- Joined
- Jan 5, 2010
- Messages
- 16,693
- Reaction score
- 5,632
- Location
- There's my hat.
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Communist
Holy crap, this looks like a Republican "compromise".
By that I mean "We'll compromise by giving you what you want, just less of it". We'll give you tax cuts, just for less time then you'd like.
This is the type of compromises that always annoy me with republicans. We'll give you minimum wage, just less. We'll give you welfare, just less. We'll give you spending, just left. We'll give you healthcare, just less. Kind of nice to see that kind of "compromise" happening on the opposite side for once.
You really don't get it do you? Or maybe you don't want to get it?
I DO NOT WANT VIOLENCE. I was hoping the battle between fascist corporatism and the rest of the people could be avoided and Obama would be the one to do that. But the events today tell me that we have just taken another step towards an inevitable showdown that could be very messy for everyone.
And people today - people like you Turtle - people who wallow in their own wealth and their own privilege and who attempt to have the rest of us serve you in a condition little better than serfdom, only make this more possible through their toadies in the Republican party and through the spread of the disease of libertarian thought and ideology.
Understand me - I hope it never comes to that because it will be a terrible thing to witness. It makes me sad to admit that we have taken a step closer to this today.
Holy crap, this looks like a Republican "compromise".
By that I mean "We'll compromise by giving you what you want, just less of it". We'll give you tax cuts, just for less time then you'd like.
This is the type of compromises that always annoy me with republicans. We'll give you minimum wage, just less. We'll give you welfare, just less. We'll give you spending, just left. We'll give you healthcare, just less. Kind of nice to see that kind of "compromise" happening on the opposite side for once.
well, mcconnell/boehner hardly gave up much
a 13 month extension of UE's, which anyone with a heart (or a nose for politics) can get behind
in return, we got pretty much all we wanted from the president's surrender
the bush cuts, all of em
our version of the death tax, verbatim
and a 2% reduction in payroll taxes, an open handed gift from obama, himself, which we didn't even ask for
hey, why compromise when you can get pretty much all you want without, y'know, caving?
seeya at the polls
the electoral chess board is newly configured---look for this issue to be central in 2012
my side will campaign, as always, on tax cuts for all americans
obama will advocate for taxing the rich
but who will believe him?
congrats, obama/mcconnell/boehner
it's your move, ms nancy
I think you are confused about what a compromise is. Don't feel bad, republicans have had that confusion for awhile.
Compromise is not staking out the most extreme position and refusing to vote for anything less than it(crying "core values" about everything does not make it true), and then complaining about a lack of bipartisanship(see stimulus, health care), it involves each side actually giving something.
This is the first time in 2 years I have seen republicans actually compromise.
from apdst
Not the proper question at all. it should have been
How will the national Republican Party explain to the American people that they caused their taxes to be raised because they kiss the fat behinds of the rich?
The Dems could have run on that for a generation and won. But Obama threw away the trump card.
I'm not surprised at the outcome, nor do I dislike any of the items that passed.
Two more years. That will put us at December 2012, after the presidential election. Obama is campaigning early it seems.
Another benefit of the tax extensions is it will produce more hiring. GOP businesses that laid people off and made the rest work twice as hard know that they didn't do themselves much good. Of course they would like to stick it out and not hire again until there is a Republican president, but the extended tax breaks might make it tempting to accelerate their business at this point in time (they can claim that it was a GOP move, even though their new guys haven't been seated yet, LOL).
from apdst
Not the proper question at all. it should have been
How will the national Republican Party explain to the American people that they caused their taxes to be raised because they kiss the fat behinds of the rich?
The Dems could have run on that for a generation and won. But Obama threw away the trump card.
Oh no, I understand fully what compromise is. I also understand there's many various forms of it. Finding what you both agree on and focusing just on that can be compromise. Giving something to get something back is compromise. And yes, going along with something to make it "smaller" or "larger" in some form than it would probably be could also be compromise.
Indeed, compromise would be giving up on those "core values" and taking what you can get. Its actually precisely my issue with "Compromise" as I've said a number of times on this forum. Republicans typically are told to "compromise" by basically continually moving AWAY from their ideal position and towards the Democrat ideal position. It rarely ever swings back the other way. The compromises that are proposed in many situations are generally "Democrats fully get what they want" or "Democrats get part of what they want". On the flip side, often for republicans its "What we want is moved away from hugely" or "What we want is moved away from slightly", however in many cases its rarely goes towards the Republican direction of things
Compromise also takes two sides, as does "core principles". When you know there are certain things that you agree on, and some things theo ther side hates, and rather than focus on what you agree on you dig your heels in and says "You're going to get on board or we're going to leave you behind, because the things you hate ARE going in" that's not exactly much different then blabbering about "core princples".
And there was no REASON for them to compromise in the past 2 years. Democrats had their nuts in a vice by having majority power in all three places. The "compromises" usually extolled were token gestures or slight reductions of some things, in attempts to be able to claim "bipartisanship" and swing the blame if it fails from themselves singularly.
The Republicans would've gained nothing of worth from the type of compromise that Democrats actually showed they were interested in. The Republicans constitutents would've gained nothing of worth from the type of compromise that the Democrats actually showed they were interested in. And from the view point of Conservatives, the COUNTRY would've gained nothing of worth from the type of compromise that Democrats showed they were interested in.
So why do something that would actually...from your vantage point...do little to no good long term, and the damage of doing it both in the short term and long term would've been striking.
When the head of your party comes out pretty much right off, informs people that "they lost", gives them orders if they want to "get things done", and does a 24/7 tour of demonizing the other side the actions somewhat overshadow the hollow words being talked about with regards to "bipartisanship".
This is the first time the Democrats actually offered forth a worthwhile compromise, and the first time in a while that a compromise came down that was actually more beneficial...for the country, their constituents, and themselves in their minds...rather than harmful.
The Republicans promised to keep taxes down for everyone, including small business owners and the uber rich job creaters. They did that.
They gave in to extending the unemployment for another 13 months! Which they will get grief over from some on the right. Geez, how much more do you people want to take from the workers and give to the non workers?
I think you are confused about what a compromise is. Don't feel bad, republicans have had that confusion for awhile. Compromise is not staking out the most extreme position and refusing to vote for anything less than it(crying "core values" about everything does not make it true), and then complaining about a lack of bipartisanship(see stimulus, health care), it involves each side actually giving something. This is the first time in 2 years I have seen republicans actually compromise.
If things continue the way they are, the poor will be left in a position where there is no option left but to revolt, and expropriate the wealthy that have rode them hard and put them away wet for so many generations.
I say that with the renewal of these tax cuts, the poor have lost a lot, but it has been made clearer than ever that they have also gained the right of revolutionary violence.
You are correct. Obama surrendered. And that is very very sad.
I wish he truly had the same mean bitchy vindictive single minded ability to march his party in lockstep the way the GOP has.
If things continue the way they are, the poor will be left in a position where there is no option left but to revolt, and expropriate the wealthy that have rode them hard and put them away wet for so many generations.
I say that with the renewal of these tax cuts, the poor have lost a lot, but it has been made clearer than ever that they have also gained the right of revolutionary violence.
i have to ask.....are you a worker?
Until those forced into the subservience of employment take control of business, the rich will always be the dominators of the poor.What exactly have the wealthy done TO the poor ? What have they lost? How does someone's money harm them? Is a cashier a cashier because a doctor denied them the incentive to go to college?
i have to ask.....are you a worker?
Do you own a business? or do you eat from the trough and as long as the trough is filled, regularly, you're good with things?
I wouldn't be surprised to see an uprising, but it's not going to go the way you want it to.
Remember Nov. 2 ?? that happened because the Republicans stuck to their guns and DIDN'T vote for the HC or stimulus. We wanted them to be the party of Hell No at that time.
Not now. Your reason for asking ?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?