized for but this isn't it. Let's not blame Fitz for a defensive melt down. The D is the problem here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
\GoBillsInDallas/ Posted December 1, 2012 Share Posted December 1, 2012 In this particular case, though, "both sides do it" is entirely accurate and reasonable. Each side of the aisle refuses to be flexible on their own dogma, and is putting the good of their party over the good of the country. News flash: there IS no solution to this that falls along any dogmatic lines. Both sides are going to have to give something up. Republicans are going to have to agree to raise taxes. Democrats are going to have to agree to cut spending. That's called "compromise". Otherwise, their party dogma is going to get run over by fiscal karma. What the Republican heard: Republicans are going to have to agree to raise taxes. You're a bleeding heart - go away! What the Democrat heard: Democrats are going to have to agree to cut spending. You're intolerant - go away! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keukasmallies Posted December 1, 2012 Author Share Posted December 1, 2012 It seems to me that the problem is in trying to peg a person/party/issue as the problem. Let's get away from the affixing of blame and get on the high road to fixing what needs to be fixed--(apologies for introducing a new concept). He said-she said is plenty tiring. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TPS Posted December 1, 2012 Share Posted December 1, 2012 So, trillion dollar + annual deficits are a pissing contest? The dems refuse to see that their course takes us to Greece. For them, compromise consists of agreeing with their position. What is so wrong with Boehner's position? Enough with the Greece analogy. Greece gave up monetary sovereignty; the US has not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted December 1, 2012 Share Posted December 1, 2012 Enough with the Greece analogy. Greece gave up monetary sovereignty; the US has not. But we gave up monetary sanity. Different path to the same end result. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keepthefaith Posted December 1, 2012 Share Posted December 1, 2012 It's painfully obvious that the democrats don't want to cut a nickel and would actually prefer to increase spending. They control 2 of 3 bodies. This alone is the problem plain and simple. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Adams Posted December 2, 2012 Share Posted December 2, 2012 (edited) Boehner refuses to increase revenue except through loophole closing. Not practical. Dems not wiling to cut entitlements as much as is needed. Not practical. We were at the meltdown or whatever it was called a year ago when dems had some 2.5T in cuts on the table but it fell apart after the same nonsense, then all of you re elected all the same people, hoping for a different result. I LOVE sequestration. It gets the job done. The problem is Congress will vote to ignore it. Bring on actual cuts and recession. Lets eat our peas. At least sequestration is a plan that gores us all. Edited December 2, 2012 by John Adams Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted December 2, 2012 Share Posted December 2, 2012 Boehner refuses to increase revenue except through loophole closing. Not practical. Dems not wiling to cut entitlements as much as is needed. Not practical. We were at the meltdown or whatever it was called a year ago when dems had some 2.5T in cuts on the table but it fell apart after the same nonsense, then all of you re elected all the same people, hoping for a different result. I LOVE sequestration. It gets the job done. The problem is Congress will vote to ignore it. Bring on actual cuts and recession. Lets eat our peas. At least sequestration is a plan that gores us all. Who backed away from that plan? Who disregarded Bowles/Simpson? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted December 2, 2012 Share Posted December 2, 2012 Boehner refuses to increase revenue except through loophole closing. Not practical. Dems not wiling to cut entitlements as much as is needed. Not practical. We were at the meltdown or whatever it was called a year ago when dems had some 2.5T in cuts on the table but it fell apart after the same nonsense, then all of you re elected all the same people, hoping for a different result. I LOVE sequestration. It gets the job done. The problem is Congress will vote to ignore it. Bring on actual cuts and recession. Lets eat our peas. At least sequestration is a plan that gores us all. The real money is in the middle. Expand the tax base, slow down entitlement creep. Stop demonizing wealth creators. Lets see if POTUS has the balls. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Adams Posted December 2, 2012 Share Posted December 2, 2012 (edited) Who backed away from that plan? Who disregarded Bowles/Simpson? Both sides backed away. Boehner never had support and negotiated without approval. Obama had the same issue but to a lesser extent since he was POTUS but Obama asked for changes at the end to shore up his base (the tax raise goal post move) that he may have withdrawn but we will never know because when the president called to discuss them...3 times... Boehner refused to take his call. Horrific behavior. POTUS calls the Speaker. Speaker needs to take his call or call back. Obama and Boehner both failed the country. Last time around and it appears this time. Lets see if POTUS has the balls. Lets see if the Reps have the balls to raise taxes too. Obama put a lot of cuts on the table last time when we were nearing the debt ceiling. Reps did not put forward new revenue...only Boehner discussed that. And when Obama made a final push for it, Boehner sunk what would have been a helluva deal (that the parties may not have supported, ESP the Right). It hasn't stopped being more than party politics yet. At some point they may put country first. Edited December 2, 2012 by John Adams Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nanker Posted December 2, 2012 Share Posted December 2, 2012 Obama and Boehner both failed the country. Last time around and it appears this time. Lets see if the Reps have the balls to raise taxes too. It hasn't stopped being more than party politics yet. At some point they may put country first. :lol: :lol: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob's House Posted December 2, 2012 Share Posted December 2, 2012 Both sides backed away. Boehner never had support and negotiated without approval. Obama had the same issue but to a Lets see if the Reps have the balls to raise taxes too. Obama put a lot of cuts on the table last time when we were nearing the debt ceiling. Reps did not put forward new revenue...only Boehner discussed that. And when Obama made a final push for it, Boehner sunk what would have been a helluva deal (that the parties may not have supported, ESP the Right). It hasn't stopped being more than party politics yet. At some point they may put country first. You O'Reilly types irritate me. You seem intelligent enough to know better. I just can't figure out if you're trying so hard to get to the "center" you'll take any route you can get, or if you actually believe this bull ****. Also, it pisses me off no end when people make me defend the Republicans. This idea that they're right wing extremists (fiscally speaking, anyway) is a joke. Quite the opposite. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TPS Posted December 2, 2012 Share Posted December 2, 2012 The real money is in the middle. Expand the tax base, slow down entitlement creep. Stop demonizing wealth creators. Lets see if POTUS has the balls. Hmmm, if the top 20% earns 50% of all income, please tell me where that "real money in the middle" is hiding... Also, a real doozy from Krauthammer this past week, http://www.adn.com/2012/12/01/2710198/charles-krauthammer-republicans.html Democrats pretend that Social Security is covered through 2033 by its trust fund. Except that the trust fund is a fiction, a mere "bookkeeping" device, as the OMB itself has written. The trust fund's IOUs "do not consist of real economic assets that can be drawn down in the future to fund benefits." Future benefits "will have to be financed by raising taxes, borrowing from the public, or reducing benefits or other expenditures." Charles, if you admit that the money isn't there, which means that the government views SS taxes like all of its other sources of revenue, then there goes your 47% argument. If income and payroll taxes are viewed the same, then stop the BS about the 47% who pay no taxes! What's worse Charles, if you admit those taxes were used to fund government expenditures all along, then the Reagan-Greenspan increase in payroll taxes in the mid-1980s, supposedly done then to pay for deficits expected in the future, was really done to pay for Reagan's supply-side tax cuts that mainly went to benefit of the rich. Back then, a conservative was a true conservative, afraid of big deficits, so somebody had to pay for the tax cuts. It's pretty clear that there has been a class war going on since the 1980s, and it's the top who is engaging in it. Read more here: http://www.adn.com/2012/12/01/2710198/charles-krauthammer-republicans.html#storylink=cpy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts