• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Is it now time...

KevinKohler said:
IE, gridlock.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately, I don't remember the former senator's (or representative's) name; but he was interviewed on the news a few days ago. He resigned. He resigned because he knew he couldn't make a difference in Congress.

Why? He said that 90% down party line voting isn't good enough. If you want the support of your party, you're going to need to vote 93% or better straight down party lines. He also said that the people cannot possibly figure out what's going on in Congress. It's a big game. Here's how it works:

"Okay, Senator So-and-So, we know we have plenty of votes to pass this measure. If you need a "No" vote to please your constituency at home and give you ammunition for your re-election, go ahead and vote "No." It is impossible for Joe Citizen to know what's going on behind the scenes. I completely believe that.

He left Congress most likely because he really wanted to make a difference. He can't. The Party is everything. The Party's agenda had better be your agenda or you won't see the light of day.

This is just plain wrong. I see absolutely no way to fix it. Americans can't even agree that the sun rises in the West.
 
I am a Libertarian and believe in small government big time.

I also understand the urgency for our government in both houses to reach across the aisle and work together. It is time now that the House not take such hard right stances on certain issues and the Senate not take such hard left stances on other issues.

We need to get things through Congress to start rebuilding our infrastructure. That is one area where I fully agree with Obama. We have to start repairing bridges, roads, train tracks, etc. It is time to get out of this constant state of war.

I know that I won't agree on a lot of what they may pass, but an efficient Congress that works as statesmen and women instead of politicians will benefit all Americans in the long run. Whether or not I agree with everything they say or do is moot because they end up canceling out their hard stances either left or right which helps.

I do want to see something substantial for our deficit problem though I have my doubts. This is the one area where we have to get serious about and now.
 
AdamT said:
Obviously not, for obvious reasons. Large spending cuts now would send the economy back into recession and would make the deficit worse rather then better. Non-specific calls to cut government regulation are worthless. The majority of regulations exist for good reasons. Undoubtedly there are some that should be cut, but we can't discuss it generically. Increasing drilling permits won't have much effect when there are hundreds of existing permits that are not being used. Labor union costs are bargained for -- not government mandated. "Business friendly" is a slogan -- not a policy.
Click to expand...
Sure. Your ideology holds that we must have tax cuts (except for the evil rich) because tax cuts benefit the economy (but...oh yeah...**** the evil rich) and we must have MORE government spending and increased regulation. Sure...we managed to dump another 7 trillion ion debt and havent accomplished **** except expand the government (and increase the tax burden on those lucky enough to still have a job)...but...government spending is good.

Sorry...thats a message that sells to the crips and keeps democrats in power...but it doesnt play in the business and banking world. Its why we as a nation have been downgraded twice now. We dont have a 'plan' to get out of debt. We have a plan to increase debt spending until things magically get better and THAT is why there is no room for compromise.
 
madman said:
ok, so now that we have a few "girdlock by all means" votes. How about this: Rmoney wins the presidency, would you like the democrats to communicate and compromise and avoid girdlock to get things done?

Sadly, I dont expect many answers to this question.
Click to expand...
Depends on if the compromise means actual growth and economic prosperity or just more of the same....higher government spending.
 
VanceMack said:
Sure. Your ideology holds that we must have tax cuts (except for the evil rich) because tax cuts benefit the economy (but...oh yeah...**** the evil rich)
Click to expand...

This is getting so old. My view, as I've stated here many times, is that tax rates for everyone need to go back to pre-Bush levels. I think that the high end tax cuts should go first, because that would have minimal effect on the economy. The rest of them should go in a few years when the economy is on solid ground. As far as the "evil rich" meme goes, I am rich by most people's standards, as are most of my friends and family. Most of the rich people I know think that their taxes are too low.

and we must have MORE government spending and increased regulation. Sure...we managed to dump another 7 trillion ion debt and havent accomplished **** except expand the government (and increase the tax burden on those lucky enough to still have a job)...but...government spending is good.
Click to expand...

More overbroad tripe. Generally speaking spending has to come down. That's obvious. Entitlements need to be reformed. Obvious. Taxes have to go up. Obvious. Regulations have to be decided on a case-by-case basis.

Sorry...thats a message that sells to the crips and keeps democrats in power...but it doesnt play in the business and banking world. Its why we as a nation have been downgraded twice now. We dont have a 'plan' to get out of debt. We have a plan to increase debt spending until things magically get better and THAT is why there is no room for compromise.
Click to expand...

The reason we were downgraded is that the ratings agencies perceived that the government was dysfunctional -- primarily as a result of Republican intransigence.
 
madman said:
for everyone to work together and get this country back to prosperity?

or are you in favor of more gridlock?
Click to expand...

The problem with this statement is that many people see things like prosperity and get the country back as meaning too many different things.

There has to be some kind of concensus first before we can move.

What do we want as a people without the political baggage

What is a reasonable way to get there

And what will be the contribution of the average citizen
 
AdamT said:
This is getting so old. My view, as I've stated here many times, is that tax rates for everyone need to go back to pre-Bush levels. I think that the high end tax cuts should go first, because that would have minimal effect on the economy. The rest of them should go in a few years when the economy is on solid ground. As far as the "evil rich" meme goes, I am rich by most people's standards, as are most of my friends and family. Most of the rich people I know think that their taxes are too low.
More overbroad tripe. Generally speaking spending has to come down. That's obvious. Entitlements need to be reformed. Obvious. Taxes have to go up. Obvious. Regulations have to be decided on a case-by-case basis.
The reason we were downgraded is that the ratings agencies perceived that the government was dysfunctional -- primarily as a result of Republican intransigence.
Click to expand...
Right. Obama failed as a leader, dems failed with 4 years control of the house and senate and 4 years of the WH and senate...but its the republicans. Priceless. Sadly...thats the whining we are going to hear for the next 4 years. STILL not my fault.

Funny you think the rhetoric is old, but your guy has been the one promoting it for 4 straight years (and again...will continue for the next 4 years). Tax cuts are either good or they are bad. Personally...I believe they should all go away. Ive said it numerous times...a plan for real economic prosperity includes ending the tax cuts, across the board fed spending cuts, return of all social spending programs (with the exception of SS which isnt a social spending program but rather a bad retirement account with a horrible rate of return but still relatively secure) to the states, and targeted sundowned tax increases where needed, not because it is 'fair' but out of sheer necessity. Add to that a mandated business/labor/government agreements to reinvigorate the industrial base and within ten years we could see real growth and progress. That will never happen.
 
MaggieD said:
Unfortunately, I don't remember the former senator's (or representative's) name; but he was interviewed on the news a few days ago. He resigned. He resigned because he knew he couldn't make a difference in Congress.

...
Click to expand...

That sounds like Sen. Tom Coburn as he has made several similar comments and IS resigning in 2016...but I could be wrong.
 
VanceMack said:
Right. Obama failed as a leader, dems failed with 4 years control of the house and senate and 4 years of the WH and senate...but its the republicans. Priceless. Sadly...thats the whining we are going to hear for the next 4 years. STILL not my fault.

Funny you think the rhetoric is old, but your guy has been the one promoting it for 4 straight years (and again...will continue for the next 4 years). Tax cuts are either good or they are bad. Personally...I believe they should all go away. Ive said it numerous times...a plan for real economic prosperity includes ending the tax cuts, across the board fed spending cuts, return of all social spending programs (with the exception of SS which isnt a social spending program but rather a bad retirement account with a horrible rate of return but still relatively secure) to the states, and targeted sundowned tax increases where needed, not because it is 'fair' but out of sheer necessity. Add to that a mandated business/labor/government agreements to reinvigorate the industrial base and within ten years we could see real growth and progress. That will never happen.
Click to expand...


Yet one more fine example of absolutist thinking. Why do you think the "dems failed"? I seem to remember a couple of items that have been credited with beneficial effects as far as the economy is concerned: Dems and Reps supported Economic Stimulus Act of 2008, Dems and Reps voted for bailing out Bear Sterns March 2008, Dems and Reps voted for bailing out AIG, Dems and Reps voted for TARP (sept 2008), Dems and Reps voted for TARP (oct 2008), Dems voted for Obamacare, Dems voted for Obama Stimulus Plan, Dems voted for bailing out GM and Chrysler.

Look at any graph of GDP growth, following the election of Tea Party Congress critters, and the House's refusal to work with the President, the rate of increase has slowed - but for some reason that is seen as the Dems failure - not very logical.

Following the Tea Party's successes in the 2010 elections, the Republican led House has refused to compromise in any fashion with the President with the result of the nation's downgrade by credit rating agencies, a downgrade not because of the deficit but simply because it became plainly evident that one party was willing to harm the nation because of its hatred for the President. A Republican mandated Fiscal Cliff now looms over the nation, every economist of repute says the obstinate refusal of Republicans to accept that actions taken during a time of economic slowdown are not the same actions to be undertaken when an economy is steaming along.

"Returning fiscal matters to the individual states" would be the first step on a return to the Confederacy and would lead to the destruction of the UNITED States of America. It is the ignorance of far too many who benefit from the situation as it now exists that results in Washington's gridlock. Most of the 'red' states receive more in federal funding than they send to DC in taxes but that fact is not well known in those states which benefit the most.

Here's a list from 2010, the figure following each state's name is the amount it receives for every dollar sent to DC

New Mexico: $2.03 Rep governor, voted for Obama
Mississippi: $2.02 Rep govt, voted for Romney
Alaska: $1.84 Rep govt, voted for Romney
Louisiana: $1.78 Rep govt, voted for Romney
West Virginia: $1.76 Dem gov, voted for Romney
North Dakota: $1.68 Rep govt, voted for Romney
Alabama: $1.66 Rep govt, voted for Romney
South Dakota: $1.53 Rep govt, voted for Romney
Kentucky: $1.51 Rep govt, voted for Romney
Virginia: $1.51 Rep govt, voted for Romney
Montana: $1.47 Rep govt, voted for Romney
Hawaii: $1.44 Dem govt, voted for Obama
Maine: $1.41 Rep gov, voted for Obama
Arkansas: $1.41 Rep govt, voted for Romney
Oklahoma: $1.36 Rep govt, voted for Romney
South Carolina: $1.35 Rep govt, voted for Romney
Missouri: $1.32 Rep govt, voted for Romney
Maryland: $1.30 Dem govt, voted for Obama
Tennessee: $1.27 Rep govt, voted for Romney
Idaho: $1.21 Rep govt, voted for Romney
 
Since the democrat idea of working together is "give us what we want", yes I am in favor of even more gridlock than we have ever seen before. If there are no immediate cuts to welfare spending, then shutting the whole government down would be fine with me.
 
Somerville said:
Yet one more fine example of absolutist thinking. Why do you think the "dems failed"? I seem to remember a couple of items that have been credited with beneficial effects as far as the economy is concerned: Dems and Reps supported Economic Stimulus Act of 2008, Dems and Reps voted for bailing out Bear Sterns March 2008, Dems and Reps voted for bailing out AIG, Dems and Reps voted for TARP (sept 2008), Dems and Reps voted for TARP (oct 2008), Dems voted for Obamacare, Dems voted for Obama Stimulus Plan, Dems voted for bailing out GM and Chrysler.

Look at any graph of GDP growth, following the election of Tea Party Congress critters, and the House's refusal to work with the President, the rate of increase has slowed - but for some reason that is seen as the Dems failure - not very logical.

Following the Tea Party's successes in the 2010 elections, the Republican led House has refused to compromise in any fashion with the President with the result of the nation's downgrade by credit rating agencies, a downgrade not because of the deficit but simply because it became plainly evident that one party was willing to harm the nation because of its hatred for the President. A Republican mandated Fiscal Cliff now looms over the nation, every economist of repute says the obstinate refusal of Republicans to accept that actions taken during a time of economic slowdown are not the same actions to be undertaken when an economy is steaming along.

"Returning fiscal matters to the individual states" would be the first step on a return to the Confederacy and would lead to the destruction of the UNITED States of America. It is the ignorance of far too many who benefit from the situation as it now exists that results in Washington's gridlock. Most of the 'red' states receive more in federal funding than they send to DC in taxes but that fact is not well known in those states which benefit the most.

Here's a list from 2010, the figure following each state's name is the amount it receives for every dollar sent to DC

New Mexico: $2.03 Rep governor, voted for Obama
Mississippi: $2.02 Rep govt, voted for Romney
Alaska: $1.84 Rep govt, voted for Romney
Louisiana: $1.78 Rep govt, voted for Romney
West Virginia: $1.76 Dem gov, voted for Romney
North Dakota: $1.68 Rep govt, voted for Romney
Alabama: $1.66 Rep govt, voted for Romney
South Dakota: $1.53 Rep govt, voted for Romney
Kentucky: $1.51 Rep govt, voted for Romney
Virginia: $1.51 Rep govt, voted for Romney
Montana: $1.47 Rep govt, voted for Romney
Hawaii: $1.44 Dem govt, voted for Obama
Maine: $1.41 Rep gov, voted for Obama
Arkansas: $1.41 Rep govt, voted for Romney
Oklahoma: $1.36 Rep govt, voted for Romney
South Carolina: $1.35 Rep govt, voted for Romney
Missouri: $1.32 Rep govt, voted for Romney
Maryland: $1.30 Dem govt, voted for Obama
Tennessee: $1.27 Rep govt, voted for Romney
Idaho: $1.21 Rep govt, voted for Romney
Click to expand...

poverty.jpg

So the left is mocking the poor it claims to want to help. Not surprised.
 
Fisher said:
Since the democrat idea of working together is "give us what we want", yes I am in favor of even more gridlock than we have ever seen before. If there are no immediate cuts to welfare spending, then shutting the whole government down would be fine with me.
Click to expand...


So you think living in an anarchistic society is a good idea? Short-sighted, is the nicest description I can use for such thinking.
 
Somerville said:
Yet one more fine example of absolutist thinking. Why do you think the "dems failed"? I seem to remember a couple of items that have been credited with beneficial effects as far as the economy is concerned: Dems and Reps supported Economic Stimulus Act of 2008, Dems and Reps voted for bailing out Bear Sterns March 2008, Dems and Reps voted for bailing out AIG, Dems and Reps voted for TARP (sept 2008), Dems and Reps voted for TARP (oct 2008), Dems voted for Obamacare, Dems voted for Obama Stimulus Plan, Dems voted for bailing out GM and Chrysler.

Look at any graph of GDP growth, following the election of Tea Party Congress critters, and the House's refusal to work with the President, the rate of increase has slowed - but for some reason that is seen as the Dems failure - not very logical.

Following the Tea Party's successes in the 2010 elections, the Republican led House has refused to compromise in any fashion with the President with the result of the nation's downgrade by credit rating agencies, a downgrade not because of the deficit but simply because it became plainly evident that one party was willing to harm the nation because of its hatred for the President. A Republican mandated Fiscal Cliff now looms over the nation, every economist of repute says the obstinate refusal of Republicans to accept that actions taken during a time of economic slowdown are not the same actions to be undertaken when an economy is steaming along.

"Returning fiscal matters to the individual states" would be the first step on a return to the Confederacy and would lead to the destruction of the UNITED States of America. It is the ignorance of far too many who benefit from the situation as it now exists that results in Washington's gridlock. Most of the 'red' states receive more in federal funding than they send to DC in taxes but that fact is not well known in those states which benefit the most.

Here's a list from 2010, the figure following each state's name is the amount it receives for every dollar sent to DC

New Mexico: $2.03 Rep governor, voted for Obama
Mississippi: $2.02 Rep govt, voted for Romney
Alaska: $1.84 Rep govt, voted for Romney
Louisiana: $1.78 Rep govt, voted for Romney
West Virginia: $1.76 Dem gov, voted for Romney
North Dakota: $1.68 Rep govt, voted for Romney
Alabama: $1.66 Rep govt, voted for Romney
South Dakota: $1.53 Rep govt, voted for Romney
Kentucky: $1.51 Rep govt, voted for Romney
Virginia: $1.51 Rep govt, voted for Romney
Montana: $1.47 Rep govt, voted for Romney
Hawaii: $1.44 Dem govt, voted for Obama
Maine: $1.41 Rep gov, voted for Obama
Arkansas: $1.41 Rep govt, voted for Romney
Oklahoma: $1.36 Rep govt, voted for Romney
South Carolina: $1.35 Rep govt, voted for Romney
Missouri: $1.32 Rep govt, voted for Romney
Maryland: $1.30 Dem govt, voted for Obama
Tennessee: $1.27 Rep govt, voted for Romney
Idaho: $1.21 Rep govt, voted for Romney
Click to expand...
You are another one of those magical thinkers that believe all that money 'returned' to the states is collected from pink popcorn trees by elves and NOT a part of that 7 trillion in increased debt we have incurred over the past 4 years.
 
Somerville said:
So you think living in an anarchistic society is a good idea? Short-sighted, is the nicest description I can use for such thinking.
Click to expand...

It is called tough love. If the left has to be forced to live with the consequences of their inflexibility, then perhaps they will be willing to accept that they too need to compromise. "Tough, I won" isn't going to work for the President this time.
 
Fisher said:
View attachment 67137488

So the left is mocking the poor it claims to want to help. Not surprised.
Click to expand...

That is some bizarre interpretation.

How is pointing out that the "poor" who benefit the greatest for some reason seem to be advocating against their own interests? How is noting that far too many 'red' states are not keeping up with states with higher tax rates, "mocking the poor"? How is providing the information that many of the states which need federal aid for natural disasters would be unable to pay for repairs even if they sent zero funds to DC, "mocking the poor"?
 
Somerville said:
Y
" Most of the 'red' states receive more in federal funding than they send to DC in taxes but that fact is not well known in those states which benefit the most.



New Mexico: $2.03 Rep governor, voted for Obama
Mississippi: $2.02 Rep govt, voted for Romney
Alaska: $1.84 Rep govt, voted for Romney
Louisiana: $1.78 Rep govt, voted for Romney
West Virginia: $1.76 Dem gov, voted for Romney
North Dakota: $1.68 Rep govt, voted for Romney
Alabama: $1.66 Rep govt, voted for Romney
South Dakota: $1.53 Rep govt, voted for Romney
Kentucky: $1.51 Rep govt, voted for Romney
Virginia: $1.51 Rep govt, voted for Romney
Montana: $1.47 Rep govt, voted for Romney
Hawaii: $1.44 Dem govt, voted for Obama
Maine: $1.41 Rep gov, voted for Obama
Arkansas: $1.41 Rep govt, voted for Romney
Oklahoma: $1.36 Rep govt, voted for Romney
South Carolina: $1.35 Rep govt, voted for Romney
Missouri: $1.32 Rep govt, voted for Romney
Maryland: $1.30 Dem govt, voted for Obama
Tennessee: $1.27 Rep govt, voted for Romney
Idaho: $1.21 Rep govt, voted for Romney
Click to expand...

.
you will find most northern states have more people representing there state....therefore they have to pay MORE......you want the red states to pay more, then take away representatives from those blue states and give them to more red States.

The total number of seats in the House of Representatives was fixed at 435 by the Reapportionment Act of 1929, creating one congressional district for each 674,000 residents (approximately). Each state is guaranteed at least one Representative, regardless of population. The remaining 385 seats are apportioned according to the individual states' populations as a percentage of the total US population, determined by the most recent census.

[Article I, section 2 of the Constitution prescribes no more that one representative for each 30,000 people, but meeting that criteria would require approximately 10,400 representatives for the ~312,000,000 US citizens.]

The 2010 US Census resulted in the reapportionment of seats in the House. The chart, below, shows the number of representatives/congressional districts by state, as of January 2011. These numbers will not be adjusted until the 2020 US Census, at the earliest.

Alabama.....................7
Alaska........................1
Arizona......................8
Arkansas....................4
California..................53
Colorado.....................7
Connecticut.................5
Delaware....................1
District of Columbia.....1 (non-voting)
Florida......................25
Georgia....................13
Hawaii.......................2
Idaho........................2
Illinois......................19
Indiana......................9
Iowa..........................5
Kansas.......................4
Kentucky....................6
Louisiana...................7
Maine........................2
Maryland...................8
Massachusetts..........10
Michigan..................15
Minnesota..................8
Mississippi..................4
Missouri.....................9
Montana.....................1
Nebraska...................3
Nevada......................3
New Hampshire..........2
New Jersey...............13
New Mexico................3
New York..................29
North Carolina...........12
North Dakota..............1
Ohio.........................18
Oklahoma...................5
Oregon.......................5
Pennsylvania.............19
Rhode Island...............2
South Carolina............6
South Dakota..............1
Tennessee..................9
Texas.......................32
Utah..........................3
Vermont.....................1
Virginia.....................11
Washington................9
West Virginia..............3
Wisconsin...................8
Wyoming....................1
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom