• 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...

madman

madman

DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 28, 2011
Messages
10,558
Reaction score
7,951
Location
So. California
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
for everyone to work together and get this country back to prosperity?

or are you in favor of more gridlock?
 
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...

it's time. for all of us to win, both sides are going to have to lose on some issues. we need to look ahead and choose our priorities carefully.
 
Helix said:
it's time. for all of us to win, both sides are going to have to lose on some issues. we need to look ahead and choose our priorities carefully.
Click to expand...

did obama do that in his first term? why do you think he will change in his second?
 
Gridlock, obviously.
 
Hopefully the country is learning a bit of a lesson in compromise.

If you're gloating today, then you're part of the problem.
If you're talking about conspiracy theories... then you're part of the problem.
If you think that your side won or lost some huge election.. then you're part of the problem.
 
Bobcat said:
did obama do that in his first term? why do you think he will change in his second?
Click to expand...

do we have single payer health insurance like much of the first world?

did the Bush tax cuts get extended?
 
There is a fundamental difference in what the two sides see as solutions and not a whole lot of room for compromise. The Dem perspective is that we didnt tax (just the rich people) enough, nor did we spend enough, and that in order for a 'real' economic recovery we need to spend two and three times what we spent during the last round of 'stimulus'. Conservatives see that mindset as fundamentally flawed. It is the equivalent of borrowing 60 dollars from your mom so you can start a lemonade stand and earn 6 dollars. Conservatives see job growth as a component of private sector development and believe the only way for that to happen is to get out of the way of the private investor. That simply isnt going to happen.

Private sector employers arent expanding. My business is one of them. A promise of expansion of government and services isnt going to change things. Get ready for 4 more years like the last ones. Maybe worse.
 
Helix said:
it's time. for all of us to win, both sides are going to have to lose on some issues. we need to look ahead and choose our priorities carefully.
Click to expand...

Congress isn't interested in "us" winning; they are only interested in keeping their seats. Whatever they believe will help them do that is what we're going to see.

Politics as usual.
 
Mithros said:
Hopefully the country is learning a bit of a lesson in compromise.

If you're gloating today, then you're part of the problem.
If you're talking about conspiracy theories... then you're part of the problem.
If you think that your side won or lost some huge election.. then you're part of the problem.
Click to expand...

Screw it -- I'm gloating for one day. Then we can move forward. ;)
 
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...

Gridlock please. At least if there's gridlock, they can't keep expanding the goddamned government. Though that is the one thing both sides seem to agree on. Bastards.
 
VanceMack said:
There is a fundamental difference in what the two sides see as solutions and not a whole lot of room for compromise. The Dem perspective is that we didnt tax (just the rich people) enough, nor did we spend enough, and that in order for a 'real' economic recovery we need to spend two and three times what we spent during the last round of 'stimulus'. Conservatives see that mindset as fundamentally flawed. It is the equivalent of borrowing 60 dollars from your mom so you can start a lemonade stand and earn 6 dollars. Conservatives see job growth as a component of private sector development and believe the only way for that to happen is to get out of the way of the private investor. That simply isnt going to happen.

Private sector employers arent expanding. My business is one of them. A promise of expansion of government and services isnt going to change things. Get ready for 4 more years like the last ones. Maybe worse.
Click to expand...

Compromise means giving up some of what you believe. Thus there is always room for compromise.
 
This entire situation has been brought to you by a lethargic 2/3rds (300mil - 100mil people who actually voted FOR the status quo) of the population whom, if they would just vote 3rd party (regardless which), they could change a lot of things.

People keep on saying that their vote is wasted if they vote 3rd party. What they don't realize is that the number of people who are displeased with the way things are run politically ARE THE MAJORITY. They are just silent... and therefore, condemned to be ruled by those more stupid then them. What was that thing that the greeks said? Refusal to enter public life condemns you to be ruled by your lessers.
 
AdamT said:
Compromise means giving up some of what you believe. Thus there is always room for compromise.
Click to expand...
Agreed, the dems can start the conversation by giving up Obamacare.
 
Ikari said:
Gridlock please. At least if there's gridlock, they can't keep expanding the goddamned government. Though that is the one thing both sides seem to agree on. Bastards.
Click to expand...

Gridlock is not good. There are real problems that need to be addressed.
 
AdamT said:
Gridlock is not good. There are real problems that need to be addressed.
Click to expand...

And they ain't gonna be addressed by this group of Republocrat rejects; so gridlock prevents them from ****ing us over even more.
 
Ikari said:
And they ain't gonna be addressed by this group of Republocrat rejects; so gridlock prevents them from ****ing us over even more.
Click to expand...

It's very easy to be against everything, but it doesn't solve any problems. Problems only get worse when you ignore them.
 
AdamT said:
It's very easy to be against everything, but it doesn't solve any problems. Problems only get worse when you ignore them.
Click to expand...

I ain't ignoring them. It's just that we need mill and a lathe, and all we have is a soldering iron and piece of cardboard.
 
MaggieD said:
Congress isn't interested in "us" winning; they are only interested in keeping their seats. Whatever they believe will help them do that is what we're going to see.

Politics as usual.
Click to expand...

IE, gridlock.
 
AdamT said:
Compromise means giving up some of what you believe. Thus there is always room for compromise.
Click to expand...
The "best and brightest congressmen" (yes...thats damning with faint praise) couldnt agree to a handful of DEFICIT cuts-nut even cuts that targeted the debt-and couldnt agree on anything. There are fundamental and ideological differences that simply arent subject to compromise. If one side believes the answer to future prosperity is increased taxes on the wealth producers of this country and increased debt, increased government influence and increased handouts and the other side is diametrically opposed, then no...there is no room for compromise. Thats just a reality. Unless you actually foresee democrats willing to put all government spending including entitlement programs and yes...unions...on the chopping block there isnt going to be much incentive for the other side to capitulate on increased taxes on the wealthy. Healthy compromise would require all parties to come to the table...both major parties, labor, business, and be willing to do whats right for the country and not just whats right to win the next election in 2 years. It requires people to be honest and realistic about energy resources. It requires a lot of things...and it simply wont happen. Both parties are beholden to their ideologically aligned interest groups. It also requires a leader...someone that can promote and unite both sides. Reagan had that skill. Clinton had that skill. Obama does not have that skill (or at least he has not yet demonstrated it).
 
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...

Yes. Gridlock prevents the never ending borrow and spend and forces honest debate over spending priorities and limits on federal gov't control of everything. A prime example is education, not even a federal power granted by the constitution yet the fastest growing cabinet level expense. Schools are not a federal concern but simply a waste of overhead to involve the federal gov't in a state/local matter; the feds collect money from everyone and then dole it back out (less their overhead) to the actual state/local schools (income redistribution 101).
 
AdamT said:
It's very easy to be against everything, but it doesn't solve any problems. Problems only get worse when you ignore them.
Click to expand...
Right...so you agree with across the board cuts in federal spending and removing the regulations and government obstacles to the promotion of manufacturing growth and jobs creation...right? You agree to increasing drilling permits, increased use and exportation of coal, natural gas, and other resources. You agree to greatly reduced labor union costs. You agree to creating an environment that is business friendly.
 
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...
If it's policies I don't agree with, gridlock, obviously.
If it's policies I agree with, cooperation.

Is this ever not the case?
 
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.
 
VanceMack said:
Right...so you agree with across the board cuts in federal spending and removing the regulations and government obstacles to the promotion of manufacturing growth and jobs creation...right? You agree to increasing drilling permits, increased use and exportation of coal, natural gas, and other resources. You agree to greatly reduced labor union costs. You agree to creating an environment that is business friendly.
Click to expand...

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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom