Printable View
Actually, doing it "the old way" would've been much more productive. This filibustering everything under the sun, prioritizing a one-term presidency over the country and actually crippling government is fairly new.Quote:
Originally Posted by scott
What's even worse is that you will find a long list of mediocre people in here cheerleading for that.
It was very similar in the 1850s when the slaveholding south and the industrializing north controlled the parties. The Civil War happened the southern democrats lost their ass and were subjugated until the 1910s-1960s when those old Dixiecrats moved to the GOP and minorities and labor replaced them.Quote:
Originally Posted by ElNono
Changes to the senate selection process and the party primary systems has made the system more candidate driven.
Now they are just head to head once again. The contentiousness no longer has geographic lines anymore but rather socioeconomic and you see it playing out in the protests. If it was geographic we would be seeing a move towards violence once again. Its already getting ugly as it is.
FLASHBACK: Past ‘Grand Bargains’ Relied On Taxes To Reduce The Deficit
In the five fiscal grand bargains of the 1980s and early 1990s, tax increases accounted for an average of 61 cents of every dollar saved. In fact, in President Reagan’s 1982 and 1984 budget-trimming deals, more than 80 percent of deficit reductions came from tax increases. What’s more, the deals passed with majority support from both parties. Mr. Reagan may be remembered as an antitax hero, but he actually raised taxes 11 times over the course of his presidency, all in the name of fiscal responsibility.
Republicans used to rank deficit reduction ahead of curbing taxes, but now the reverse is true.
http://thinkprogress.org/economy/201...t-deals-taxes/
Superfail: Why D.C.’s Fiscal Clown Show May Still Yield ResultsQuote:
Oh, and the overwhelming majority of people who parade around Washington posing as fiscal hawks are frauds. They're the ones who created a tax system that collects revenues that can't fully fund the spending system they also voted to create. And when push comes to shove, those who cry most loudly about the deficit shy away from doing what's necessary. When the Republican presidential candidates all indicated that they'd reject a deficit plan that included 10 dollars of spending cuts for every dollar of tax increases, it was an extremely clear signal that the Republican party as currently constituted isn't interested in a grand deal. Democrats, for their part, figure there's no point in making massive concessions on entitlements if there's no reciprocation on taxes. And for both parties, these postures make complete political sense.
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/daniel-g...133350281.html
Norquist: GOP won’t be ‘fooled’ into raising taxes
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/wp-conten...1a-615x345.jpg
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/11/2...e+Raw+Story%29
========
No, the Repugs ARE fools, and Norquist is bully, and not elected, and not an official of the Repug circus. The Repugs let themselves be pushed around by Limbaugh, Norquist, Ailes.
This is totally pathetic.
The two sides must have been far apart if they couldn't get a deal done after watching Tim Tebow play.......Quote:
Originally Posted by vy65
http://exiledonline.com/wp-content/u...o1-470x378.jpg
William Niskanen, the embodiment of how Reaganomics and the Koch brothers’ libertarian movement were joined at the hip. Niskanen was an advisor to Ronald Reagan throughout the 1970s; a board director for the Koch-founded Reason Foundation; a member and chairman of Reagan’s Council on Economic Advisers from 1981-85; and he moved directly from Reagan’s side back to the Koch brothers’ side, as chairman of the libertarian Cato Institute from 1985 until 2008.
Faced with record-smashing deficits that could top $100 billion a year, the Reagan administration now says it can live with a torrent of red ink without reversing its strategy against inflation and high interest rates.
In a turnaround from President Reagan’s longstanding assertion that deficits are a cause of inflation, senior White House economic advisers yesterday sought to downplay that relationship. One member of the Council of Economic Advisers, William A. Niskanen, suggested the connection is virtually nonexistent.
…Rudolph G. Penner, a budget official during Gerald Ford’s administration, said there is a “certain irony” that the record deficit of $66.4 billion, which occurred in 1976, “was set by a conservative president (Ford), and the record will be broken by another conservative president.”
Actually, what Niskanen said was this: “The simple relationship between deficits and inflation is as close to being empty as can be perceived.”
And this: “There are no necessary relationships between the deficit and money growth.”
And this: “Evidence doesn’t support” the assertion that deficits crowd out private borrowers.
And finally, William Niskanen, one of the leading libertarian figures of the past four decades, said this about deficits: “The economic community has reinforced an unfortunate perspective on the deficit which is not consistent with the historical evidence…It is preferable to tolerate deficits of these magnitudes either to reinflating [the money supply] or to raise taxes. Other things being equal, I would like to see lower deficits too, but other things are not equal.”*
http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2011/...+capitalism%29
looks like Cantor has floated the first bargain to spare the sequestrian cuts to the MICQuote:
Originally Posted by boutons_deux
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1111/69489.html