GOP pulls a fast one: unveil 10-year plan with $4.6 trillion in cuts. - Polidicks

[QUOTE=Protocol7;39924048]It's an issue with both sides trying to be complete polar opposites of each other. Instead of "Well hey let's work together" it's "well my solution is better than yours! nananana!!!" In short, fuck bipartisanship.[/QUOTE] It's pathetic how true this really is. I'm probably something like a "(actually) conservative democrat." There are some things that the government does that should be left to private companies and the people, and vice versa. I don't think there's anyone who would flat out disagree with this and say our government is perfectly allocating resources as-is, especially considering it involves spending a lot more than we're earning and putting us continually further in debt to the rest of the world. We don't want cities running perpetually into deeper debt, we don't want states doing it, why would we be okay with the country as a whole doing it? The problem is that we need to figure out how to modify the budget and taxes to reverse the silly deficit while making a minimum impact to daily life of the people, and that can't happen when the nation has decided to split itself in half and show how much disagreement we can generate, rather than agreement. [editline]16th March 2013[/editline] Too bad I'm probably preaching to the choir here.

[QUOTE=The Baconator;39923960]It would actually be biased/impartial to say the GOP has any redeeming factor. Of course people suck at politcal science and go the "b-b-but boh sides!" Argument which is really just an intellctual copout[/QUOTE] Both sides have faults. Both sides have legitimate points. Both are mostly wrong in regard to pretty much everything. The dumb position that you're trying to refer to is the "the answer is always found in the middle". The answer can be found in the middle, on one side or the other, at extremes beyond either side, or might only be found if more than one axis is considered. Popular politics rely too much on ossified ideology, and not the philosophy and science that it should be based on.

[QUOTE=Protocol7;39924048]It's an issue with both sides trying to be complete polar opposites of each other. Instead of "Well hey let's work together" it's "well my solution is better than yours! nananana!!!" In short, fuck bipartisanship.[/QUOTE] How are the Democrats "trying to be polar opposites" of the Republicans? You're making shit up just so you can be mad at an entire group of vaguely related people.

Democrats are the opposites of Republicans because Democrats make sense. There is no intentional polarization. We just have one side that is wrong about everything, Republicans, and one side that is too meek to push them for more concessions (Democrats). Obama seems more willing to do so for this term, however, so I am looking forward to more reforms and exercises of Presidential authority.

[QUOTE=person11;39934769]There is no intentional polarization. We just have one side that is wrong about everything, Republicans, and one side that is too meek to push them for more concessions (Democrats).[/QUOTE] I never really understood this sentiment. The Democrats had a 60% majority in the senate, a majority in the house, and the presidency... and still could BARELY pass the healthcare bill. You can't blame the inefficacy of the democrats on the republicans.

[QUOTE=sgman91;39939331]I never really understood this sentiment. The Democrats had a 60% majority in the senate, a majority in the house, and the presidency... and still could BARELY pass the healthcare bill. You can't blame the inefficacy of the democrats on the republicans.[/QUOTE] they had a supermajority for a very short period of time. maybe try knowing what you're talking about next post

[QUOTE=Lazor;39939469]they had a supermajority for a very short period of time. maybe try knowing what you're talking about next post[/QUOTE] They really only had a supermajority in the House (assuming we're talking 60%) if you count everyone, including non-voting delegates. During the term the Affordable Care Act was passed, the Democrats' numbers fluctuated between 253~258 voting members out of the 435 total in the House. So while not a supermajority (at about ~59%), they still had a sizable majority. Their failure to pass it as fast as they wanted to might well be blamed on the greater ideological differences between factions in the Democratic party than in the Republican party, though.

[QUOTE=sgman91;39939331]I never really understood this sentiment. The Democrats had a 60% majority in the senate, a majority in the house, and the presidency... and still could BARELY pass the healthcare bill. You can't blame the inefficacy of the democrats on the republicans.[/QUOTE] Last time I heard at the beginning of Obama's second term [del]The democrats controlled the House and Presidency but the Republicans held the Senate, effectively negating everything.[/del] Other way around. Republican Majority in the House, Democrat in Senate. Compliments to Megafan below. Another thing to note, is that a lot of the big business owners 'donate' to candidates campaigns, which pretty much gets them to vote on their favor. One such donor group that gets a lot of attention is the Koch Brothers, both in the Oil industry. Can't find a good single source but [url]http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/11/charts-map-koch-brothers-2012-spending[/url]

[QUOTE=Pie108;39939629]Last time I heard at the beginning of Obama's second term The democrats controlled the House and Presidency but the Republicans held the Senate.[/QUOTE] Not quite. At the beginning of Obama's second term (that is, following the 2012 elections), the Democrats and Independents held the Senate 55-45, and Republicans held the House 233-200. It's still that way right now, except one of the Republican House seats has been vacated since then.

[QUOTE=Megafan;39939625]They really only had a supermajority in the House (assuming we're talking 60%) if you count everyone, including non-voting delegates. During the term the Affordable Care Act was passed, the Democrats' numbers fluctuated between 253~258 voting members out of the 435 total in the House. So while not a supermajority (at about ~59%), they still had a sizable majority. Their failure to pass it as fast as they wanted to might well be blamed on the greater ideological differences between factions in the Democratic party than in the Republican party, though.[/QUOTE] super majority only really matters in the senate because of the fillibuster. most of the democrats replaced in the 2010 congressional wave were blue dog democrats anyways

On one hand, they actually came together with a solution to a solvable crisis and trimmed government budgets! Yay! On the other hand, because this is the republicans if they're gonna do something, they're gonna do it in the most retarded way possible. I mean america really needs all that military budget, otherwise how else would it be able to throw its weight round the globe, support dictators, run drugs and 'liberate' counties of value that disagree with their attitude?

Cut military budget and invest in space program so america can be awesome again. and this is coming from a foreigner [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CbIZU8cQWXc[/media]

[QUOTE=Lazor;39939694]super majority only really matters in the senate because of the fillibuster. most of the democrats replaced in the 2010 congressional wave were blue dog democrats anyways[/QUOTE] And in the Senate they only had 60 votes (58 Democrats + the 2 Independents exactly) for two periods, from 7/7/09 to 8/25/09 and from 9/25/09 to 2/4/10.

[QUOTE=King Tiger;39932508]How are the Democrats "trying to be polar opposites" of the Republicans? You're making shit up just so you can be mad at an entire group of vaguely related people.[/QUOTE] You're taking it too literally. I'm mad at Congress as a whole. There are a million things that they're doing wrong and they're kind of our legislature, so it's inexcusable. Bipartisanship is a major issue in our legislature and political sphere as a whole - don't pretend it's not. See, what we call the Democrats and Republicans today are not democrats or republicans at all. They're extreme left and extreme right idiots. There's hardly anyone who falls in the middle ground in our legislature, and those who do are often drowned out by the left and right extremists. [editline]16th March 2013[/editline] P.S. I voted for Obama so don't you go thinking I'm some right-wing nutjob who hates dems :)

[QUOTE=Protocol7;39939962]You're taking it too literally. I'm mad at Congress as a whole. There are a million things that they're doing wrong and they're kind of our legislature, so it's inexcusable. Bipartisanship is a major issue in our legislature and political sphere as a whole - don't pretend it's not. See, what we call the Democrats and Republicans today are not democrats or republicans at all. They're extreme left and extreme right idiots. There's hardly anyone who falls in the middle ground in our legislature, and those who do are often drowned out by the left and right extremists. [editline]16th March 2013[/editline] P.S. I voted for Obama so don't you go thinking I'm some right-wing nutjob who hates dems :)[/QUOTE] to be fair, what passes for "left-wing" in US isn't left-wing anywhere else lol, dems would be considered center-right and republicans ridiculously far-right everywhere else in the planet.

[QUOTE=Protocol7;39939962]You're taking it too literally. I'm mad at Congress as a whole. There are a million things that they're doing wrong and they're kind of our legislature, so it's inexcusable. Bipartisanship is a major issue in our legislature and political sphere as a whole - don't pretend it's not. See, what we call the Democrats and Republicans today are not democrats or republicans at all. They're extreme left and extreme right idiots. There's hardly anyone who falls in the middle ground in our legislature, and those who do are often drowned out by the left and right extremists.[/QUOTE] Let me just ask, what aspect of the Democratic Party is 'extreme left' in any sense of the term? You'd be hard-pressed to call national healthcare or same-sex marriage/abortion, things not even all elected Democrats support, 'extreme left' at all.

[QUOTE=Protocol7;39939962]You're taking it too literally. I'm mad at Congress as a whole. There are a million things that they're doing wrong and they're kind of our legislature, so it's inexcusable. Bipartisanship is a major issue in our legislature and political sphere as a whole - don't pretend it's not. See, what we call the Democrats and Republicans today are not democrats or republicans at all. They're extreme left and extreme right idiots. There's hardly anyone who falls in the middle ground in our legislature, and those who do are often drowned out by the left and right extremists. [editline]16th March 2013[/editline] P.S. I voted for Obama so don't you go thinking I'm some right-wing nutjob who hates dems :)[/QUOTE] Continue to make things up please.

While the numbers are different, the platform of the newly elected Hollande, of the French socialist party, is very similar to the platform President Obama ran on. In fact, if Obama just used Hollande's platform I don't think many people would be surprised. (Except for the 75% tax)

[QUOTE=King Tiger;39940378]Continue to make things up please.[/QUOTE] [url]http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/110/senate/members/[/url] [url]http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/110/house/members/[/url] In the senate, 90% of the members vote with their party 80% of the time or more. 45% vote with their party 90% of the time or more. In the house, 98% of the members vote with their party 80% of the time or more. [b]71% vote with their party 90% of the time or more.[/b] Almost nobody votes with their party less than 75% of the time. Are you really trying to say congress members vote for what they truly think is right instead of just playing a big game of tug of war? [editline]16th March 2013[/editline] There's not a democrat or a republican way to pick up the trash.

[QUOTE=mblunk;39940479][url]http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/110/senate/members/[/url] [url]http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/110/house/members/[/url] In the senate, 90% of the members vote with their party 80% of the time or more. 45% vote with their party 90% of the time or more. In the house, 98% of the members vote with their party 80% of the time or more. [b]71% vote with their party 90% of the time or more.[/b] Almost nobody votes with their party less than 75% of the time. Are you really trying to say congress members vote for what they truly think is right instead of just playing a big game of tug of war?[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=Protocol7;39939962]See, what we call the Democrats and Republicans today are not democrats or republicans at all.[/quote] :downs: [quote]They're extreme left and extreme right idiots.[/quote] The Democrats are extreme left? Where are the communists among them? [quote]There's hardly anyone who falls in the middle ground in our legislature, and those who do are often drowned out by the left and right extremists.[/QUOTE] The quotes you posted just demonstrated that there is a sizable amount of congressmen who do not vote with their party on any given bill. The fact that there are only two ways to vote, yea or nay, means that yes, the majority of the time a congressman would vote with their party because that's who they agree with more. It's not that complicated. The guy I am quoting is exaggerating and making up shit.

[QUOTE=King Tiger;39940583]:downs:[/QUOTE] Is this how you debate? Not to mention, Protocol's post backs mine up. The parties aren't making any constructive discussion, just making it into A vs. B where anyone agreeing with the other on anything is apparently blasphemy.

[QUOTE=smfE;39939783]Cut military budget and invest in space program so america can be awesome again. and this is coming from a foreigner [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CbIZU8cQWXc[/media][/QUOTE] Neil Tyson = my Idol. "one-half of one percent. Thats the budget of NASA per taxed dollar" [editline]16th March 2013[/editline] Also, watch episode two [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BFO2usVjfQc[/media]

[QUOTE=mblunk;39940592]Is this how you debate? Not to mention, Protocol's post backs mine up. The parties aren't making any constructive discussion, just making it into A vs. B where anyone agreeing with the other on anything is apparently blasphemy.[/QUOTE] Yes, but saying that sort of doesn't work when position A is 'let's take a balanced approach to spending cuts while avoiding cutting social programs as much as possible, since they need it the most' and position B is 'let's prioritize cutting social programs' spending, cut military spending as a secondary option, and cut tax rates across the board' .

[QUOTE=Megafan;39940800]Yes, but saying that sort of doesn't work when position A is 'let's take a balanced approach to spending cuts while avoiding cutting social programs as much as possible, since they need it the most' and position B is 'let's prioritize cutting social programs' spending, cut military spending as a secondary option, and cut tax rates across the board' .[/QUOTE] It does make discussion more difficult, but not impossible. I usually lean left, but I also personally would love to cut social welfare programs. I think saving for retirement should be a completely individual manner. Of course as a citizen, I have no way of fitting this into A or B, which makes things more interesting. Furthermore, when taking into account the 4 other parties that nobody knows of, I actually tend to be more libertarian than anything, but I've learned personally that the other parties are taken for a joke by most die-hard partisans because people can only be either A or B. [editline]16th March 2013[/editline] Talking politics with old people is pretty much impossible for me. My grandpa loves to go on about "those blue-blood dems"

[QUOTE=Megafan;39940800]Yes, but saying that sort of doesn't work when position A is 'let's take a balanced approach to spending cuts while avoiding cutting social programs as much as possible, since they need it the most' and position B is 'let's prioritize cutting social programs' spending, cut military spending as a secondary option, and cut tax rates across the board' .[/QUOTE] I would phrase position B more as: "The social programs we currently have in place are not viable in the long term, or even the short term. Because of this, we need to do something fairly drastic while we still have the chance."

[QUOTE=sgman91;39940990]I would phrase position B more as: "The social programs we currently have in place are not viable in the long term, or even the short term. Because of this, we need to do something fairly drastic while we still have the chance."[/QUOTE] which social programs? social security is solvent for a long time and a simple change would make it solvent for like 50 more years after that [editline]16th March 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=mblunk;39940928]It does make discussion more difficult, but not impossible. I usually lean left, but I also personally would love to cut social welfare programs. I think saving for retirement should be a completely individual manner. Of course as a citizen, I have no way of fitting this into A or B, which makes things more interesting. Furthermore, when taking into account the 4 other parties that nobody knows of, I actually tend to be more libertarian than anything, but I've learned personally that the other parties are taken for a joke by most die-hard partisans because people can only be either A or B. [editline]16th March 2013[/editline] Talking politics with old people is pretty much impossible for me. My grandpa loves to go on about "those blue-blood dems"[/QUOTE] you don't lean left

[QUOTE=Lazor;39941042]which social programs? social security is solvent for a long time and a simple change would make it solvent for like 50 more years after that[/QUOTE] The big problems are Medicare and medicaid. Firstly, we know that military spending has actually decreased as a percentage of GDP in the last 60 years, as shown by the graph below. [IMG]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a5/US_defense_spending_by_GDP_percentage_1910_to_2007.png[/IMG] The thing causing our financial problems is solely coming from our social institutions. Medicare is projected to outgrow it's funding exponentially in the coming years, for example: [IMG]http://www.heritage.org/federalbudget/charts/2012/entitlements-historical-tax-levels-680.jpg[/IMG] This is the reason people like Paul Ryan focus on Medicare when they talk about reforming institutions.

[QUOTE=mblunk;39940928]It does make discussion more difficult, but not impossible. I usually lean left, but I also personally would love to cut social welfare programs. I think saving for retirement should be a completely individual manner. Of course as a citizen, I have no way of fitting this into A or B, which makes things more interesting. Furthermore, when taking into account the 4 other parties that nobody knows of, I actually tend to be more libertarian than anything, but I've learned personally that the other parties are taken for a joke by most die-hard partisans because people can only be either A or B.[/QUOTE] No one honestly believes that the only two choices are A and B, but rather than the only two likely proposals to pass are A or B. And judging by what you've just said, I'm not sure how you lean left. A social safety net (whether community-organized or state-run) is a pretty big tenet of nearly all leftist ideology. [editline]16th March 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=sgman91;39940990]I would phrase position B more as: "The social programs we currently have in place are not viable in the long term, or even the short term. Because of this, we need to do something fairly drastic while we still have the chance."[/QUOTE] Care you explain why you cut out prioritizing military spending (even if under the 'national defense' banner) and lowering tax rates? If anyone was seriously concerned about the deficit, why would you even consider lowering the tax rates?

[QUOTE=Megafan;39941250]Care you explain why you cut out prioritizing military spending (even if under the 'national defense' banner) and lowering tax rates? If anyone was seriously concerned about the deficit, why would you even consider lowering the tax rates?[/QUOTE] Because, as shown by the first graph I posted, defense spending is almost irrelevant as far as our future financial prospects are concerned. At most, cutting defense spending is a band aid fix that just kicks the can down the road. Also, raising taxes on the rich does not necessarily lead to increased government revenues. As an extreme example look at the tax rates and revenues in 1916 and 1924. In 1916 the top rates were 73% and in 1924 they were dropped to 24%, but government revenues actually rose. The percentage of all taxes paid by the rich also rose. Simply put, the phrase "raise tax rates" is not synonymous with "raise tax revenue." The hard part is finding where revenue peaks and where growth peaks. I would argue that we should shoot for growth, since economic growth contributes more to higher revenues than tax raises anyway. [IMG]http://danieljmitchell.files.wordpress.com/2012/04/laffer-curve.jpg?w=300&h=263[/IMG]

we're nowhere fucking near a point where the laffer curve is even close to relevant in revenue discussions