CenterBHSFan;542069 wrote:I would much rather have a stagnate state rather than our congress passing anything and everything just so it could say "Look how much we've done!".

In my mind, quality should prevail over quantity. And, we just haven't seen that in how long? Take for instance the "health insurance reform" bill: trash.
Was that bill worthy of being passed? That's the kind of stuff that should have been left to die.

Stalemating forces politicians to slow down, chew on it, sort things out, think it through, step back from it and look at it again. That then produces things that are quality.
Hopefully, that clarifies my thoughts better for you to understand. I don't know how else to explain my point of view.

I just don't think we have time to stalemate. Immigration and SS/ Medicare reform is much needed right now. I get your POV, but in my view, holding off only makes things worse.

BGFalcons82;542075 wrote:Hyperinflation worries from Forbes - http://blogs.forbes.com/greatspeculations/2010/11/01/ben-bernanke-and-the-outlook-for-hyperinflation/?boxes=marketschannelnews
How it will happen from the Business Insider - http://www.businessinsider.com/how-hyperinflation-will-happen-in-america-2010-9

For a modern day example...read about the Zimbabwe dollar. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperinflation_in_Zimbabwe We aren't in their situation....yet.

And in response:
http://www.aei.org/outlook/101001
http://www.foxbusiness.com/markets/2010/10/15/bernanke-ignites-inflation-deflation-debate/

No one in the FED or who knows macro policy is talking inflation anytime soon.
Zimbabwe is a very extreme example as many countries peck their currencies to the U.S. dollar and the monetary policy for the dollar is much more complex.

ptown_trojans_1;542039 wrote:I'm not for one for gridlock. Given we need to reform Medicare/ Medicaid, SS, Defense budget, infrastructure, Immigration and the budget all relatively soon, gridlock would be the worst thing. These issues are not going away and will not solve themselves. The R's better come in with real solutions to these problems and work across the aisle to get them done. If not, they are out in 2012.

Inflation? I have not heard anything on inflation, I've heard about deflation though.

There it is. The Republicans are the ones who need to cave and work across the aisle to get things done.

Sure, I agree with most of that. But, we still need to fix the major issues in this country and gridlock will do nothing. It will only make matters worse. Yes, the D's screwed up in 06-10 and did not tackle the large issues, but the R's better be able to step to the plate and get things done

I sure wish gridlock would've occurred back in March, and Congress (and the American people) could've engaged in reasonable debate on all 2,000 pages of the Obamacare bill. Then again, we would still be debating that, and would probably be on page 1137 by now, and that would unnecessarily interefere with a radical leftist agenda.

I read a column this morning by Howard Fineman on Huffington Post in which he was talking about Democrats post election strategy, and how they basically won't be able to do anything in the lame duck if they are swept out of power.

The one thing I found interesting though is that he mentioned many Democrats on this Hill are looking forward to watching Republican and Tea Party candidates head's explode when they have to hold their nose and pass an extension of the national debt ceiling in early spring.

Since the Republicans will control the House, they will have to sponsor the bill and that will enrage Conservatives. Not doing so isn't an option when faced with the real world consequences of what default would mean to this country.

That vote is going to be where the rubber meets the road because it will become a major political issue, and since it is subject to a filibuster will require 60 votes in the Senate. That means it is going to have to be Bi-partisan, and given the rhetoric we have seen in this election around the desire to slash spending I can't wait to see what kind of coalition they can cobble together to pass it as you know Jim Demint will filibuster it, and Democrats will probably need to find 8-9 Republicans votes to reach 60 and they often couldn't find 1 last Congress.

jhay78;542087 wrote:There it is. The Republicans are the ones who need to cave and work across the aisle to get things done.

Well, they would be the one in power. But, liberals would have to cave on some of their own points too. Point: Both sides have to give up something in order to solve the problem. It is the only way to get a real solution.

Time for both parties to act like grown ups and work together instead of acting like little kids whining about how the other side is evil and blocking their agenda.

I sure wish gridlock would've occurred back in March, and Congress (and the American people) could've engaged in reasonable debate on all 2,000 pages of the Obamacare bill. Then again, we would still be debating that, and would probably be on page 1137 by now, and that would unnecessarily interefere with a radical leftist agenda.

Sure, agreed as it was a horrible piece of crap. But, we now need real, practical solutions. If the R's fail at that, they will be kicked out. They wanted power, now they get to solve the difficult problems they and the D's caused/ didn't address over the past 15 years.

"Well, they would be the one in power. But, liberals would have to cave on some of their own points too."

Let me fix this, "But STATISTS would have to cave on some of their own points too" These folks stopped being liberals years ago. We're an entitlement-based society, and if we don't address entitlement reform, not just in the future but current reform, we're not digging out of this hole. Raise the SS age - should be on the table. Reduce current benefits - should ALSO be on the table. And for God's sake, public pension reform should be on the table.

Manhattan Buckeye;542109 wrote:"Well, they would be the one in power. But, liberals would have to cave on some of their own points too."

Let me fix this, "But STATISTS would have to cave on some of their own points too" These folks stopped being liberals years ago. We're an entitlement-based society, and if we don't address entitlement reform, not just in the future but current reform, we're not digging out of this hole. Raise the SS age - should be on the table. Reduce current benefits - should ALSO be on the table. And for God's sake, public pension reform should be on the table.

Sure, fine,. Point is both sides have to give up some of their hardcore beliefs.
There is no way in hell a liberal, or statist will just say sure I'll drop that belief. So, it will have to be a long, drawn out, compromise process on solving the critical issues this country faces.

So, it will have to be a long, drawn out, compromise process on solving the critical issues this country faces.

There is no incentive to compromise in American politics because the quickest way back to power is for things to go poorly so the voters will turn back to you. Also, anyone seen compromising with the other party often ends up subject to a nasty primary challenge from the far wing of their respective party so it is not exactly an environment that fosters that sort of behavior.

I think it was Mitch McConnell who said recently the number one objective of the next Congress was to ensure BHO is a one term President. If a Republican wins in 2012, the Democrats will use the same playbook and do all they can do to sabotage that person in a similar way. That is the new reality of American politics sadly.

IggyPride00;542130 wrote:There is no incentive to compromise in American politics because the quickest way back to power is for things to go poorly so the voters will turn back to you. Also, anyone seen compromising with the other party often ends up subject to a nasty primary challenge from the far wing of their respective party so it is not exactly an environment that fosters that sort of behavior.

I think it was Mitch McConnell who said recently the number one objective of the next Congress was to ensure BHO is a one term President. If a Republican wins in 2012, the Democrats will use the same playbook and do all they can do to sabotage that person in a similar way. That is the new reality of American politics sadly.

That is honestly what I hope the R's don't do. If they claim they will do things differently and will not play by the same Washington rules, they need to forget the partisan BS, get down to business and work with the D's to find solutions. Otherwise, they are the same as the D's, worthless and political hacks.

Again, if the R's wanted power, they got, but with it comes now the responsibility to clean up the mess.

ptown_trojans_1;542082 wrote:I just don't think we have time to stalemate. Immigration and SS/ Medicare reform is much needed right now. I get your POV, but in my view, holding off only makes things worse.

Doesn't this imply that something will eventually be done legislatively? It doesn't necessarily have to be in all cases.

The stricter enforcement of existing laws regarding immigration is a choice that doesn't require additional laws to be imposed.

But how do we go about that?

There are many approaches that have been publicly discussed. Some have very negative impacts.

I am not suggesting this is the route we take but rather the point was that CenterBHS stated his opinion was that he would rather have no legislative activity than a government that legislated for that sake of being able to say they did something and ptowns stated that it's better to do something now because we don't have time to wait which implied to me that the only option was legislating more.

It's not the only option. It may be the right option if it's what the people want but it's not the only option.

I do think we are to quick today to try and legislate solutions into place. Sometimes I wish we would allow more societal drift and change to determine our outcomes. That was a general statement that may or may not relate to the immigrations situation.

The democrats better hope for good weather or it could today could get worse.

http://minnesota.publicradio.org/collections/special/columns/updraft/archive/2010/11/study_election_day_weather_cha.shtml

From the study:

More precisely, for every one-inch increase in rain above its election day normal, the
Republican presidential candidate received approximately an extra 2.5% of the vote. For every one-inch increase in snow above normal, the Republican candidate's vote share increases by approximately .6%

majorspark;542219 wrote:The democrats better hope for good weather or it could today could get worse.

http://minnesota.publicradio.org/collections/special/columns/updraft/archive/2010/11/study_election_day_weather_cha.shtml

From the study:

More precisely, for every one-inch increase in rain above its election day normal, the
Republican presidential candidate received approximately an extra 2.5% of the vote. For every one-inch increase in snow above normal, the Republican candidate's vote share increases by approximately .6%

While I've heard this same thing in the past -- reports coming in already show heavily populated Republican areas of Ohio are very busy at the polls; while voting is light in heavily Democratic areas.

If those reports are accurate, then Strickland is finished, and so are a lot of Congress reps like Kilroy, Space, etc.

Probably not a game-changer....but man, this would just make for some excellent head explosions on TV tonight.

http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2010/11/02/coons-camp-expresses-turnout-worries/

ptown_trojans_1;542095 wrote:Well, they would be the one in power. But, liberals would have to cave on some of their own points too. Point: Both sides have to give up something in order to solve the problem. It is the only way to get a real solution.

Time for both parties to act like grown ups and work together instead of acting like little kids whining about how the other side is evil and blocking their agenda.




Sure, agreed as it was a horrible piece of crap. But, we now need real, practical solutions. If the R's fail at that, they will be kicked out. They wanted power, now they get to solve the difficult problems they and the D's caused/ didn't address over the past 15 years.

I'm with you for the most part. I just think there's a time for bipartisanship and compromise, and a time for holding firm and representing your constituency. I don't think bipartisanship for bipartisanship's sake is good or even possible for that matter- the "compromise" is always going to come down on one side or the other, and it's up to reasonable, intelligent human beings to debate fairly to decide how that happens.

fish82;542376 wrote:Probably not a game-changer....but man, this would just make for some excellent head explosions on TV tonight.

http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2010/11/02/coons-camp-expresses-turnout-worries/

Can you imagine if she pulled that off? Liberals had a few months to trash Sarah Palin; they would have 6 years to dig up every possible speck of dirt on O'Donnell.

IggyPride00;542092 wrote:I read a column this morning by Howard Fineman on Huffington Post in which he was talking about Democrats post election strategy, and how they basically won't be able to do anything in the lame duck if they are swept out of power.

The one thing I found interesting though is that he mentioned many Democrats on this Hill are looking forward to watching Republican and Tea Party candidates head's explode when they have to hold their nose and pass an extension of the national debt ceiling in early spring.

Since the Republicans will control the House, they will have to sponsor the bill and that will enrage Conservatives. Not doing so isn't an option when faced with the real world consequences of what default would mean to this country.

That vote is going to be where the rubber meets the road because it will become a major political issue, and since it is subject to a filibuster will require 60 votes in the Senate. That means it is going to have to be Bi-partisan, and given the rhetoric we have seen in this election around the desire to slash spending I can't wait to see what kind of coalition they can cobble together to pass it as you know Jim Demint will filibuster it, and Democrats will probably need to find 8-9 Republicans votes to reach 60 and they often couldn't find 1 last Congress.

They better not. All I have heard the last two years is spending spending OH MY THE SPENDING..THE DEFICIT ARGHHHH.............. They better not raise one cent on the ceiling of the deficit.

This entire campaign has been about reducing deficits and if they raise the ceiling they will be voted out.

I agree, no deficit ceiling raise. Don't care about the consequences, better to get it over with now than constantly raise the ceiling and have an even bigger issue to deal with in 10-20 more years. Force them to do it now.

For a state to carry on, it requires the cooperation of free and equal individuals over time. Aristotle was the first to argue this essential point. In a pluralistic society with disparate and incompatible comprehensive worldviews, like say, contrasting theories of justice as conceptions of "the good," it is necessary to form compromises between this incompatible comprehensive doctrines. For instance, Protestants and Catholics, though having incompatible views in regards to the role of the church, decided to stop slaughtering each other and agree to separation of church and state.

It's not a matter of turncoating, it's a matter of ensuring that our society survives and we don't start killing each other.

There has to be common ground that we can live with. Everyone on the right is lambasting BHO for his supposed radical liberal views. And you know what, he may have them in his heart of hearts. But he hasn't governed that way, by any objective understanding. He has let Congress deliberate. He has held back on legislation that would not pass. He tried, I think to an extent, to get some kind of republican support for the Dems healthcare bill and failed.

He has litigated against decisions favorable to the LGBT agenda even though he supports these rights they seek...because he wants it to go through Congress.

From early in his political career he has criticized liberals for relying too much on the courts and not allowing their rights to come about through the political process. Nonetheless, he supported civil rights legislation on the grounds that minorities were "left out of the political process."

The Roe v. Wade was famously criticized by Scalia, not because it protected a right to an abortion inasmuch as it nationalized the abortion debate and created rigid sides on the issue rather than letting political compromise play out.

BHO's biggest failure is not whatever lack of experience he may have or his secret communist views that some think he has or that he's still obsessed with pleasing his radical father....it's that he comes from a multicultural and tolerant background with many experiences and erroneously believes that we really can see past our differences (that we're not red states and blue states as he would say in his addresses) and common to a common ground based on our desire to get along as free and equal citizens cooperating over time, IMHO.

In this world where I can go online and find a million users who think exactly like me, why would I worry about cooperating with the Hippie down the street?

The way I see it, many of these hardcore liberals have no desire to cooperate with contemporary conservatives and tea partiers and the reciprocity is felt by tea partiers and conservatives ("we'll keep our guns, money and freedom and you can keep the change!" And then, we have uninterested and apathetic moderates being swayed from side to side by the loudest voices like bobble-headed bar skank following the guys with Cocaine.

On this forum I'm looked at as a liberal and I largely go after conservatives. But, I assure you, if I were in a place that was highly populated by steadfast, outspoken liberals, I would challenge their rigidness as well. We all have strong beliefs about issues but we must conclude that we will not have the same beliefs. For instance, despite my belief that the estate tax is grounded in principles that make it justifiable under our income tax regime; BGFalcons will not be persuaded. Consequently, although I may argue my side, there comes a time when I must agree to some kind of reasonable compromise (perhaps taxing per transfer as opposed to the large sum in the aggregate, etc.). Finding common ground that we can tolerate does not mean we give up our core principles.

We are worried that the other sides policies will ruin us...that SS and Medicare are on an unsustainable path, etc. But, I can assure you, not being able to compromise on these complex and emotional issues will push us closer to our unraveling faster than any of these fears.

If not raising the debt ceiling means bankruptcy, then you raise it and start working to CUT as much as you can out of the next budget.

You don't arbitrarily decide to vote no on something like that just to make a point -- and just because someone has run an entire election on reducing government spending does NOT mean they should be stupid. If it takes one more extension of the debt before cuts can be made, then you do it.

But I'm sure if the debt ceiling gets raised, there will be "children" who point fingers and say all kinds of idiotic and stupid things. It is Washington, after all.

Writerbuckeye;542530 wrote:If not raising the debt ceiling means bankruptcy, then you raise it and start working to CUT as much as you can out of the next budget.

You don't arbitrarily decide to vote no on something like that just to make a point -- and just because someone has run an entire election on reducing government spending does NOT mean they should be stupid. If it takes one more extension of the debt before cuts can be made, then you do it.

But I'm sure if the debt ceiling gets raised, there will be "children" who point fingers and say all kinds of idiotic and stupid things. It is Washington, after all.

Why couldn't this also be true if someone were to say, "Well, I don't want to raise the debt ceiling but it's necessary in order for us to provide a fiscal stimulus that prevents a depression from happening?" Some, including a Nobel Prize winning economist, would say that's choosing not to "act stupid." Just sayin.

I can see justifications for these; raising debt ceiling to help stave off depression, raise debt ceiling to make room for immediately necessary spending cuts and prevent default.

I'm not sure I can see raising the debt ceiling to be justified for questionably necessary wars, an expansion of the welfare state during boom times, to pay for tax cuts justified out of an artificial surplus, etc.

"BHO's biggest failure is not whatever lack of experience he may have or his secret communist views that some think he has or that he's still obsessed with pleasing his radical father....it's that he comes from a multicultural and tolerant background with many experiences and erroneously believes that we really can see past our differences "

So in other words, He just CARES TOO MUCH. Get over yourself Boatshoes, the last 2 years have been an economic disaster in this country, no one gives a shit about his race. Hell, Randy Moss is my favorite player in the NFL, despite him being a jerk and generally weird....and just happens to be black. I'm a fan of him because I saw his talent in HS and college. I never cared about his race or differences.

If anything this country is too tolerant with idiocy, and we've lived with it the last few years. Obama has failed because he's incompetent.

Manhattan Buckeye;542550 wrote:"BHO's biggest failure is not whatever lack of experience he may have or his secret communist views that some think he has or that he's still obsessed with pleasing his radical father....it's that he comes from a multicultural and tolerant background with many experiences and erroneously believes that we really can see past our differences "

So in other words, He just CARES TOO MUCH. Get over yourself Boatshoes, the last 2 years have been an economic disaster in this country, no one gives a shit about his race. Hell, Randy Moss is my favorite player in the NFL, despite him being a jerk and generally weird....and just happens to be black. I'm a fan of him because I saw his talent in HS and college. I never cared about his race or differences.

If anything this country is too tolerant with idiocy, and we've lived with it the last few years. Obama has failed because he's incompetent.

So you don't think his weird background might contribute to his constant liberal blathering that we can "all just get along?" I'm not saying it's just his race. We all grow up certain ways and obtain certain strong beliefs that we have pride in. I grew up believing that Ohio State Football is the best because I grew up in Ohio and watched it all the time, etc. I'm not sure I would believe that if I bounced from Indonesia, to Kansas, to Washington, to Hawaii and had uninterested parents, etc.

I'm not so sure BHO has such staunch beliefs...at the very least, he's willing to look past whatever they are and pursue policies contrary to them. I might suggest that's why people have such a hard time pinning him down exactly. You say he's incompetent, Dinesh D'souza says he's an anti-colonialist, some say he's a Muslim, some say anti-business, others President Bush with a tan. I say he's an idealistic political liberal who thinks (sadly, probably), that we can see past our differences. JMO.

"I say he's an idealistic political liberal who thinks (sadly, probably), that we can see past our differences so he can further his agenda"

BoatShoes;542577 wrote:I'm not so sure BHO has such staunch beliefs...at the very least, he's willing to look past whatever they are and pursue policies contrary to them. I might suggest that's why people have such a hard time pinning him down exactly. You say he's incompetent, Dinesh D'souza says he's an anti-colonialist, some say he's a Muslim, some say anti-business, others President Bush with a tan. I say he's an idealistic political liberal who thinks (sadly, probably), that we can see past our differences. JMO.

Obama has shown little if any willingness to reach across the aisle contrary to the bipartisan rhetoric he spewed during his campaign in 2008. When he's ready to acknowledge that a lot if not most Americans are indeed different than himself and then show willingness to live up to his own bipartisan rhetoric, he might become more than just a stubborn, arrogant, and inept socialist ideologue. JMO