• 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!

WH warns tax defeat could trigger new recession

Unfortunately, you are right more often than not. I'm just curious if anyone has an alternate thought.
To be honest, I don't see that there are any alternative thoughts available.

If we agree that a growing economy is a good thing, but our views on how to bring that about are diametrically opposed, then what else is there?
 
The tactics of each side were predictable. It is not a question of good or evil. America has reached a toxic equilibrium that can no longer be sustained, and it can't be reformed.
 
Whom ever has the biggest dick--politically speaking--get's their way on the policy.

So, similar to Patria Antiqua, you see no possible alteration in the partisan battle. Do you see this as a good thing?

Right now, that's the Republicans and I'm glad of it, because I like their strategy.

Sure, but this thing always goes in cycles.

Obama didn't cut this deal, because he had to, or because he's a *****. He wants, very badly, to get re-elected. personally, I think he's **** out of luck, but I think he believes that this is the best deal he could make and accomplish that goal.

Maybe, if that is accurate, to me that's some of the worst kind of political pandering. If he did it because he agreed with it, good for him. If he did it solely to get elected, that does not take the country's well being into account. His job is not to get re-elected. His job is to do his job. Most politicians forget this.

The last thing he wanted, was to be the guy who raised everyone's taxes. That would have nailed his political coffin shut, tighter than a crab's ass...and, that's water tight.

Perhaps, but he needed to do what is best for the country. Whether he gets re-elected or not is a DISTANT second to that.
 
Decreasing the deficit? No. I think that is more of a universal issue... probably one of the vew. Cutting the unemployment reate by 3+ points? Yes, I think that's a matter of perspective.

How can cutting unemployment being a good thing, be a matter of perspective? That would mean that someone thinks that 9+% unemployment is healthy for the country.



If we are discussing decreasing the deficit, and one side wants to block legislation that would accomplish this because it was proposed by the other side, I agree 100% with you. Other than that, I do not.

There's only one way to decrease the deficit; cut spending. As long as the, "poor man's party", is in control, giving **** away left and right, that's not going to happen.



I think there is a difference though. Some want to do it to get elected. Some because they believe it's the right thing to do. I have a problem with the first group and dismiss their position as based on nothing. I can respect the second, but want to know where their "line" is.

Some are so brainwashed that their position is right, that they will go down in flames with their position and take the country with them.
 
To be honest, I don't see that there are any alternative thoughts available.

If we agree that a growing economy is a good thing, but our views on how to bring that about are diametrically opposed, then what else is there?

Figuring out how to coexist with either a method that uses positives from both sides, or one that is more apolitical and more research/expert oriented. The tenor of a lot of what we hear... and that I highlighted in the quotes in my OP demonstrate more of a "let's stick it to the other guy" than anything else. Perhaps if things get presented in a more objective way, then "the other guy is wrong" way, not only would a compromise be more palatable, but it might also be more beneficial and intelligent.
 
So, similar to Patria Antiqua, you see no possible alteration in the partisan battle. Do you see this as a good thing?

Yes! I do! Without the partisan battle, we lose the, "one hand watching what the other hand is doing", effect. I mean, hey, I think we can all agree that the two parties getting along too good, would be a bad thing. I heard a guy on Rush's show the other day define compromise like this: "I'll vote for your crappy legislation, if you vote for my crappy legistlation". If we have both parties voting for each other's crappy legislation all the time, then that would have a sad ending for all us unwashed masses.



Sure, but this thing always goes in cycles.

Yep, and if the Republicans swing left, they can kiss my ass.



Maybe, if that is accurate, to me that's some of the worst kind of political pandering. If he did it because he agreed with it, good for him. If he did it solely to get elected, that does not take the country's well being into account. His job is not to get re-elected. His job is to do his job. Most politicians forget this.

I don't think he did it, because he agreed with it. It's totally contray to everything he's said, up to this point.


Perhaps, but he needed to do what is best for the country. Whether he gets re-elected or not is a DISTANT second to that.[/QUOTE]
 
How can cutting unemployment being a good thing, be a matter of perspective? That would mean that someone thinks that 9+% unemployment is healthy for the country.

I completely misread what you wrote. You are correct.





There's only one way to decrease the deficit; cut spending. As long as the, "poor man's party", is in control, giving **** away left and right, that's not going to happen.

THAT'S a matter of perspective.





Some are so brainwashed that their position is right, that they will go down in flames with their position and take the country with them.

This I agree with completely. I hear it on both sides all the time.
 
Figuring out how to coexist with either a method that uses positives from both sides, or one that is more apolitical and more research/expert oriented. The tenor of a lot of what we hear... and that I highlighted in the quotes in my OP demonstrate more of a "let's stick it to the other guy" than anything else. Perhaps if things get presented in a more objective way, then "the other guy is wrong" way, not only would a compromise be more palatable, but it might also be more beneficial and intelligent.
I like the sound of that, but I think that there are two faulty assumptions here. The first is that it assumes I (the hypothetical, impersonal "I") would find anything positive at all about the political views of someone who has a particular political persuasion. The other, I think someone (maybe you) has already pointed out.

There are lies, damn lies, and statistics. I've never found truly impartial research/experts about anything political, have you?
 
The country is divided into warring camps, each of which seeks to impose it's will on the forces of it's opposition. The federal govt. is the creature used for this purpose. Political coexistence isn't possible unless each side stops attempting to impose it's will on the opposition. A looser form of union might be a means to an end considering the alternative.
 
Actually, I don't miss the point that there is no best answer. I'd like to SEE a best answer, but I'd like to see that both sides agree that it is the best answer rather than mocking the other for losing, berating the other... or their own for "selling out", or congradulate themselves for winning. I really don't see the point, if the desire is to do the best for the country.

I do agree, though, that the compromise was the best possible solution.

Sadly I think both sides think they need to do this stuff to mollify the extremists who would prefer us to get nothing accomplished. Whether it is DeMint on one side or Sanders on the other, they will never be happy, unless they WIN, whatever that means.

Just shake your head at the noise and be happy that the most reasonable folks got something done.
 
Yes! I do! Without the partisan battle, we lose the, "one hand watching what the other hand is doing", effect. I mean, hey, I think we can all agree that the two parties getting along too good, would be a bad thing. I heard a guy on Rush's show the other day define compromise like this: "I'll vote for your crappy legislation, if you vote for my crappy legistlation". If we have both parties voting for each other's crappy legislation all the time, then that would have a sad ending for all us unwashed masses.

And I get this, but thanks for remiinding me. Checks and balances. I'm not suggestion a "one-party, why don't we all get along" system. I DO think, however, that each side brings something positive to the table. It would be nice to see each side vote for the other's "good" legislation.

Yep, and if the Republicans swing left, they can kiss my ass.

Not really what I meant, but the point isn't in the theme of my thread, anyway.





I don't think he did it, because he agreed with it. It's totally contray to everything he's said, up to this point.

You could be rigtht, but it is possible that as the economy has changed, his opinion on solutions changed. In another thread I pointed out scenarios in history where Presidents needed to change their campaign promises because of a change in events. I'm not saying that this is what happened, but it could be either.
 
Ask Conservative on who controls the purse strings in government

(hint, he will say it is not the president buy congress)

The stimulus and Tarp are already allocated. Obama could have given it back he has not.

Congress does in that they send the bills to the president but he can veto them. Once Tarp and stimulus was approved the president had control of it
 
I like the sound of that, but I think that there are two faulty assumptions here. The first is that it assumes I (the hypothetical, impersonal "I") would find anything positive at all about the political views of someone who has a particular political persuasion.

This, to me, would be only true of extremists of one side or the other. Though I lean left, there are absolutely things on the right that I find valuable.

The other, I think someone (maybe you) has already pointed out.

There are lies, damn lies, and statistics. I've never found truly impartial research/experts about anything political, have you?

Well, this too may be a matter of perspective, but I think using a combined attack from the disaplines of psychology, math/economics, and history/sociology, some fairly consistent research results might be obtained. Perhaps I'm just wishing.
 
And I get this, but thanks for remiinding me. Checks and balances. I'm not suggestion a "one-party, why don't we all get along" system. I DO think, however, that each side brings something positive to the table. It would be nice to see each side vote for the other's "good" legislation.

Call me what you want, but the only, "good", legislation I've seen come from the Democrats is the CALM Act. The rest is socialistic bull****.



You could be rigtht, but it is possible that as the economy has changed, his opinion on solutions changed. In another thread I pointed out scenarios in history where Presidents needed to change their campaign promises because of a change in events. I'm not saying that this is what happened, but it could be either.

Possibly so, but until the past couple of days, I didn't notice anything coming from him that would indicate that. Maybe he kept it private, until now, so as not to upset his base?

he's the most fringe kook Liberal president in history. I don't buy that he woke up a few mornings ago and said, "****! The Republicans have been right all along! I get it now!".
 
Sadly I think both sides think they need to do this stuff to mollify the extremists who would prefer us to get nothing accomplished. Whether it is DeMint on one side or Sanders on the other, they will never be happy, unless they WIN, whatever that means.

Just shake your head at the noise and be happy that the most reasonable folks got something done.

In bold. I agree completely. One of our worst Presidents, Andrew Johnson said something like, "if we lopped off the extremists on both ends, all would be well with the country".
 
Call me what you want, but the only, "good", legislation I've seen come from the Democrats is the CALM Act. The rest is socialistic bull****.

Well, this has actually been a pretty pleasent exchange between the two of us... for once. ;) So I will refrain from saying what I'm sure you know I'm thinking. ;)





Possibly so, but until the past couple of days, I didn't notice anything coming from him that would indicate that. Maybe he kept it private, until now, so as not to upset his base?

Could be. I'd love to know what he was thinking.

he's the most fringe kook Liberal president in history. I don't buy that he woke up a few mornings ago and said, "****! The Republicans have been right all along! I get it now!".

No way. That's the extremist part of you coming out.
 
This, to me, would be only true of extremists of one side or the other. Though I lean left, there are absolutely things on the right that I find valuable.

Well, this too may be a matter of perspective, but I think using a combined attack from the disaplines of psychology, math/economics, and history/sociology, some fairly consistent research results might be obtained. Perhaps I'm just wishing.
Then what it sounds like is that you're just asking everyone to lay down their arms and become a moderate.

That's no fun.
 
Then what it sounds like is that you're just asking everyone to lay down their arms and become a moderate.

That's no fun.

But it is both more efficient and is more consistent with the lean of the population.
 
I'm curious as to whether some of you more "fervent" supporters of one side or the other see any problem with the tactics that both sides used. Especially the side that you support.

Definitely. In fact, Obama was much worse in this situation than the Republicans. The GOP was just doing what they always do - pushing for tax cuts for the wealthy while giving up as little ground as they could get away with. Although their policies are wrong, they played it beautifully from a tactical perspective.

Obama, on the other hand, was an embarrassment. There is no reason he had to be as weak as he was. He could have credibly threatened to veto tax cuts for the wealthy, and thrown his weight behind the middle-class tax cut that passed the House. Then the Republicans would be in the awkward position of having to vote against a tax cut or accept that the wealthy would be taxed more. Or if Obama really wanted to offer the GOP an olive branch, he could have at least used the THREAT of veto to extract more concessions from them.

Obama's behavior SINCE the deal has been disgraceful as well. Democrats are rightly pissed off about it, and Obama seems to have not anticipated that at all. And he doesn't even get any points for being "moderate" (if anyone was willing to give him points for that in the first place) because he compared the GOP to hostage-takers, and the voters to hostages. Yeah, that'll endear him to independents. :roll:

BTW, if the Republicans are hostage-takers in his analogy, doesn't that make Obama himself an appeaser?
 
Last edited:
Both of those things may be true, but they'd also be in contradiction to a lot of people's political ideals.

And I guess what I'm saying is that compared to what is good for the country, I don't care one iota about people's poltical beliefs.
 
Back
Top Bottom