Republican Judgement

[Accountable]

All partisans define compromise as the other "side" giving up something.

 

[MoonOwl]

*Flys in for a spout off*

I was on my break today when I saw a woman drive by in her pickup truck w/a huge sign in the bed of said truck that proclaimed "Can You Afford Four More Years?" When I type huge, I mean like 6'x8'. Nicely done, homemade sign w/a wooden bracket to hold it in there.

I assume she is a Romney supporter as I saw no trace of Ron Paul's name anywhere. I so would have liked to ask her if she knew that one of Mitt's largest contributors is Goldman Sachs?

Perhaps one day everyone will indeed realize that both sides play for the same team? Only then will anything change. I'm not holding my breath.

If he's not on my ballot I am writing Ron in. Period. I'm so over this bullshit.

*flys back out*

 

[Minor Axis]

All partisans define compromise as the other "side" giving up something.

You are so wrong on this issue. The man I quoted does not believe in compromise in any way. It was not the other side giving up something, but giving up everything. His statement is a joke. Democrats will compromise, they have all ready and appear weak to the other side because of it. With our political system, compromise is the only way forward or we will collapse. Yeah, that result could be a fresh start, then it will be revolution and shooting those who don't agree with us. I'm looking forward to it. :sarcasm

 

[Accountable]

It's been over 3 years since the dem Senate passed a budget. ijs

 

[Minor Axis]

It's been over 3 years since the dem Senate passed a budget. ijs

What does this mean to you and what kind of an adverse effect does it result in?

The Democrats have gone on record as to why no budget has been passed, mandatory spending caps based on the Budget Control Act. I'm open minded, but anytime a Republican or Democrat screams about anything, you must consider the facts and the political motive behind it and you know I hold the GOP in lower standing than their Dem counterparts. So what does it all mean?

Personally I believe spending HAS TO BE CUT, a lot. Taxes most likely will have to be raised to get back to a healthy situation. Which means our representatives have to work together. Not likely. The GOP has their holy grail budget items that can't be touched. And with the line drawn in the sand and the "our way or the highway" anti-social, fuck-you average worker pro busineess stand of the GOP, compounded by the unrealistic demands of the voters who don't want their medicare or SS messed with, frankly I don't see much of anything being accomplished. Seems like the cliff is getting closer and closer.

"We passed it on Aug. 2," Schumer said, referring to the debt deal.
"They're attacking us because they have nothing better to do," Reid added. "They need something else to talk about."
Conrad's panel has released an analysis asserting that the deal reached in August to raise the debt ceiling was, for all intents and purposes, a budget.
The Budget Control Act included caps on discretionary spending and examined entitlement programs and revenue, the analysis said. “Republican rhetoric aside, Congress did pass a budget,” the fact sheet said.

 

[Accountable]

What does this mean to you and what kind of an adverse effect does it result in?

The Democrats have gone on record as to why no budget has been passed, mandatory spending caps based on the Budget Control Act. I'm open minded, but anytime a Republican or Democrat screams about anything, you must consider the facts and the political motive behind it and you know I hold the GOP in lower standing than their Dem counterparts. So what does it all mean?

Well obviously it means your admitted bias doesn't allow you to see the truth.

I would say I give up, but I've done that before. My optimism (or short memory, I'm not sure which) won't let me give up on you.

 

[Minor Axis]

Well obviously it means your admitted bias doesn't allow you to see the truth.

I would say I give up, but I've done that before. My optimism (or short memory, I'm not sure which) won't let me give up on you.

Thanks for not giving up on me, but just because I think A is better than B, does not mean I have unreasoning bias. And you seem a bit like the pot calling the kettle black when it comes to bias. I mean you do seem to hate both A & B equally, but that does not prove you lack bias. There's counter- proof in these forums every day.

 

[Minor Axis]

A good ole American Enterprise partly comprised of Bain Capital sells the AMC Movie Chain to the Chinese! Yeah, I want my President's company to be involved in selling off U.S. Corporations to fereners...

 

[Minor Axis]

This morning on Morning Joe they thought Obama's attack on Romney's time at Bain was a non-starter. Personally I think it's relevant if you want to talk about job creation. AND... they thought Romney's time spent as Governor of Mass is much more relevant as someone who is selling himself as the fixer, but apparently he did not do a good job as Governor creating jobs in the State.


For Obama, since he has been elected President he has faced a solid front of obstructionism from the GOP who is content to not do anything for 4 years until they can get a Republican elected President. Which brings me to this article, Blame the Right @ The Daily Beast which nicely summaries where we are today with the GOP:

Today’s Republicans are different. They truly have put partisanship ahead of patriotism, as the political scientists Norman Ornstein and Thomas Mann document in their book, Even Worse Than it Looks. “The GOP,” they write, “has become an insurgent outlier in American politics. It is ideologically extreme; scornful of compromise; unmoved by conventional understanding of facts, evidence, and science; and dismissive of the legitimacy of its political opposition.”

Accountable, this is what makes the Dems diff than the GOP:

Sure, the Democrats hated George W. Bush. But when he wanted to meet them halfway on education, even Ted Kennedy helped him. And when he wanted to make an impressive commitment to fighting AIDS, TB, and malaria in Africa, Harry Reid and Joe Biden—along with Richard Lugar—made it happen.

Why has the GOP gone off this far-right cliff? As he has so often, E.J. Dionne has written a brilliant new book, and it places our current division in political and cultural context. In Our Divided Political Heart, Dionne points out that one of the reasons we can’t agree on where we’re going is that we can’t even agree on where we’ve been—or who we are. Are we, as Tea Party activists claim, a nation born from a tax revolt, created to oppose government? Dionne says no. The Founders, he writes, certainly opposed the oppressive, tyrannical rule of George III, but they advocated self-government, not no government. Historically, Dionne writes, Americans have believed that We The People “were able to see democratic government as a constructive force in our national life and to use it in creative ways.” A far different vision from the Tea Party, which, Dionne notes, “casts government as inherently oppressive, necessarily wasteful, and nearly always damaging to our nation’s growth and prosperity.”

Then I read She Knows How to Beat Obama a very scary article if you don't want to see the GOP prevail in the next Presidential election. It highlights Susana Martinez, the Governor of New Mexico and on Romney's list for VP. However when I read the article I realized, although she would be a potent running mate, she is probably too liberal for today's GOP.


Finally check out this article about the War on Kids at USA Today. Which is also the war on parents unable to finance their kids education.

Which makes it all the more unsettling to watch Mitt Romney adopt the GOP’s slash-and-burn strategies for solving our nation’s education woes. He has vowed to consolidate the Education Department (or, at least, make it “a heck of a lot smaller”); and he has backed Rep. Paul Ryan’s budget proposal, which would reportedly eliminate 200,000 children from Head Start, reduce services for 10% of disadvantaged middle school kids, and cut Pell grants by more than $1,000 per college student. As for older kids saddled with education costs, Romney is all business: “Borrow money if you have to from your parents,” he said. Clearly the man hasn’t seen the average American’s checkbook balance.

 

[Accountable]

Education isn't a federal issue and shouldn't even be addressed in Washington at all. The difference you point out is that dems are always willing to grow the gov't and increase spending, while the repubs seem to think it matters which side is in charge when the money gets spent.

Find a major difference.

 

[Minor Axis]

Education isn't a federal issue and shouldn't even be addressed in Washington at all. The difference you point out is that dems are always willing to grow the gov't and increase spending, while the repubs seem to think it matters which side is in charge when the money gets spent.

Find a major difference.

You are entitled to your view. My point was made and is a clear illustration regarding party politics in WashDC .

 

[Accountable]

You are entitled to your view. My point was made and is a clear illustration regarding party politics in WashDC .

You are entitled to your view.

Find a major difference.

 

[Alien Allen]

You are entitled to your view.

Find a major difference.

Even if it sucks?

 

[Minor Axis]

Regarding education, in my life time, the U.S. Government has always placed a priority on higher education for the masses if they want to go. Post WWII, 50s, 60s, 70s, the vast majority of Middle Class could afford college in many cases through government assistance of some kind. I had an AFROTC scholarship that paid my tuition, books, and gave me a $100 per month spending money by way of the U.S. military/government, thanks much. Then I received an education learning to fly an airplane. In return, I served for 9 years. Millions have come out of the U.S.military and taken advantage of G.I.Bill, once considered reasonable repayment for serving and putting your life on the line for your country.

So when it comes to higher education, if you've watched the news, you've heard their speeches. I don't like the GOP proposition and promotion of the idea that due to government bloat and wild overspending, which they were in the middle of, "while corporate welfare is no problem, but we can no longer afford to hand out good deals to average citizens", while actively lowering expectations, pushing the notion college is and should be unaffordable for the many.

Translation: only the affluent should get to go. Our priorities don't include educational welfare for average citizens.

That said, when I was going to college in the 1970s, this country had vocational high schools in place (where I grew up, Maryland, D.C. suburbs) for those who'd rather be a plumber or mechanic of some kind, but college was always an affordable option.

 

[Accountable]

Whereas the dems have the much firmer position that the federal gov't can pay for everyone's college, give welfare to pauper and robber baron alike, expand concierge services to all, and all we need to do to pay for it is to take the billionaires' money .... well, not all the billionaires, just the repub ones .... unless they're also giving campaign contributions to dems. But those two or three that aren't so exempt, fuck 'em! Let them pay for it all!

 

[Johnfromokc]

 

[Tim]

Whereas the dems have the much firmer position that the federal gov't can pay for everyone's college, give welfare to pauper and robber baron alike, expand concierge services to all, and all we need to do to pay for it is to take the billionaires' money .... well, not all the billionaires, just the repub ones .... unless they're also giving campaign contributions to dems. But those two or three that aren't so exempt, fuck 'em! Let them pay for it all!

Wouldn't that just be good for everyone?

If everyone who qualified was able to go to college, wouldn't it make sense for the government to make provisions for them to go?

I would love to hear the downside to such programs as you see it.

The up sides?

The average college graduate makes $1 million more over their lifetime than those who don't go. That translates to more taxes paid back to the federal government which actually covers the initial investment. People who earn more spend more, meaning the economy does better, everyone does better.

The people who have the benefit of higher education have less chance of being a burden on society.



So please, tell me where the downfall is.

 

[Accountable]

Wouldn't gov't providing food just be good for everyone?

Since everyone needs food to survive, wouldn't it make sense for the government to make provisions for them to get it for free?

I would love to hear the downside to such programs as you see it.

The up sides?

Many preventable diseases occur because of poor nutrition. Since the gov't is taking over health care and education, the savings from reducing the number of sick people would mean more people able to work. That translates to more taxes paid back to the federal government which actually covers the initial investment. People who earn more spend more, meaning the economy does better, everyone does better.

The people who have the benefit of free food have less chance of being a burden on society, except for the obvious fact that having the federal gov't pay for it kinda makes them a burden on society to begin with.


So please, tell me where the downfall is. I mean, if it's value added to educate everyone at gov't expense, surely it's value added to feed them as well. Nutrition boosts learning, after all.

 

[Tim]

Wouldn't gov't providing food just be good for everyone?

Since everyone needs food to survive, wouldn't it make sense for the government to make provisions for them to get it for free?

I would love to hear the downside to such programs as you see it.

The up sides?

Many preventable diseases occur because of poor nutrition. Since the gov't is taking over health care and education, the savings from reducing the number of sick people would mean more people able to work. That translates to more taxes paid back to the federal government which actually covers the initial investment. People who earn more spend more, meaning the economy does better, everyone does better.

The people who have the benefit of free food have less chance of being a burden on society, except for the obvious fact that having the federal gov't pay for it kinda makes them a burden on society to begin with.


So please, tell me where the downfall is. I mean, if it's value added to educate everyone at gov't expense, surely it's value added to feed them as well. Nutrition boosts learning, after all.

Yes, you are so right. A well fed populace would make us a leader in the world once again. :cool


and I love the comparison you made... it's a bullshit comparison and you are fully aware of that... It's something I expect out of TM, not you...

 

[Accountable]

Yes, you are so right. A well fed populace would make us a leader in the world once again. :cool


and I love the comparison you made... it's a bullshit comparison and you are fully aware of that... It's something I expect out of TM, not you...

It's not bullshit. I'm just pointing out that once someone draws a line the line can be moved anywhere.
You apparently think it is worthy to tax citizens to provide a service that could be provided another way. I don't understand why someone who thinks it's okay to tax people in order to pay for everyone's education, would not think exactly the same for even more basic things such as food, clothes, & shelter. It doesn't make sense to me.