Like us on Facebook


Follow us on Twitter





Results 1 to 15 of 23

Hybrid View

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Baltimore now, but born and raised on the south side of Chicago.
    Posts
    7,373
    vCash
    1500

    Piece on the Simpson Bowles vote from Brooks

    I love me some Brooks.

    I think it's interesting that there are so few calling for real passable bipartisan legislation. Any way this struck me as an interesting read, and I love it when I agree with conservatives.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/24/op...t-mistake.html

    Quote Originally Posted by MrPoon
    man with hair like fire can destroy souls with a twitch of his thighs.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    112
    vCash
    1500
    No plan is a better plan the SB, personally speaking.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    112
    vCash
    1500
    Quite frankly, any plan that purports to reduce the deficit while including even more tax cuts everywhere isn't being very serious. I'd rather take my chances with healthcare reform than sign on to an austerity measure that'll handcuff our future.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Central California
    Posts
    4,314
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by flips333 View Post
    I love me some Brooks.

    I think it's interesting that there are so few calling for real passable bipartisan legislation. Any way this struck me as an interesting read, and I love it when I agree with conservatives.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/24/op...t-mistake.html
    Bipartisan legislation is what will cure a lot of ills right now, we're not likely to see it with this bunch of knuckleheads. Neither side at the present can lay claim to doing good for all of us, I guess it's too important to push ideology from both perspectives rather than compromise for the good of all.

    BTW, I'm really disappointed with the WH on this. What happened to the president sitting everyone down and ironing out a deal? Oh yeah, that be leadership.

    It's OK Flips, I like it when you agree with conservatives also. Today it's a good thing......
    "An armed man is a citizen, an unarmed man is a subject"

    Unknown

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Indianapolis
    Posts
    7,760
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by corralski View Post
    Bipartisan legislation is what will cure a lot of ills right now, we're not likely to see it with this bunch of knuckleheads. Neither side at the present can lay claim to doing good for all of us, I guess it's too important to push ideology from both perspectives rather than compromise for the good of all.

    BTW, I'm really disappointed with the WH on this. What happened to the president sitting everyone down and ironing out a deal? Oh yeah, that be leadership.

    It's OK Flips, I like it when you agree with conservatives also. Today it's a good thing......
    I wish there was a like option ala Facebook. I totally agree with everything you say here. Both sides are to busy attacking the other to actually do something important for the good of the country.
    French writer Alexis de Tocqueville warned about when visiting this fledgling democracy in the early 19th century that this "American republic will endure until politicians realize they can bribe the people with their own money."

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    America
    Posts
    65,787
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by corralski View Post
    Bipartisan legislation is what will cure a lot of ills right now, we're not likely to see it with this bunch of knuckleheads. Neither side at the present can lay claim to doing good for all of us, I guess it's too important to push ideology from both perspectives rather than compromise for the good of all.

    BTW, I'm really disappointed with the WH on this. What happened to the president sitting everyone down and ironing out a deal? Oh yeah, that be leadership.

    It's OK Flips, I like it when you agree with conservatives also. Today it's a good thing......
    I think people like the idea of bipartisan but not the actual nuts and bolts. Also in recent memory, bipartisan bills and concepts have been some of the scariest things that I can think of. The Patriot Act was bipartisan. Before the massive SOPA/PIPA protests they were both very bipartisan. The newer cyber security bills are pretty bipartisan. There are others but I'm kind of tired, so suffice to say bipartisan just means that different political parties buy into the idea. It is by no means a measure of a law's worthiness.
    Member of the Owlluminati!

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Baltimore now, but born and raised on the south side of Chicago.
    Posts
    7,373
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by dbroncos78087 View Post
    I think people like the idea of bipartisan but not the actual nuts and bolts. Also in recent memory, bipartisan bills and concepts have been some of the scariest things that I can think of. The Patriot Act was bipartisan. Before the massive SOPA/PIPA protests they were both very bipartisan. The newer cyber security bills are pretty bipartisan. There are others but I'm kind of tired, so suffice to say bipartisan just means that different political parties buy into the idea. It is by no means a measure of a law's worthiness.
    All of those bills have a thread in common... And none of them involve accepting what can be done in reality for the country, vs wanting some sort of Ideal for one third of the country.

    No bipartisan is not necessarily good, but it's a sign that our country is talking o one another... On top of that bipartisanship is so rare that you give three bills and you have I go back to something enacted a decade ago.
    Last edited by flips333; 08-28-2012 at 12:37 PM. Reason: what was i drunk.

    Quote Originally Posted by MrPoon
    man with hair like fire can destroy souls with a twitch of his thighs.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Central California
    Posts
    4,314
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by dbroncos78087 View Post
    I think people like the idea of bipartisan but not the actual nuts and bolts. Also in recent memory, bipartisan bills and concepts have been some of the scariest things that I can think of. The Patriot Act was bipartisan. Before the massive SOPA/PIPA protests they were both very bipartisan. The newer cyber security bills are pretty bipartisan. There are others but I'm kind of tired, so suffice to say bipartisan just means that different political parties buy into the idea. It is by no means a measure of a law's worthiness.
    I was just saying that at some point the ideology BS needs to stop and the real work of running this nation for the good and preservation of that nation needs to start, not at all saying that these horses ***** won't find some way to **** it up.

    I think at least in this specific situation we need to find solutions on what the electorate desires it's government to do for them, and then that government do those things in the appropriate manner. We don't need some ultra high security spy game bill, just a bunch of guys that can figure out how to balance a check book.....
    "An armed man is a citizen, an unarmed man is a subject"

    Unknown

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    America
    Posts
    65,787
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by corralski View Post
    I was just saying that at some point the ideology BS needs to stop and the real work of running this nation for the good and preservation of that nation needs to start, not at all saying that these horses ***** won't find some way to **** it up.

    I think at least in this specific situation we need to find solutions on what the electorate desires it's government to do for them, and then that government do those things in the appropriate manner. We don't need some ultra high security spy game bill, just a bunch of guys that can figure out how to balance a check book.....
    The only thing worse than paralyzing partisanship should be liberating bipartisanship. Usually when Congress can come together on anything we should all truly be afraid. Anything short of naming a post office building there should at least be some legitimate back-and-forth on these issues. Bills like the PATRIOT Act there was about three days before it was first introduced and when it was signed into law.

    We can have legitimate bipartisanship and come together on issues. That doesn't scare me nor should it scare anyone, but the more likely type of bipartisanship scares me shitless.

    But the electorate responds much more to partisan bickering than legitimate bipartisanship. Just look at Simpson-Bowles for instance, was there a legitimate outcry for that to be formed into legislation? No, there wasn't really much talk about it. If you don't watch the news, there is a good chance you think Simpson-Bowles is a restaurant.
    Member of the Owlluminati!

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Central California
    Posts
    4,314
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by dbroncos78087 View Post
    The only thing worse than paralyzing partisanship should be liberating bipartisanship. Usually when Congress can come together on anything we should all truly be afraid. Anything short of naming a post office building there should at least be some legitimate back-and-forth on these issues. Bills like the PATRIOT Act there was about three days before it was first introduced and when it was signed into law.

    We can have legitimate bipartisanship and come together on issues. That doesn't scare me nor should it scare anyone, but the more likely type of bipartisanship scares me shitless.

    But the electorate responds much more to partisan bickering than legitimate bipartisanship. Just look at Simpson-Bowles for instance, was there a legitimate outcry for that to be formed into legislation? No, there wasn't really much talk about it. If you don't watch the news, there is a good chance you think Simpson-Bowles is a restaurant.
    I'm not suggesting making legislation that isn't needed or doing it in a hap hazard fashion just so these bozo's can say they did it together, it has to have purpose and brother we have some purpose right now.

    The part that really frustrates me is the lack of leadership, everywhere!

    The finger pointing, partisanship and the lack of anyone with the sense to put an end to it is really quite telling of the depth of our disfunction.

    Simpson-Bowles is just the latest incident that shows how little the government cares about the people they were elected to represent......
    "An armed man is a citizen, an unarmed man is a subject"

    Unknown

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    112
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by corralski View Post
    I was just saying that at some point the ideology BS needs to stop and the real work of running this nation for the good and preservation of that nation needs to start, not at all saying that these horses ***** won't find some way to **** it up.

    I think at least in this specific situation we need to find solutions on what the electorate desires it's government to do for them, and then that government do those things in the appropriate manner. We don't need some ultra high security spy game bill, just a bunch of guys that can figure out how to balance a check book.....
    A truly bipartian bill of the wishy washy kind will lead to a long term, Japanese style recovery--only worse.

    I think Martin Wolf puts the situation into perspective

    http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=JERdPm2jd3k

    You can solve the crisis relatively quickly with a full-on austerity plan (which would be absolutely devastating in the short term) or a Keynesian plan with a full-blooded stimulus package. Obviously, I prefer the option with no collateral damage. but either way, I think we need to tackle this issue with a bulldozer, and not a lawnmower. and unfortunately, the Bowles Simpson plan looks like a broom to me.

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Baltimore now, but born and raised on the south side of Chicago.
    Posts
    7,373
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by dbroncos78087 View Post
    I think people like the idea of bipartisan but not the actual nuts and bolts. Also in recent memory, bipartisan bills and concepts have been some of the scariest things that I can think of. The Patriot Act was bipartisan. Before the massive SOPA/PIPA protests they were both very bipartisan. The newer cyber security bills are pretty bipartisan. There are others but I'm kind of tired, so suffice to say bipartisan just means that different political parties buy into the idea. It is by no means a measure of a law's worthiness.
    I did not respond to this the way I thought I did so I am going to try again. Bipartisanship that is easy where everyone agrees and acts quickly is usually not a good thing... but bipartisanship that is a painstaking process of give and take, of sacrifice of ideals for something workable often is.

    (I would point to Obamacare... which WAS the compromise position offered by republicans in the 90s. Had Clinton taken that and run with it this fight wouldnt exist, and we would probably all know at least one person who would still be alive because of it.)

    Quote Originally Posted by MrPoon
    man with hair like fire can destroy souls with a twitch of his thighs.

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    3,046
    vCash
    1500
    Dean Baker constantly rips Brooks and makes him look like the real idiot that he is. Dean educates Brooks on this piece again:

    http://www.cepr.net/index.php/blogs/...iff-a-year-ago

    David Brooks Bemoans the Fact that We Didn't Have the Fiscal Cliff a Year Ago
    Friday, 24 August 2012 04:33

    He didn't use exactly those words, but that is one implication of his column on Paul Ryan's decision to not support the Bowles-Simpson deficit plan when he was a member of the deficit commission back in 2010. (Brooks attributes Ryan's action to his hope for a larger scale overhaul of Medicare. More cynical types might attribute it to his adherence to the Republican dogma of never supporting tax increases.)

    Anyhow, fans of the Bowles-Simpson report might recall that it would have first put budget cuts in place in October of 2011. The projected deficit for fiscal year 2013 (Figure 2), which begins on October 1 of this year, is less than 4.0 percent of GDP. The people running around Washington worried about the end of the world fiscal cliff scenario are worried about tax increases and spending cuts that will shrink the deficit to 4.0 percent of GDP as of January 1, 2013.

    The timing of the tax increases and budget cuts in the Bowles-Simpson scenario is obviously somewhat different than the fiscal cliff story, and it does assume a stronger growth path than we have actually seen, but it is more than a bit bizarre to see many of the same people who have been screaming about the horror of large deficits now terrified by the horror of large deficit reduction.

    Just to be clear, deficits are needed now. There is nothing other than the budget deficit to replace the private sector demand we lost when the housing bubble collapsed. But you don't get to run around one day screaming the deficits are horrible and then turn around the next day and say we need them; or at least you shouldn't be able to do this and still expect to be taken seriously.

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    112
    vCash
    1500
    No one will criticize their own candidate because if you do then your candidate is now too extreme for even his own party.
    I don't understand this part. If I criticize Obama, then he's too extreme?

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    America
    Posts
    65,787
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by Rageaholic View Post
    I don't understand this part. If I criticize Obama, then he's too extreme?
    If someone on the left criticizes Obama then it will be used to say "oh he is too extreme for his own party".

    Just like when someone like John Boehner speaks out about someone else in his party it gets played up as "X is too extreme for John Boehner". Which is why people are less likely to do it and have an open dialogue.
    Member of the Owlluminati!

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •