Bout time they get on board with some real bipartisan solutions for what's ailing this country vs. being obstructionists or they will lose their chance at regaining the presidency, and lose seats in congress.
"Alternate universe" followers of right-wing media believe Limbaugh & Hannity, who are telling them that Herman Cain is being "destroyed" by MSM.
Don't waste your breath.
Wow----after I finished this post, "lobotomized sheep" "Joe the plumber" attacked the Washington Post.
HOW predictable.
-- Modified on 11/10/2011 3:06:10 PM
....he's obstructionist.
The Post-Modern NewSpeak Dictionary defines "real bipartisan solutions" as "doing only the shit I want."
BTW, what happened to Our Great Unifier?
Answer: he held out his hand to the Republicans and they shit in it.
to quote Colbert, reality has a liberal bias.
The simple fact is that moderates and independents think that the GOP are objecting job creation because it's true.
Of course, the dolt who responded to matt could have accused the plum line blog of a bias and had more credibility in his argument, but he obviously didn't even bother to read matt's link. He probably just covered his eyes and started humming.
& by "hummers", I AIN'T referring to off road vehicles---------
The conservatives want to actually reduce the size of government, reduce the deficit, etc.
If there are duplicate programs, and no one would deny that there are, cut them. If there are some programs that have not worked - dump them.
The Dems want more programs that would lead to more expense. Obama Care is a perfect example. One piece of legislation 2,000 page long, will morph into regulations of tens of thousands of pages - ant that HAS to be the case when any statute says, "as shall be promulgated...." It will create hundreds of new offices, programs, departments, etc.
One side wants less. One side wants more. A compromise would be to freeze all programs. Another compromise would be freeze the size and level of government, so that if you want to create a new agency, cut one that is redundant or not working.
Not decrease the rate of increase, but freeze at current levels. Neither side would get what "it wants." Both would be finding the middle ground.
However, when the GOP refuses to vote for more programs and more revenue, it is "obstructionist" and not willing to work with the other side.
A "bipartisam" solution would be to split the difference, which would be a freeze.
Don't cite ObamaCare as the reason why Dems don't want to cut. That was two years ago. For months now, the Democrats have agreed on cuts -- and even voted for them in last summer. If you have any shred of objectivity, you can't deny that Democrats (even though it's not in their nature) have agreed to significant cuts and have said they will accept more. They also have said quite clearly the deficit must be cut. They simply insist that there also be some increases in revenues. That's a simple fact that even the House Republicans can agree to. Your definition of compromise is simply that they agree to whatever the Republicans propose. That's not compromise at all. So, no, a "bipartisan" solution would not be simply a freeze. It would be a freeze along with increased revenues resulting from higher taxes on the top bracket only, plus the elimination of loopholes. Democrats have not even insisted that the cuts and the tax increase be dollar-for-dollar even and that spending cuts can be much larger. Your version of "compromise" is a sham.
It was two years ago. GOSH. That is close to Thom Jefferson. Or was it Madison that passed Obama Care. Wow. Two years ago. How dare I bring that up as a current subject of dispute between the two sides.
So what. It is typical of the philosophy that divides the two parties. Obama care is an increase in govt control in 1,000 ways. It creates hundreds of new agencies. It creates thousand and thousand of pages of new regs.
As a lawyer, I will guarantee that for every page of a statute, you have at lesat 100 pages of regulations. A 2,000 page statute is a 200,000 page regulatory structure.
Go to the law library. Look at U.S. Code (non annotate, to just see the size) then look at U.S. Regs. The Regs implement that statutes. Your head will swim.
The Dems haven't agree to any real cuts, as in shrinking the size of government at all. They have agreed to slowing the rate of growth.
Challenge time. Name one redundant federal program that the Dems are willing to cut. Name one government program that has been a failure that the Dems are willing to cut. Name one program that underperformed that the Dems are willing to say, "If you can't come up to standards in 18 months, you are gone.
Did these kinds of arguments work then? Do they work in court? Two years ago, when the health care debate took place, we were not talking about cutting the deficit. We were talking about how to keep this country from spiraling into a full depression. Even then Obama said we're going to have to deal with the deficits, but right now the priority is to stave off depression.
Cut to the present. Since the discussion moved to controlling the deficit, for you to deny that Democrats have agreed to cuts, both last summer and in the current Super Committee, defies reality. Both parties, not just the Dems, are talking about slowing the rate of growth. Even the Reps are not talking about a freeze.
Then you say, "as a lawyer" as if that means you have some mysterious ability the rest of us mere mortals don't have. Give me a break! You create a "rule" about how many pages of regulations are created? Please clarify. You've said you work in criminal law in LA. But now you claim to be an expert in regulatory law. I guess you're either re Rennasiance Lawyer or a complete bullshit artist. Hint: it's probably the latter.
When I say, "as a lawyer," I do not mean I have a "mysterious ability the rest of us mere mortals don't have." It does mean I see the workings of law more than non-lawyers. I work in criminal law, but I have dealt with regulations in prior jobs, including tax, immigration. I don't have to be an expert in regulatory law to see the volumes and volumes of regs. Yes, it gives me an insight into how the legal system functions that an actor or doctor does not have. An actor knows the ins and outs of putting togther a movie, which is a thouands times more involved than the script. An attorney knows how the legal system works.
I will clarify the "rule" that a statute creates many pages of regs. There are scores of places in Obama Care where it states a rule to be implemented in the discretion of the secretary. The "law" may be 100 words. The secretary (or the dept) then has to establish the working basis. Who qualifies, who, is bound, when they person must apply, when an exception may be granted.... It goes on and on and on. The 100 word statute may create 1,000 questions of implementation. Each question has to be answered in the Regs.
Go to the nearest law library and to see Code of Federal Regulations. Then ask to see the U.S. Code. Compare the size.
As to the merits, you yourself said "Both parties, not just the Dems, are talking about slowing the rate of growth."
Yes. That is the problem. The goal of the conservatives is to shrink - actually shrink - the size. The fact that e GOP are talking about slowing growth IS not a compromise. It is giving in. It isn't shrinking. It is growing.
And yes, my arguments do very well in court. It is true that in my field, very few cases win, so I have a handicap that most other attorney do not have. However, I do pretty damn well.
Yes, we were talking about the economy then. But creating a huge new web of agencies dealing with health care was not the answer to high gas, unemployment, and houses losing value.
-- Modified on 11/11/2011 5:16:17 AM
DING,DING, DING. Give that man a cigar!
Misplaced priorities to implement the "fundamental change" (socialism) this regime is longing for.
BHO has stated the Constitution is an impediment to his stated goals.
Slowing growth is a "cut" to D.C.
People need to realize that government on both sides has and is failing them.
Until the housing sector is fixed the economy can't be.
It is the engine that will drive everything else.
This administration's policies have prolonged it, purposely some would say to achieve their end goal
of government control over all aspects of your life.
Health care, the banking industry and the housing sector.
Complete control over everything you do.
There are working on that pesky Freedom of Speech thing too which if they had there way would eliminate this discussion board.
That is an incorrect and short sighted response. the AHCA was an attempt to regin in health care costs over the long term. Medical costs contribute greatly to our deficits and the American public's ability to get quality care. It was just one piece of the puzzle....Long term.
Misplaced priorities to implement the "fundamental change" (socialism) this regime is longing for.
BHO has stated the Constitution is an impediment to his stated goals.
Slowing growth is a "cut" to D.C.
People need to realize that government on both sides has and is failing them.
Until the housing sector is fixed the economy can't be.
It is the engine that will drive everything else.
This administration's policies have prolonged it, purposely some would say to achieve their end goal
of government control over all aspects of your life.
Health care, the banking industry and the housing sector.
Complete control over everything you do.
There are working on that pesky Freedom of Speech thing too which if they had there way would eliminate this discussion board.
1) You don't have to be a lawyer to have an insight into government regulations. Comparing your relatively greater insight to that of an actor or a doctor is another red-herring. I was a business executive who dealt with regulatory agencies at the local, state and federal level, so I know a bit about that, too. The fact that pages of rules are written has nothing to do with the current budget situation.
2) Of course, both parties are talking about shrinking the rate of growth, not shrinking the government. They're politicians, aren't they? lol! But seriously, when you make your final argument you act as if Obama did nothing else while the health care debate was going on, when in fact he'd they done the stimulus bill before that. Now, you can argue that bill was wrong-headed -- but that's a different argument. You act as if the administration did nothing but fiddle around with health care while the economy tanked and you should know that's simply untrue. Thus, another red herring. You must have a barrel of those poor fish. Good thing you have that other partisan hack, kompressor, to pat you on the back.
I never said or implied he did nothing but fiddle with health care while the economy tanked. I just gave that as one example. It happens to be a big example because it is so huge. It is not a red herring. It is a perfect paradigm of the actual divide between the two side. A red herring would be to focus on Obama's fund raising or something else. This is an example that is at the core of the issue of growth.
If you look at the growth of the fed govt since he took over you can see. Look up statistics on the number of people working for the feds.
If you were in business, look for yourself. See how many restrictions and mandates were from Congress and how many were from agencies.
And the comparison is apt. I do not mean to denigrate others, but different people have different knowledge. I can't play the piano or build a bathroom. But I do have a better knowlege of how the legal system works than those who can. I am not implying one is better or more useful.
And your approach is so attack. I have to be the head of the debating team.... I am a partisan hack....
I haven't looked back at my replies to you, but I don't think I ever made an personal, snide remark. I think all my responses have been focused on what you said.
But I have a question, since you raised it: Why am I a partisan hack and you are an unbiased observer?
Of course, you can be insulting and never actually address the question I asked. (If one side wants to shrink and the other side wants to grow, why freezing a compromise, as opposed to growing more slowly, which is a win for the growth side?)
2) Of course, both parties are talking about shrinking the rate of growth, not shrinking the government. They're politicians, aren't they? lol! But seriously, when you make your final argument you act as if Obama did nothing else while the health care debate was going on, when in fact he'd they done the stimulus bill before that. Now, you can argue that bill was wrong-headed -- but that's a different argument. You act as if the administration did nothing but fiddle around with health care while the economy tanked and you should know that's simply untrue. Thus, another red herring. You must have a barrel of those poor fish. Good thing you have that other partisan hack, kompressor, to pat you on the back.
But first of all, I did not call you a partisan hack. My alias is being used in an ironic comment on myself, so please unbunch your undies. And, no, I don't really believe I'm a partisan hack either. I just picked the alias because certain posters throw it around as an insult and I find it funny.
Then you use another red herring: that I see myself as "an unbiased observer." When did I say that? I may not be a partisan hack but I'm certainly not without my biases. I don't believe you are either.
As for the rest, you are distorting the clear meaning of what you said. While you didn't outright state Obama did nothing about the economy because of his health care efforts, you certainly implied it, when, in fact, the stimulus bill was passed before he turned to health care. Go back and read your posts. And for you to decide that if you'd commented on Obama's fund raising only that would have constituted a red herring is ridiculous. Any argument that creates a false or over-simplified example is a red herring. You could look it up. As for snide remarks, compared to the personal attacks on this board, wondering if you were the head of the debate team is pretty tame. If it bothers, you, sorry, but you really protest a bit too much. I used the term because it sums up how I see the way you argue a point. You use over-simplified examples and then pick at false nits when someone calls you on them. Your entire manner of debate is tendentious and, dare I say it, lawyerly, as in Philadelphia Lawyerly. Far too often you seem to be arguing for the sake of argument.
before you even posted a comment. Try to be less sensitive, and not to miss the obvious.
What planet are you referring to in your post? If you quit believing what some biased commentator tells you to think, and go look at the facts yourself, you will certainly see the raw numbers that demonstrate that the dems, despite their one liner sound bites, haven't agreed to "cut" anything. What they have done is agree to stop raising things for a while, but nothing is actually being cut. Note to the ignorant... "It's not a cut if you are still spending the same amount you currently spend".
DNC is not only right in his comments about Obamacare/regulation results, he has understated it. And if you dare take him up on his challenge and go look at the law library yourself, you will probably want to bring your own toilet paper because you will no doubt shit your pants at what you learn.