Serious Question for our Progressive Friends

[CuteOldGuy]

Like I said, gridlock is better than Obama's fascism. I'd prefer progress, but progress toward tyranny is not progress.

[CJ7]

push gridlock by all means ... when the dems regain congress and admin be sure and thank yourself for getting exactly what you didnt want..

idiot



http://www.eccie.net/showthread.php?t=604677


roflmtao

[CuteOldGuy]

I fully expect that to happen, CBJ7. I'm just hoping to slow it down a bit. Just remember, once they get full power, and they will, they won't respect you any more than they respect me. They will read your electronic communications, just like mine. They will spy on you with their street corner cameras, just like me. And they will toss you in jail without due process just as quickly as they will me.

Be careful what you want. You just might get it.

[Yssup Rider]

Gridlock, eh?

Sounds like a long-term policy commitment from the wingnuts.

That's why they're ALL gonna get fired. Americans are tired of partisan.

Frankly, I voted for Obama so he could push his agenda. It would be nice of Congress to start doing something to save their phony baloney jobs!

(Give the president a Harumpf!)

[Jackie S]

If things are not much better in two years than they are now, look for a repeat of 2010.
Don't think for one minute that the 48 percent of Americans who voted for Romney are just going to dissappear. President Obama is under a microscope, he made a lot of promises that are going to be very difficult to fullfill..

I said it before. He knows what really makes this Country work, and it is not his base. He will move to the center, just like President Clinton did. He will also get out of the way of the energy giants and let them do what they do best. Find Energy, employ workers, pay a lot of taxes, and keep America on top.

I predict in 4 years, the Right will find a lot to love about President Obama, and the Left will be screaming from the rooftops about how he abandoned his base. And why shouldn't he abandon them. He has already got the only thing that 25 percent of them are good for anyway, and that is their vote.

He does not want to be the next Jimmy Carter when he leaves office.. He wants to be the next Bill Clinton. Or, dare I say it, Ronald Reagan.

[CJ7]

I have never, and never will be a proponent of same party congress/admin. ... this government revolves around checks and balances while working together to promote growth ... just like I said before.

the right wants another round of Obamacare, stall 2 more years and grab your ankles.

the only reason I voted for Obama was to keep the admin and the house as far away from each other as possible .. but rest assured I thought of all you whining shitheads and smiled REAL big when I did ...

[Yssup Rider]

Originally Posted by Jackie S

why shouldn't he abandon them. He has already got the only thing that 25 percent of them are good for anyway, and that is their vote.

That is a pretty raw comment Jackie. First of all, I believe POTUS DOES give a shit about more than the "25%-ers" votes. And policies, if they are allowed to be implemented, will prove that out.

Second of all, now that he has their vote (which according to you is all "25 percent of them are good for anyway") he doesn't need it again.

He'll be passing the torch to Hillary in four years. And comments/attitudes like those displayed in your post will seal the deal.

Sorry bro. Republicans need to do more than bluster. They need to get to work helping the country.

[Jackie S]

I am a realist when it comes to Polititians. The Polititian will say, or do, what ever it takes to win.
The Statesman will do what is good for the Country.

President Obama will now work on being a Statesman. I stand by my prediction. He knows what, and who, makes this Country work. And it is not that 25 percent who are chronic takers and offer nothing back to the Country except furnishing Carbon Dioxide for the trees.

[TexTushHog]

I think you are dead wrong about California. The superiority is about to prevent a train wreck. They can finally get some new revenues and start running the State like it should be run and return California to it's previous status as one of the, if not THE, greatest State in the country. It was the Republicans who were ruining the State, not the Democrats.

[Texas Contrarian]

Originally Posted by TexTushHog

I think you are dead wrong about California. The superiority is about to prevent a train wreck. They can finally get some new revenues and start running the State like it should be run and return California to it's previous status as one of the, if not THE, greatest State in the country...

I suggest that you take a closer look at what's actually been happening in California. The "superiority" (supermajority) you speak of will not prevent a fiscal train wreck. In fact, the opposite is the case.

You may recall that we discussed this very issue only about a week ago in this thread:

http://www.eccie.net/showthread.php?t=598094

You said this:

Originally Posted by TexTushHog

Actually, now that they're not going to have gridlock and passed Gov. Brown's tax plan, I think you're going to see California performing much more like she has historically done. It will take five or six years to dig out of the hole, but it will happen. Investment in public goods like education and transportation infrastructure are what drove growth in California and it will again. I have many friends who live in Calufornia (SFO Bay Area and Silicon Valley) and all are now much more optimistic.

To which I replied:

Originally Posted by CaptainMidnight

The fact that the California Legislature's big-spending majority has managed to blast away any semblance of gridlock means that it has no chance of even coming remotely close to pulling the state's fisc out of the abyss within "five or six years." Those political hacks are completely beholden to public-sector unions, radical environmentalists, and other expensive-to-placate special interest groups.


And do you understand what Jerry Brown's tax "plan" is? One main element is an increase in the state sales tax by 0.25%. But that will be more than offset by California's continuing job losses to other states and to the increasing income inequality that the state is experiencing as its welfare rolls rapidly swell. The other primary element is the increase in the state's top-bracket income tax rate to 13.3%. Add that to the planned federal income tax rate increase to 43.4% (including the new 3.8% health care surtax) and you'll see a marginal income tax rate of 56.7% for Californians. If you think that won't cause some taxpayers to shift their activities in such a way as to avoid some of the additional burden, you don't understand how the real world works. Much of the anticipated additional revenue will simply pull a disappearing act. And even if the state manages to pull in some additional revenue, it won't even come remotely close to covering the rapidly ballooning costs arising from promises made to public sector unions.


And if that's not enough, California's "leaders" have decided to further reduce the state's economic competitiveness (relative to other states) by imposing a carbon cap-and-trade regime. That will significantly drives up costs for businesses, consumers, or both. Nothing like stacking failure atop failure.


If you were to scale up California's model of governance and blanket the entire U.S. with it, we'd soon be running annual deficits of at least $2 trillion.

And the trajectory would be scarier still.

Does that sound like anyone's idea of a pro-growth agenda?

California's model of governance is ideal for those who like to turbocharge their fiscal kamikaze missions!

[i'va biggen]

What we have on this board folks is gridlock...

[CuteOldGuy]

Originally Posted by markroxny

Honestly, I do believe that the gov works best when both sides are forced to work together. I actually think when one party has the white house and the congress they can tend to go too far. That includes my beloved Dems.

I think we have a potential for good right now with the split house and senate and the democratic president. IF AND ONLY IF...the republicans decide to work with him instead of trying to block every thing he does. The problem with Obama's first term is the republicans just wanted to block everything. That doesn't work.

This financial cliff will be a good first test since they election. I think if both sides give a little, we will get a good deal or a decent one at least.

The republicans have a lot to do to fix their brand, but I think guys like Jindal have already figured out the winning rx.

I would love to see a 3rd party emerge tho. A real one. One that is in the center. It's sad that hasn't happened.

Why is your definition of "cooperation" is the Republicans giving in to the Democrats? Why can't the Democrats work with the Republicans? Why don't the Democrats need to back down from blocking what the Republicans want to do?

You aren't preaching cooperation, you are preaching domination, KarlMarxRoxny.

[Texas Contrarian]

Originally Posted by markroxny

Honestly, I do believe that the gov works best when both sides are forced to work together. I actually think when one party has the white house and the congress they can tend to go too far. That includes my beloved Dems.

I think we have a potential for good right now with the split house and senate and the democratic president. IF AND ONLY IF...the republicans decide to work with him instead of trying to block every thing he does. The problem with Obama's first term is the republicans just wanted to block everything. That doesn't work.

I couldn't disagree more. In my opinion, the problem with Obama's first term was that during the first half of it, congressional opponents didn't have enough power to block his worst designs. Just look at what happened in 2009, when he cooperated with a congressional majority of his own party to cram through a highly partisan, very expensive, politically motivated agenda which had little to do with effectively addressing the needs of the economy. America's beleaguered middle class will spend a long time paying for that malfeasance.

After the 2010 midterm shellacking at the polls, it would have been wise for Obama to move to the center like Bill Clinton did in 1995. For instance, instead of completely ignoring Simpson-Bowles, he should have at least used it as a starting point for substantive debate. He could have called for serious discussions on how to control the growth of entitlement and health care spending, instead of demonstrating that raising tax rates on the most affluent two percent of taxpayers is virtually the entirety of his economic "plan." He could have also worked to bring about tax reform and meaningful financial reform. (Instead of Dodd-Frank, which does more harm than good, and nothing about TBTF.)

Ironically, at least with regards to his re-election prospects, Obama "won by losing" when his party threw away their House majority. If Pelosi's majority had still been in power, Romney would have been able to hang it around Obama's neck like a dead albatross. On the other hand, voters were quite reticent to hand the Republicans both the presidency and the House, having seen how poorly that worked out during the 2003-2006 period.

A couple of people in this forum recently expressed the desire to vote for divided government. Given the history of the last couple of decades, it's easy to understand that sentiment.

Sometimes it seems like neither of our dysfunctional parties is good for much, other than preventing its opponents from cramming through a ruinous agenda.

[i'va biggen]

I think that electing someone to represent you that goes to Washington and does nothing but create gridlock is stupid.If you are for it you are stupid...

[Texas Contrarian]

Originally Posted by ekim008

I think that electing someone to represent you that goes to Washington and does nothing but create gridlock is stupid.If you are for it you are stupid...

Wow!

What a priceless pearl of wisdom from one of the forum's deepest thinkers.

OK, genius. Please enlighten us! If you think we would be better served today by an option other than divided government, please tell us what it is. Of course, the outlook would be better if we had a president and congress working together to fix the most critical problems we face, and to create a fiscally responsible pro-growth agenda that could be sustainable over the long term. But that doesn't appear to be in the cards today, does it?

Would you rather go back to the unblocked fiscal kamikaze mission of 2009?

Divided government worked pretty well during the late 1990s, when after initially being at loggerheads over the budget the president and congress worked to create a better economic agenda. During the last six years of Clinton's presidency, which was accompanied by a Republican congress, welfare reform and responsible budgets were passed. In fact, government spending as a percentage of GDP fell by about three percentage points.

Of course, at that time we actually had a Democratic Party president who understood the need for fiscal probity.