End partisan politics

[Cancel 2018. 3]

To the extent that he won't use the terrorist metaphor about his own party...ok, I'll concede that. The same idea could apply. But he is no more a partisan tool than John "chicken crap" Boener....or about any other out in front republican you can name. They all use bad metaphors to make the other side look bad. I like to look at the overall picture of what is going on. I am with Lorax here...it ain't like it was in the 80's. The rhetoric, the partisanship and all the bad stuff that politics is....it's a whole lot worse. Until we get beyond that nothing is going to change for the better.

i'll defer to you on the 80's...i was in grade school and junior high and didn't get into politics until a few years ago

i would like to see the tone down for both sides....obama claims he wants it down and as president has a much greater ability to facilitate the toning down of rhetoric....yet....he keeps upping the rhetoric...

then you have people like onceler who say the repubs are holding the american people hostage, yet now that the pubs have agreed to UB extensions, the dems won't agree to UB extensions because they aren't getting their way on tax cuts....and people like obama et al won't say the dems are holding the american people hostage

 

[Onceler]

i figured...to much of a coward to discuss real issues with me....yet its clear when you think you're right you will discuss issues...but when its tough...you always resort to ad homs and lies

its easier for you to want to debate imaginary issues than real ones...you started off well in the thread, then when you realized your position lacked merit, you resorted to your typical lies and ad homs....yeah onceler...my position in thread is all about apologizing for the pubs...i'm sure dixie is singing your tune

Who said my position lacked merit?

As soon as you put the "he called them terrorists!" foot forward, you took Obama's rhetoric - which I said he should have kept to himself - and multiplied it by about 10, which is what extreme partisan hacks do.

Thus, my follow-up as to which aspect of your hackery you'd like to focus on.

 

[Phantasmal]

Yea, so was that Fox news contributor I saw as i was flipping channels last night after my sons school Christmas play (which contained refrences to baby Jesus, BTW) and before I went to bed. I thought to myself, what an idiot this guy is. I think it was on the O'Reilly factor and this guy wanted to make a serious point that Amercians should be concerned about the language Obama used. Give me a break. It is how politics works.....or used to, when people from both sides of the aisle compromised to get something done, then talk about the positives and negatives of what was accomplished later. That's all Obama was doing. Should he have used a different metaphor? Probably so, but anyone with half a brain could tell what was going on.

Really? Public school and no complaints? I, myself, don't have problems with that, but i know the Jewish parents in my sons class were not impressed one year when they sang religious Christmas carols in class. I have no problem, because like all things, I would explain to my children that people believe differently from the way we do, but I know that some parents got very upset! A Jehovah's witness parent use to complain about all the paganism! It was silly at times!

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

Seriously? You don't see any change over the past 10-15 years?

Man, when I look back at the '80's, it was really a completely different animal. Yes, there was still partisanship and some of the BS we see now, but it wasn't a way of life, and more often than not, politicians could set aside the need for a political victory when they knew they could get something accomplished.

The tone has completely changed; everyone is in on it now, and it's more about gamesmanship than anything else. The advent of both talk radio & the glut of cable political shows has fueled it, imo, but I don't think there is any doubt that it's changed.

Agreed. Tip O'Neil and Reagan constantly butted heads over policy, but at the end of the day they could sit down and have a drink and be cordial with one another. It absolutely has changed tone. Really beginning the complete melt down in Clinton's second term when the Reps tried to TSA Clinton every chance they could. While the lying under oath was a big issue, he never should have been under oath for that to begin with.

When Bush was elected it was the Dems who went ballistic and went for the 'payback'. Now it is both sides non stop bullshit that prevents most meaningful compromises and moderate proposals.

Bottom line is that both parties have been hijacked by their extremes.

 

[Onceler]

Agreed. Tip O'Neil and Reagan constantly butted heads over policy, but at the end of the day they could sit down and have a drink and be cordial with one another. It absolutely has changed tone. Really beginning the complete melt down in Clinton's second term when the Reps tried to TSA Clinton every chance they could. While the lying under oath was a big issue, he never should have been under oath for that to begin with.

When Bush was elected it was the Dems who went ballistic and went for the 'payback'. Now it is both sides non stop bullshit that prevents most meaningful compromises and moderate proposals.

Bottom line is that both parties have been hijacked by their extremes.

The "payback" point is a good one. It has become a cycle of payback since the Clinton years; it's almost like each "side" can't wait for the other to be in power, so they can show 'em what it was like (Dixie generally embodies that point of view on here).

I remember reading Tip's book ages ago, and he talked a lot about how cordial his relationship w/ Reagan was, and how he would frequently go to the White House for dinner. Both sides made a genuine effort to work together on the big issues....

 

[Cancel 2018. 3]

Agreed. Tip O'Neil and Reagan constantly butted heads over policy, but at the end of the day they could sit down and have a drink and be cordial with one another. It absolutely has changed tone. Really beginning the complete melt down in Clinton's second term when the Reps tried to TSA Clinton every chance they could. While the lying under oath was a big issue, he never should have been under oath for that to begin with.

When Bush was elected it was the Dems who went ballistic and went for the 'payback'. Now it is both sides non stop bullshit that prevents most meaningful compromises and moderate proposals.

Bottom line is that both parties have been hijacked by their extremes.

good points

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

The "payback" point is a good one. It has become a cycle of payback since the Clinton years; it's almost like each "side" can't wait for the other to be in power, so they can show 'em what it was like (Dixie generally embodies that point of view on here).

I remember reading Tip's book ages ago, and he talked a lot about how cordial his relationship w/ Reagan was, and how he would frequently go to the White House for dinner. Both sides made a genuine effort to work together on the big issues....

Yeah, I read that as well. Also read Reagan's 'diary' which essentially said the same thing. They disagreed, but respected each other. They battled on legitimate policy differences, but left those battles at the table at the end of the day.

We have to get back to those days or we are going to consume ourselves with one partisan fight after another. I have seen the enemy and he is us.

 

[Cancel 2018. 3]

Who said my position lacked merit?

As soon as you put the "he called them terrorists!" foot forward, you took Obama's rhetoric - which I said he should have kept to himself - and multiplied it by about 10, which is what extreme partisan hacks do.

Thus, my follow-up as to which aspect of your hackery you'd like to focus on.

see, this is your problem, you either can't read or you have nothing but lies...

i never said "he called them terrorists!"...you are falsely attribuing that quote to me...

further, you then devolved into "apologozing" for the gop...nothing is further from the truth and especially so in this thread...even assuming arguendo i said your false quote above, that is hyperbole, NOT apologizing for the pubs

why is it you can't be honest and now say the dems are holding the american people hostage when they are doing teh same thing pubs did over the weekend...holding out because they aren't getting what they want....

oh yeah.....becuase its actually you who are the apologist and partisan hack....

 

[Onceler]

i never said "he called them terrorists!"...you are falsely attribuing that quote to me...

My, oh my.

You said he is essentially calling them terrorists.

Parser extraordinairre. Kudos.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

and you haven't shown how a 3% tax increase will change any of that

you are such a partisan hack that all you can do is give me mindless talking points and then call me a liberal because i don't see or agree with ALL your right wing views....as if people who make over a million a year NEVER put any of that money in savings....as if a mere 3% tax increase from the previous year (not really an increase, just back to the prior rate as this was temporary) will cause them to not hire, to not buy....

why is it you can't back up your position that raising taxes on those who make over a million a year will harm the economy?

Yurt, every time we have raised the top marginal rates in the past 150 years, it has caused a decline in revenues as a percentage of GDP growth. So you are absolutely wrong, a 3% increase in tax on the top marginal rates, would decrease tax revenue, which further harms the economy. Not only that, but it's 3% which has to come from somewhere, and since rich people are not going to do without, it comes from the "fun money" pile... the money they may have used to open that new business they've been thinking about... to hire those new employees... to create those new jobs... This is why it's also a fact, every time in the past 150 years we have lowered the top marginal rates, it resulted in an increase in revenues-to-GDP.

3% sounds like such a small amount, but think about 3% of $1 million.. that's $30,000! Most small businesses in America were started on much less than $30k. A lot of people out there, would love to have a job paying $30k next year, even if it was polishing a rich person's yacht! And sure, some rich people might just put it in savings, but there again, what happens to money put into savings? Well, it goes to a bank, who uses it to make loans to other people who need money. They borrow it and pay interest to the bank, because that is how the bank makes money to pay it's employees, and then they spend that money, just as the employees at the bank spend their money, and this all stimulates the economy. Now, if the choice is between allowing some politician to steal 3% and use it to pay off his contributors and special interests, or let a rich person keep it and put it in his savings account... I'll take the later over the former, any day of the week.

 

[Bonestorm]

Yurt, every time we have raised the top marginal rates in the past 150 years, it has caused a decline in revenues as a percentage of GDP growth. This is why it's also a fact, every time in the past 150 years we have lowered the top marginal rates, it resulted in an increase in revenues-to-GDP.

Neither of those "facts" is true:

http://www.cbo.gov/budget/data/historical.pdf

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

The Democrats should engage the Republicans tit-for-tat for all of their partisan bullshit. The Republicans can't ever be trusted ever again.

 

[midcan5]

I have read two books this past year that explain a bit of the whys. J.K. Galbraith's 'The Culture of Contentment' and Tony Judt's 'Ill Fares the Land.' America's culture has changed from the days of FDR when collapse made social democracy real. Too many in America see anything that helps the nation as interference and welfare. I think we may need a sixties type revolution from the poor as they grow more prevalent. Otherwise the contented are going to vote for the contented and the rest will eat the crumbs.

But also while reading helps us see, living helps too. I recently had a discussion about these issues with a person who earns over 300k. What was his only concern, taxes. If we live like a third world nation, we will soon be one.

"Something is profoundly wrong with the way we live today. For thirty years we have made a virtue out of the pursuit of material self-interest: indeed, this very pursuit now constitutes whatever remains of our sense of collective purpose. We know what things cost but have no idea what they are worth. We no longer ask of a judicial ruling or a legislative act: is it good? Is it fair? Is it just? Is it right? Will it help bring about a better society or a better world? Those used to be the political questions, even if they invited no easy answers. We must learn once again to pose them." Tony Judt 'Ill Fares the Land'

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

Neither of those "facts" is true:

http://www.cbo.gov/budget/data/historical.pdf

20% revenue as % of GDP in 2000 compared to 16.8% revenue as % of GDP in 2004.

God dixie's a retard.

 

[Onceler]

"Something is profoundly wrong with the way we live today. For thirty years we have made a virtue out of the pursuit of material self-interest: indeed, this very pursuit now constitutes whatever remains of our sense of collective purpose. We know what things cost but have no idea what they are worth. We no longer ask of a judicial ruling or a legislative act: is it good? Is it fair? Is it just? Is it right? Will it help bring about a better society or a better world? Those used to be the political questions, even if they invited no easy answers. We must learn once again to pose them." Tony Judt 'Ill Fares the Land'


That's a pretty lame quote, imo. One concept has nothing to do w/ the other.

People ask those questions of judicial rulings & legislative acts all of the time - who doesn't? Are we really to believe that we're now a nation of greedy drones, so intently focused on profit that we don't pay attention to laws & how they are made anymore?

That's just not the case. And I'm tired of the judgment that is placed on material pursuits; most people I know work hard & get ahead & try to increase their income so their kids can have a better life than they do. It's the American dream.

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

Now, if the choice is between allowing some politician to steal 3% and use it to pay off his contributors and special interests

Paranoid lunacy.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

I have read two books this past year that explain a bit of the whys. J.K. Galbraith's 'The Culture of Contentment' and Tony Judt's 'Ill Fares the Land.' America's culture has changed from the days of FDR when collapse made social democracy real. Too many in America see anything that helps the nation as interference and welfare. I think we may need a sixties type revolution from the poor as they grow more prevalent. Otherwise the contented are going to vote for the contented and the rest will eat the crumbs.

But also while reading helps us see, living helps too. I recently had a discussion about these issues with a person who earns over 300k. What was his only concern, taxes. If we live like a third world nation, we will soon be one.

"Something is profoundly wrong with the way we live today. For thirty years we have made a virtue out of the pursuit of material self-interest: indeed, this very pursuit now constitutes whatever remains of our sense of collective purpose. We know what things cost but have no idea what they are worth. We no longer ask of a judicial ruling or a legislative act: is it good? Is it fair? Is it just? Is it right? Will it help bring about a better society or a better world? Those used to be the political questions, even if they invited no easy answers. We must learn once again to pose them." Tony Judt 'Ill Fares the Land'

How about taking a good hard look at the definition of 'poor' in this country today vs. in the 1930's?

Then see if you want to spout off on how we are living like a third world country. Or perhaps ask someone who is from a third world country if they would prefer their lifestyle to that of our 'poor'.

 

[Minister of Truth]

In the spirit of this thread, I just want to say, fuck you all.

Now, people keep point to the discourse of this country's politics compared to 20-50 years ago. Would anyone like to step farther back in time, and stand in the same room as Hamilton and Jefferson, Federalists/DRs, Whigs/Dems, North/South?

 

[Cancel 2018. 3]

My, oh my.

You said he is essentially calling them terrorists.

Parser extraordinairre. Kudos.

thanks for admitting your quote was false

care to get back to the debate?

 

[Cancel 2018. 3]

Yurt, every time we have raised the top marginal rates in the past 150 years, it has caused a decline in revenues as a percentage of GDP growth. So you are absolutely wrong, a 3% increase in tax on the top marginal rates, would decrease tax revenue, which further harms the economy. Not only that, but it's 3% which has to come from somewhere, and since rich people are not going to do without, it comes from the "fun money" pile... the money they may have used to open that new business they've been thinking about... to hire those new employees... to create those new jobs... This is why it's also a fact, every time in the past 150 years we have lowered the top marginal rates, it resulted in an increase in revenues-to-GDP.

3% sounds like such a small amount, but think about 3% of $1 million.. that's $30,000! Most small businesses in America were started on much less than $30k. A lot of people out there, would love to have a job paying $30k next year, even if it was polishing a rich person's yacht! And sure, some rich people might just put it in savings, but there again, what happens to money put into savings? Well, it goes to a bank, who uses it to make loans to other people who need money. They borrow it and pay interest to the bank, because that is how the bank makes money to pay it's employees, and then they spend that money, just as the employees at the bank spend their money, and this all stimulates the economy. Now, if the choice is between allowing some politician to steal 3% and use it to pay off his contributors and special interests, or let a rich person keep it and put it in his savings account... I'll take the later over the former, any day of the week.

i see nigel has already done the homework

dixie...seriously, stop drinking the koolaid and presenting bullshit "facts"

you simply cannot justify not raising taxes on the very wealthy right now...the pubs are stupid on this....