|
On September 23 2012 06:55 cLAN.Anax wrote:Vindicare, is the Schiff you're referring to " Peter Schiff?" Sentinel: I think you hit a good point there. We emphasize the national elections far too highly, when we should be focused on more concentrated changes in states and cities. More zealots in the counties, and more centrists in the (albeit less powerful than it is today) national government?
I don't really support states' rights. I think states should have nominal power or just run more specific affairs (like funding and property taxes, or regional things like farming or mining) while the federal government should be stronger. For it to be stronger, however, it must also be properly balanced and maintained by the people as effectively as possible. Hence centrism and congressional awareness.
|
I'm dissapointed in the recent changes in North Dakota. I used to be so proud of our three, Dorgan, Pomeroy, and Conrad. All three I had a lot of respect for. In a red state, these three democrats were able to hold their positions for a combined 62 years, and were all able to reach powerful positions within congress. Unfortunately, Dorgan did not run again in 2010, Pomeroy lost, and now Conrad, current chair of the Senate Budget Committee, will be retiring this year.
Our former republican governor, John Hoeven, won the senate spot in 2010, and republican Rick Berg won the House seat.
This year, Rick Berg, has decided to not run for reelection to congress, but instead run for Conrad's old senate seat. He is opposed by Heidi Heitkamp, our old tax commissioner, who had previously ran for governor but lost to our current senator, Hoeven, in 2000. Heitkamp is unfortunately trailing in the polls and unlikely to win.
Republican Kevin Cramer will certainly be winning the House spot left over by Berg. So what this leaves us with is Hoeven and Berg in the senate. And Cramer in the House. This is quite the fall from our star trio of Pomeroy, Dorgan, Conrad, unfortunately. Luckily, North Dakota has so much money now that it really doesn't matter whether we have competent congressman to represent us at a federal level. What I worry about, though, is what effect these fools could have on the rest of the country.
There's really no hope for the election here, so I'm looking forward more to 2014. All the rising stars in North Dakota are unfortunately republicans, so I'm not seeing a very bright future for our democratic party here anyways, though.
|
So you're saying things should get a little better between now and November since all the congressmen are out campaigning?
I have to say maybe we should go a little bit left. America is far more conservative than say, Western Europe or Japan. I'm a Republican but I wouldn't mind going a little left (and the Democrats going a little right) if that meant that we could finally start checking off things on our to-do list. I haven't paid attention to much of the legislation that's been passing, but a lot of the bipartisan bills out there are the ones where both sides are being lobbied (SOPA) or where it benefits both sides but not the people they represent (arresting people for protesting at a political speech).
When Congress is in recess, that is.
Like, I'd rather have debates on the nature of government regulation of the insurance industry after repealing PPACA, rather than how to change PPACA to make it a good universal health care system. I see the nature of far right and far left as shifting leftward since the 1960s, when there were many more Democrats supportive of a small government model, and Republicans of both the tax-cutters and tax-raisers side. The conservative wing of the Democratic party was marginalized amongst quite a bit of other trends and movements within. I'd like to reverse that trend, have conservatives take a hard line on pork barrel legislation until the big tax and spenders bleed a little. Then we start getting some real spending cuts in (Not baseline budgeting shenanigans) and see about the reverse side of tax increases.
And women.
You raise a good point on a stalling Congress and Senate: the less they do, the less pork that gets passed. I agree with you totally on that. Unfortunately, I feel we need to do something about our debt and budget, and I don't think people will like it because it would have to be some substantial cuts to the budget. Then the issue becomes, "What do we cut?" And that's tough because no one can agree on what we will allow ourselves to sacrifice. :-\ (I've a hundred different things I want to can and nix, but it'd never get past our current Senate....)
I gotta wonder why, back in the earlier two years of Obama's presidency, the Dem-controlled House and Senate didn't pass tons and tons of legislature. Sure, it's probably for political purposes; when it passed, and if it didn't work, people would vote them out. However, now that folks think they just sat on their hands when they had majority control of both parts, they're likely to get voted out anyway for inactivity.
Now that they're leaving for a whole seven weeks to campaign,... *facepalm* I think the best campaigning this season in my eyes would be to keep working to get our government money and spending under control. Ads be darned; they just show work that these reps aren't doing.
lol, my "boys" in Congress.
Woodward touches on the lack of leadership Obama projects from the White House in his new book The Price of Politics. This might be at the root of why, given such majorities in both, he failed to deliver on many campaign promises. The others, of unknown relative importance, is the feasibility of enacting them (How do we process and try terrorists apart from Gitmo) and the political cost of doing so (Universal Amnesty would cost him a lot of votes, so might a resurgence of Al Qaeda in Aftganistan and Iraq if he withdrew troops starting today).
On September 23 2012 04:05 Vindicare605 wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2012 20:34 Danglars wrote:On September 22 2012 10:49 [UoN]Sentinel wrote:Update: Congress is making its final session for the year.
It’s the earliest pre-election exit by Congress from Washington since 1960, though lawmakers will return in November after the election to deal with its stack of unfinished work.
The approval rating for the current Congress in a Gallup poll earlier this month sank to just 13 percent, the lowest ever for an election year. The GOP-controlled House and Democratic Senate managed to come together with Obama to enact just 173 new laws. More are coming after the election, but the current tally is roughly half the output of a typical Congress.
Even so, political pundits say Republicans are strong favorites to keep the House while Democratic chances of keeping the Senate are on the upswing with Obama’s rise in the polls.
The exit from Washington leaves the bulk of Congress’ agenda for a postelection session in which it’s hoped lawmakers will be liberated from the election-year paralysis that has ground Capitol Hill to a near halt.
Topping the lame-duck agenda is dealing with the so-called fiscal cliff, which combines the expiration of the Bush-era tax cuts on Dec. 31 and more than $100 billion in indiscriminate, across-the-board spending cuts set to strike at the same time as punishment for the failure of last year’s deficit "supercommittee" to strike a deal.
Also left in limbo is the farm bill, stalled in the House due to opposition from conservative Republicans who think it doesn’t cut farm subsidies and food stamps enough and Democrats who think its food stamp cuts are too harsh.
The current farm act expires on Sept. 30 but the lapse won’t have much practical effect in the near term. Still, it’s a political black eye for Republicans, especially those from farm states like North Dakota and Iowa.
The lack of productivity of the 112th Congress was the result of divided government and bitter partisanship. The looming presidential and congressional elections caused top leaders in both parties to play it safe and stick to party positions.
Well... at least now I'm 100% sure who I'm voting for. Damnit, apparently I haven't been giving my boys in Congress enough credit. Half the output of a typical Congress? I wonder where that sits in the least productive congresses of the 21st and 20th centuries. Congressional approval rate be damned, the less they pass the kind of pork barrel spending bills (and earmarks, and pork that's tacked onto other bills) and that come out of there, the happier I am. You know when the media complains of "bitter partisanship" in America that means the conservative side of the Republican party has been sticking to its guns instead of being dragged leftward (and the center with it!). EDIT: tip of the iceberg of the larger point I'm addressing here You realize that this sort of attitude is detrimental to a democracy right? You simply cannot have an elected representative government operate without compromise. If both sides refused to budge from their political talking points you'd have a government that simply failed to operate.
Au Contraire! Let's put it in simple terms. If the right and left compromise 50-50, the left gets half of what they want, and the right gets half of what they want. If suddenly, half the right's agenda is labeled "Too Right-Wing," "Not in keeping with other established democracies," now compromise involves the left getting maybe double of what they want, and the republicans half. Let me reiterate one more way. If the Republicans believe a freeze in government budgets is in order, and the Democrats propose 6 trillion more spending, you might say the compromise is Republicans allowing 3 trillion more dollars to go on the federal rolls. But maybe if you're one of those smart kids, you simply say 12 trillion dollars is absolutely vital to reduce poverty, unemployment, teenage pregnancy, and the amount of rotten apples at supermarkets. So Republicans and Democrats compromise with 0 spending cuts and 6 trillion more dollars.
Smart politics is dragging your side one way so the center lies with more and more of what you want done. Republicans compromise on spending increases, and government spending rises to unsustainable levels. Republicans compromise on spending cuts, and nearly nothing gets done (Manipulation of statistics from the congressional genius of baseline budgeting. If you don't increase as much as we hardcoded is an acceptable increase, it's a cut!). If I don't want government telling my insurance companies they cannot use group health characteristics in their prices, the proper move is to oppose the change not to give government partial control of the industry. If you oppose slavery, you don't free half the blacks every year. Et cetera et cetera.
I hope maybe you can see quaint notions of the "spirit of compromise" wholly do not address the moving of the center within American politics. Founding-onward, we allowed this government very restricted controls over industry and personal choices in stark contrast with the rest of the world. Sometimes, failing to pass harmful legislation is a net win for the country.
|
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
I was just reminded that the House passed a resolution last year claiming that pizza is a vegetable.
Everyone who voted yes to that resolution should be kicked out of the House.
|
Was it an individual measure, or was it added to something much more pressing? I'm always leery of reading stuff like that. Surely there was more to the bill than that....
|
On September 23 2012 19:54 Souma wrote:
I was just reminded that the House passed a resolution last year claiming that pizza is a vegetable.
Everyone who voted yes to that resolution should be kicked out of the House.
Anyone who buys into such a cheap news cycle should be banned from voting.
People complain about how bad the news is, but they can't stop masturbating to the "pizza-is-a-vegetable" story, which has a bigger spin than anything that was published in over a year. Never before did the media zoom in on such a trivial part, just to get a bigger part of the idiot-demographic.
|
On September 23 2012 06:55 cLAN.Anax wrote:Vindicare, is the Schiff you're referring to " Peter Schiff?" Sentinel: I think you hit a good point there. We emphasize the national elections far too highly, when we should be focused on more concentrated changes in states and cities. More zealots in the counties, and more centrists in the (albeit less powerful than it is today) national government?
No. My representative is, Adam Schiff
Au Contraire! Let's put it in simple terms. If the right and left compromise 50-50, the left gets half of what they want, and the right gets half of what they want. If suddenly, half the right's agenda is labeled "Too Right-Wing," "Not in keeping with other established democracies," now compromise involves the left getting maybe double of what they want, and the republicans half. Let me reiterate one more way. If the Republicans believe a freeze in government budgets is in order, and the Democrats propose 6 trillion more spending, you might say the compromise is Republicans allowing 3 trillion more dollars to go on the federal rolls. But maybe if you're one of those smart kids, you simply say 12 trillion dollars is absolutely vital to reduce poverty, unemployment, teenage pregnancy, and the amount of rotten apples at supermarkets. So Republicans and Democrats compromise with 0 spending cuts and 6 trillion more dollars.
Smart politics is dragging your side one way so the center lies with more and more of what you want done. Republicans compromise on spending increases, and government spending rises to unsustainable levels. Republicans compromise on spending cuts, and nearly nothing gets done (Manipulation of statistics from the congressional genius of baseline budgeting. If you don't increase as much as we hardcoded is an acceptable increase, it's a cut!). If I don't want government telling my insurance companies they cannot use group health characteristics in their prices, the proper move is to oppose the change not to give government partial control of the industry. If you oppose slavery, you don't free half the blacks every year. Et cetera et cetera.
I hope maybe you can see quaint notions of the "spirit of compromise" wholly do not address the moving of the center within American politics. Founding-onward, we allowed this government very restricted controls over industry and personal choices in stark contrast with the rest of the world. Sometimes, failing to pass harmful legislation is a net win for the country.
EDIT: You realize that the less our government does, the more we're basically paying them to do nothing right?
How in the world does that make efficient business sense? We're paying our Congress as tax payers to go to Washington and intentionally block any form of legislation from getting through just because doing that might prevent some negative business legislation from getting through.
How can you possibly classify that as a functioning government?
The thing is, you're already convinced that government is intrinsically disfunctional thus stripping it of its power to do anything is what you'd prefer to reforming it so that it functions better. You're aspiring to the whole, government can't solve problems, government is the problem mentality that the Tea Partiers love to support so much.
What I'm saying is that all you're REALLY accomplishing is wasting a ton of time and money with this sort of attitude.
|
On September 23 2012 07:29 [UoN]Sentinel wrote:Show nested quote +On September 23 2012 06:55 cLAN.Anax wrote:Vindicare, is the Schiff you're referring to " Peter Schiff?" Sentinel: I think you hit a good point there. We emphasize the national elections far too highly, when we should be focused on more concentrated changes in states and cities. More zealots in the counties, and more centrists in the (albeit less powerful than it is today) national government? I don't really support states' rights. I think states should have nominal power or just run more specific affairs (like funding and property taxes, or regional things like farming or mining) while the federal government should be stronger. For it to be stronger, however, it must also be properly balanced and maintained by the people as effectively as possible. Hence centrism and congressional awareness.
Out of curiosity, what state do you live in Sentinel?
Because here in California I can't help but be a big believer in Federalism and States rights when I see the enormous differences between my state and others that I've visited and how much I wish California had more freedom in its social legislation.
|
No matter what i did think either side gets a supermajoirty, so we'll still be basically stuck on anything major
|
How can you possibly classify that as a functioning government?
Who said it was functioning? He was just describing the other viewpoint on the "Republicans caused this by refusing to compromise" bandwagon. The reality is that the "obstructionism" is equally the fault of the republicans and democrats for attempting to drag the center line of compromise further and further into their own camps. Real compromise is impossible if the people debating it aren't intellectually honest about things.
|
On September 24 2012 03:54 Vindicare605 wrote:Show nested quote +On September 23 2012 06:55 cLAN.Anax wrote:Vindicare, is the Schiff you're referring to " Peter Schiff?" Sentinel: I think you hit a good point there. We emphasize the national elections far too highly, when we should be focused on more concentrated changes in states and cities. More zealots in the counties, and more centrists in the (albeit less powerful than it is today) national government? No. My representative is, Adam SchiffShow nested quote +Au Contraire! Let's put it in simple terms. If the right and left compromise 50-50, the left gets half of what they want, and the right gets half of what they want. If suddenly, half the right's agenda is labeled "Too Right-Wing," "Not in keeping with other established democracies," now compromise involves the left getting maybe double of what they want, and the republicans half. Let me reiterate one more way. If the Republicans believe a freeze in government budgets is in order, and the Democrats propose 6 trillion more spending, you might say the compromise is Republicans allowing 3 trillion more dollars to go on the federal rolls. But maybe if you're one of those smart kids, you simply say 12 trillion dollars is absolutely vital to reduce poverty, unemployment, teenage pregnancy, and the amount of rotten apples at supermarkets. So Republicans and Democrats compromise with 0 spending cuts and 6 trillion more dollars.
Smart politics is dragging your side one way so the center lies with more and more of what you want done. Republicans compromise on spending increases, and government spending rises to unsustainable levels. Republicans compromise on spending cuts, and nearly nothing gets done (Manipulation of statistics from the congressional genius of baseline budgeting. If you don't increase as much as we hardcoded is an acceptable increase, it's a cut!). If I don't want government telling my insurance companies they cannot use group health characteristics in their prices, the proper move is to oppose the change not to give government partial control of the industry. If you oppose slavery, you don't free half the blacks every year. Et cetera et cetera.
I hope maybe you can see quaint notions of the "spirit of compromise" wholly do not address the moving of the center within American politics. Founding-onward, we allowed this government very restricted controls over industry and personal choices in stark contrast with the rest of the world. Sometimes, failing to pass harmful legislation is a net win for the country. EDIT: You realize that the less our government does, the more we're basically paying them to do nothing right? How in the world does that make efficient business sense? We're paying our Congress as tax payers to go to Washington and intentionally block any form of legislation from getting through just because doing that might prevent some negative business legislation from getting through. How can you possibly classify that as a functioning government? The thing is, you're already convinced that government is intrinsically disfunctional thus stripping it of its power to do anything is what you'd prefer to reforming it so that it functions better. You're aspiring to the whole, government can't solve problems, government is the problem mentality that the Tea Partiers love to support so much. What I'm saying is that all you're REALLY accomplishing is wasting a ton of time and money with this sort of attitude.
We're going to have congress whether it does something or not so the cost of congress is a sunk cost - its irrelevant to the discussion.
BTW legislation and budgets are getting passed. Let's not act like the federal government has shut down.
|
On September 24 2012 04:10 Vindicare605 wrote:Show nested quote +On September 23 2012 07:29 [UoN]Sentinel wrote:On September 23 2012 06:55 cLAN.Anax wrote:Vindicare, is the Schiff you're referring to " Peter Schiff?" Sentinel: I think you hit a good point there. We emphasize the national elections far too highly, when we should be focused on more concentrated changes in states and cities. More zealots in the counties, and more centrists in the (albeit less powerful than it is today) national government? I don't really support states' rights. I think states should have nominal power or just run more specific affairs (like funding and property taxes, or regional things like farming or mining) while the federal government should be stronger. For it to be stronger, however, it must also be properly balanced and maintained by the people as effectively as possible. Hence centrism and congressional awareness. Out of curiosity, what state do you live in Sentinel? Because here in California I can't help but be a big believer in Federalism and States rights when I see the enormous differences between my state and others that I've visited and how much I wish California had more freedom in its social legislation.
New Jersey. Yeah California's pretty fucked up on a state level (no offense) because from what I've seen those problems are pretty deep-running and there's no easy way out.
I think the problem with states' rights is that with the current state of the country, it could go a long way to polarizing the country even more. If blue states get more power, it might let them separate a little more from the red states, and vice versa.
|
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
On September 24 2012 03:33 zalz wrote:Show nested quote +On September 23 2012 19:54 Souma wrote:
I was just reminded that the House passed a resolution last year claiming that pizza is a vegetable.
Everyone who voted yes to that resolution should be kicked out of the House. Anyone who buys into such a cheap news cycle should be banned from voting. People complain about how bad the news is, but they can't stop masturbating to the "pizza-is-a-vegetable" story, which has a bigger spin than anything that was published in over a year. Never before did the media zoom in on such a trivial part, just to get a bigger part of the idiot-demographic.
Excuse me, but when politicians try to pass a resolution defining pizza as a vegetable you kind of know where their priorities are, and obviously in this situation the health of children (and plain common sense) is second place to the interests of food manufacturers.
So once again...
Everyone who voted yes to that resolution should be kicked out of the House.
|
On September 24 2012 05:48 [UoN]Sentinel wrote:Show nested quote +On September 24 2012 04:10 Vindicare605 wrote:On September 23 2012 07:29 [UoN]Sentinel wrote:On September 23 2012 06:55 cLAN.Anax wrote:Vindicare, is the Schiff you're referring to " Peter Schiff?" Sentinel: I think you hit a good point there. We emphasize the national elections far too highly, when we should be focused on more concentrated changes in states and cities. More zealots in the counties, and more centrists in the (albeit less powerful than it is today) national government? I don't really support states' rights. I think states should have nominal power or just run more specific affairs (like funding and property taxes, or regional things like farming or mining) while the federal government should be stronger. For it to be stronger, however, it must also be properly balanced and maintained by the people as effectively as possible. Hence centrism and congressional awareness. Out of curiosity, what state do you live in Sentinel? Because here in California I can't help but be a big believer in Federalism and States rights when I see the enormous differences between my state and others that I've visited and how much I wish California had more freedom in its social legislation. New Jersey. Yeah California's pretty fucked up on a state level (no offense) because from what I've seen those problems are pretty deep-running and there's no easy way out.I think the problem with states' rights is that with the current state of the country, it could go a long way to polarizing the country even more. If blue states get more power, it might let them separate a little more from the red states, and vice versa.
This is true. From what I hear, Cali.'s a mess right now. On the contrary, though, I believe the state should have the ability to fail based on the policies it chooses. I absolutely don't like the fact that it IS failing, but it looks to me like they dug themselves into this, so from a federal standpoint I'd argue to let them be.
I'd be okay with greater separation between the states. I see the states as 50 individual, diverse social laboratories, where the sucessful policies of the states should then be implemented on a national scale. If you compromise across all the states (like at the national level) for most things and you entrust the federal government to handle more and more issues, few will be happy with the results. Leaving more stuff to the states ensures better accountability and individual satisfaction, in my opinion.
|
On September 24 2012 05:04 BronzeLeague wrote: Who said it was functioning? He was just describing the other viewpoint on the "Republicans caused this by refusing to compromise" bandwagon. The reality is that the "obstructionism" is equally the fault of the republicans and democrats for attempting to drag the center line of compromise further and further into their own camps. Real compromise is impossible if the people debating it aren't intellectually honest about things.
One of my favorite quotes for this period of political divide,
The left’s gone left, but the right’s gone nuts!
There's clear evidence that what's happened to the right is much further from the center than ever before. I'd love to jump on the "it's everybody's fault!" train, but right now, it's just Republicans.
|
Lolwut? Dems won't pass a bill that cuts programs and government spending; Reps won't pass a bill that raises taxes. (that's what I keep hearing from them in the news, anyway) I think Bronze's quote that you bolded hit the nail on the head: nobody wants to compromise because everyone's too entrenched in their own side on the political spectrum.
Democrats had their shining opportunity back in 2008-09 to pass stuff like mad when they had majority in both Houses and in the White House. Now they're gonna blame Republicans for being "too partisan?" As if they can only pass stuff now and not earlier? Uh-uh, they lost their chance. It's now back to the slow, slow process of incessant debate and very little getting through.
|
On September 25 2012 03:29 cLAN.Anax wrote:
Lolwut? Dems won't pass a bill that cuts programs and government spending; Reps won't pass a bill that raises taxes. (that's what I keep hearing from them in the news, anyway) I think Bronze's quote that you bolded hit the nail on the head: nobody wants to compromise because everyone's too entrenched in their own side on the political spectrum.
Democrats had their shining opportunity back in 2008-09 to pass stuff like mad when they had majority in both Houses and in the White House. Now they're gonna blame Republicans for being "too partisan?" As if they can only pass stuff now and not earlier? Uh-uh, they lost their chance. It's now back to the slow, slow process of incessant debate and very little getting through.
This has been refuted a number of times in the US presidential thread, but I'll helpfully remind you of the mental gymnastics needed to consider a tiny 4 month window a "shining opportunity".
In January 2009, there were 56 Senate Democrats and two independents who caucused with Democrats. This combined total of 58 included Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-Mass.), whose health was failing and was unable to serve. As a practical matter, in the early months of Obama’s presidency, the Senate Democratic caucus had 57 members on the floor for day-to-day legislating.
In April 2009, Pennsylvania’s Arlen Specter switched parties. This meant there were 57 Democrats, and two independents who caucused with Democrats, for a caucus of 59. But with Kennedy ailing, there were still “only” 58 Democratic caucus members in the chamber.
In May 2009, Sen. Robert Byrd (D-W.Va.) was hospitalized, bringing the number of Senate Dems in the chamber down to 57.
In July 2009, Sen. Al Franken (D-Minn.) was finally seated after a lengthy recount/legal fight. At that point, the Democratic caucus reached 60, but two of its members, Kennedy and Byrd, were unavailable for votes.
In August 2009, Kennedy died, and Democratic caucus again stood at 59.
In September 2009, Sen. Paul Kirk (D-Mass.) filled Kennedy’s vacancy, bringing the caucus back to 60, though Byrd’s health continued to deteriorate.
In January 2010, Sen. Scott Brown (R-Mass.) replaced Kirk, bringing the Democratic caucus back to 59 again.
In June 2010, Byrd died, and the Democratic caucus fell to 58, where it stood until the midterms. [Update: Jonathan Bernstein reminds me that Byrd's replacement was a Dem. He's right, though this doesn't change the larger point.]
Wallace believes the Dems’ “filibuster proof majority in the Senate” lasted 24 months. In reality, he’s off by 20 months, undermining the entire thesis pushed so aggressively by Republicans.
Source
|
On September 25 2012 03:29 cLAN.Anax wrote:
Lolwut? Dems won't pass a bill that cuts programs and government spending; Reps won't pass a bill that raises taxes. (that's what I keep hearing from them in the news, anyway) I think Bronze's quote that you bolded hit the nail on the head: nobody wants to compromise because everyone's too entrenched in their own side on the political spectrum.
Democrats had their shining opportunity back in 2008-09 to pass stuff like mad when they had majority in both Houses and in the White House. Now they're gonna blame Republicans for being "too partisan?" As if they can only pass stuff now and not earlier? Uh-uh, they lost their chance. It's now back to the slow, slow process of incessant debate and very little getting through.
Republicans won't pass ANYTHING with a tax increase in it, while Democrats, for the most part, are willing to pass relatively large cuts for some tax increases, otherwise only very minor cuts. Democrats represent a rather varied set of voters and ideologies, which makes it much harder to pass legislation even with a majority. Even with the "Super Majority" in the Senate, you had Democrat Senators that simply would NOT vote for a bill without a Republican endorsement of it. Only so much can get done when one party is solidified in denying the other party any "victories."
On the other side, you have Republicans that have only a winner-take-all approach to compromise. We saw this during the debt ceiling fiasco, where an extremely huge chunk of Congressmen would rather default on debt payments than come together on long term debt solutions. In the health care reform debate, you had Senators that supported a great number of the proposals in the bill back in the 90s, turn around and piss all over them 10 years later.
It's nice when your platform revolves around breaking government then complaining that government doesn't work, eh?
|
The House seat for my district is up for election but there's only one dude running.
Kinda made me laugh.
|
On September 25 2012 03:55 WTFZerg wrote:
The House seat for my district is up for election but there's only one dude running.
Kinda made me laugh.
Well what's your opinion on him either way?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
