• Cyburbia is a friendly big tent, where we share our experiences and thoughts about urban planning practice, the built environment, planning adjacent topics, and anything else that comes to mind. No ads, no spam, and it's free. It's easy to join!

NEVERENDING ♾️ The NEVERENDING Political Discussion Thread

A good read on The National Review today - a liberal law professor has read what he calls the modern intellectual "Conservative Canon" and offers his observations. He does not change his political perspective because of it, however, and offers some excellent observations about the ideological-pragmatic divide that so often lies at the heart of the conservative-liberal debate.

Link: http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/271937/liberal-reads-great-conservative-works-carl-t-bogus
 
imaplanner said:
You are misrepresenting reality. If we default interest rates go up- including the payments on our debt. Plunging ourself back into a great recession will also drive up the debt. Hannity and Bachman probably just don't understand anything. There is absolutely nothing good or right about not raising the debt ceiling.
Click to expand...

Again you misrepresent their views. I made bold two parts of your response that you need to explain because you're assuming not raising the ceiling = default. The government could cut spending and pay loans that way. It's what you and I do. It's what cities and states do. It's what companies do. Clearly default isn't the only option. Again, those two aren't my ideal political thinkers but they are trying to get the US to stick to a defined budget without having to raise our credit limit. They want to the government to spend what it takes in and no more. Yes, it's a theory and no, it won't be easy to do - but that's the point.
 
stroskey said:
Again you misrepresent their views. I made bold two parts of your response that you need to explain because you're assuming not raising the ceiling = default. The government could cut spending and pay loans that way. It's what you and I do. It's what cities and states do. It's what companies do. Clearly default isn't the only option. Again, those two aren't my ideal political thinkers but they are trying to get the US to stick to a defined budget without having to raise our credit limit. They want to the government to spend what it takes in and no more. Yes, it's a theory and no, it won't be easy to do - but that's the point.
Click to expand...


I agree that the government should work as best it can to reduce the number of times we have to raise the debt ceiling, but how many times have we raised it in the past? 74?

It's not that I think Bachman is presenting a bad idea, she's just not being remotely helpful. Ever. The two sides can barely agree on anything in terms of the budget and all Bachman is ever concerned with is finding ways to conveniently pick out how terrible of a job Obama is doing. It just doesn't seem very presidential is all. The same way Palin always makes a mockery of herself, you can't approach these situations by saying the current establishment is doing everything wrong and I have all the right answers if they would only listen yada yada.

But to your original point, agreed, we should stop raising the debt ceiling, i just don't see how that's a viable option right now.
 
stroskey said:
Again you misrepresent their views. I made bold two parts of your response that you need to explain because you're assuming not raising the ceiling = default. The government could cut spending and pay loans that way. It's what you and I do. It's what cities and states do. It's what companies do. Clearly default isn't the only option. Again, those two aren't my ideal political thinkers but they are trying to get the US to stick to a defined budget without having to raise our credit limit. They want to the government to spend what it takes in and no more. Yes, it's a theory and no, it won't be easy to do - but that's the point.
Click to expand...

This is a talking point. You know as well as I do that there is no way that our markets won't crash if we don't raise the debt ceiling. It might not be technically a default, but it will be by proxy, when everyone is spooked.

Moody's says that we should remove the debt ceiling altogether to assure our AAA rating. That says something about the ceiling.

Even the Christian Post (a very R publication) agrees:

While Tea Party Republicans are correct when they say that there will be enough revenue to avoid default and pay Social Security benefits, they are incorrect to suggest that the current debt ceiling can be maintained without major disruptions. Failure to increase the debt ceiling will, as Powell points out, "have significant effects on our economy and that will ripple throughout the global economy as well.
Click to expand...

http://www.christianpost.com/news/will-the-us-face-crisis-if-debt-ceiling-is-not-raised-52416/

Sure we can pay the debts, but with all this "we can't raise taxes because it would spook the economy" crap, why do you really believe that this is a good idea? This would be MUCH worse than any tax rate raise in terms of spooking the economy.

------------------------

In general I dislike him, but Joe Scarborough makes some sense here...

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0711/59262.html
 
stroskey said:
Again you misrepresent their views. I made bold two parts of your response that you need to explain because you're assuming not raising the ceiling = default. The government could cut spending and pay loans that way. It's what you and I do. It's what cities and states do. It's what companies do. Clearly default isn't the only option. Again, those two aren't my ideal political thinkers but they are trying to get the US to stick to a defined budget without having to raise our credit limit. They want to the government to spend what it takes in and no more. Yes, it's a theory and no, it won't be easy to do - but that's the point.
Click to expand...

Not possible. We either default on our debts or on our obligations. And not raising the debt cieling equals higher interest rates on our debt making it more difficult to pay off.

Its also clearly not possible to just cut spending. If the debt ceiling is not raised we will not have enough money to pay our debt payemnts, pay social security, medicare and the military, pay teachers, judges, prisons, etc. Discretionary spending is somewhere in the neighborhod of 500 billion this year. Revenues are 2.2 trillion. Total dedicated spending on medicare, social security, debt payments, military, etc is almost 3 trillion. Even a complete withdrawal from Iraq/Afganistan and Libya AND cutting ALL spending on education doesn't cut spending enough to accomodate not raising the debt ceiling.

Bachman, Hannity and others (and you?) are clearly not good at math. But being bad at math is not a legitimate reason to blow up the global economy. Personally I believe many of the debt ceiling deniers aren't as stupid as they are pretending to be, but instead are actively seeking to destroy the economy to make sure Obama doesn't get re-elected. Heck- the leader of the GOP said so http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/07/13/mcconnell-on-his-debt-cei_n_897124.html
 
imaplanner said:
Not possible. Discretionary spending is somewhere in the neighborhod of 500 billion this year. Revenues are 2.2 trillion. Total dedicated spending on medicare, social security, debt payments, military, etc is almost 3 trillion.

Bachman, Hannity and others (and you?) are clearly not good at math. [/url]
Click to expand...

I have never argued for or against raising the ceiling - I was only stating their views were misrepresented, which doesn't mean I agree with them. I wouldn't say they are bad at math - I would say they think the spending should change to bring it in line with what revenues are. Yeah, it's ideology over reality but it's a legit viewpoint.
 
Cut a few bucks, raise some taxes and the issue is mute.

The Feds need to first of all reign in spending then be truthful about how much it costs when you have wars, SSI, declining transportation trust funds, ad nauseum.

Taxes are lower now than they have ever been in my lifetime, yet expenses are never more than they have ever been. Shame on both parties, the TEA fringers should not be yapping so much as they have nothing they can contribute but saying NO real loud.
 
To avoid situations like this, and to potentially appease both parties (well, one anyways), perhaps the debt ceiling should be set and then legislated to adjust for inflation. Of course, I'd argue the same should occur with the minimum wage, but it won't happen. Both of these things have too much political capital attached to them.
 
TexanOkie said:
A good read on The National Review today - a liberal law professor has read what he calls the modern intellectual "Conservative Canon" and offers his observations. He does not change his political perspective because of it, however, and offers some excellent observations about the ideological-pragmatic divide that so often lies at the heart of the conservative-liberal debate.

Link: http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/271937/liberal-reads-great-conservative-works-carl-t-bogus
Click to expand...

From the article:

Ideology is inevitable; we all have an ideology, whether we are aware of it or not. First of all, ideology is about values, and we can’t decide how we wish to solve policy issues without having a firm grasp on the values we are seeking to advance. Second, the world is too complex for us to make informed judgments about all of the issues that confront us. We need a philosophy to serve as a north star. One way I’ve been enriched by reading the great works of conservatism is that I’ve come better to appreciate how central ideology is to thinking about matters of governance and public policy.
Click to expand...

I liked this paragraph. Do liberals just not wear their ideology on their sleeves anymore like many conservatives seem to do? Liberal ideology is veiled by pragmatism and the guise of collaboration. I think liberals want to fulfill their ideology but are more willing to negotiate to get there. The recent debt ceiling talks seem to echo this.
 
TexanOkie said:
To avoid situations like this, and to potentially appease both parties (well, one anyways), perhaps the debt ceiling should be set and then legislated to adjust for inflation. Of course, I'd argue the same should occur with the minimum wage, but it won't happen. Both of these things have too much political capital attached to them.
Click to expand...

Moody's solution is better: just dispense with the debt ceilng altogether, in favor of spending cap that everybody can live with. Financial markets are more than qualified enough to tell you (through adverse trading and market valuation) when you're borrowing too much. The issue should not be the amount of debt. It should be the amount of out-of-control spending.. or, the size of the fiscal deficit. Capping the debt as a means of controlling spending is a bit ridiculous. This may be the only time I will ever go on record agreeing with Grover Norquist, but this is basically what he said on CNBC Friday. In the longer term (not by next week), I actually support a balanced budget amendment with a depression/wartime exception, although I don't agree with Grover's version of one. A balanced-budget amendment should not preclude taxes as a means of plugging the deficit.
 
Well, we could do that (eliminate the federal credit card limit) and let the markets say "No more! :-@ ".

Then what do we do for covering all of those promises that were made over the decades since the New Deal that anyone with two eyes and a brain could tell you could never be kept?

^o)

The only logical progression for these events, whatever course is chosen, that I can see for the next couple of decades is a disastrous hyperinflation followed by a return to a worldwide gold standard.

Mike
 
mgk920 said:
Well, we could do that (eliminate the federal credit card limit) and let the markets say "No more! :-@ ".

Then what do we do for covering all of those promises that were made over the decades since the New Deal that anyone with two eyes and a brain could tell you could never be kept?

^o)

The only logical progression for these events, whatever course is chosen, that I can see for the next couple of decades is a disastrous hyperinflation followed by a return to a worldwide gold standard.

Mike
Click to expand...


New deal promises are an easy fix. SS could be solved instantly just by raising the cap on income for FICA deductions. Medicare can and will be solved once we get our act together and fix the entire health care system. Its a false narrative you are using. The new deal promises can't be kept because you don't want to keep them, not because they can't be fixed.
 
boiker said:
Do liberals just not wear their ideology on their sleeves anymore like many conservatives seem to do? Liberal ideology is veiled by pragmatism and the guise of collaboration. I think liberals want to fulfill their ideology but are more willing to negotiate to get there. The recent debt ceiling talks seem to echo this.
Click to expand...

I think you bring up an interesting question. I think right now, most of the liberals in congress (or at least the vocal ones) are pragmatists concerned with getting some things done and, as you say, willing to comprimise to get there. The Dennis Kucinic's are, to me, more on the ideaological side of the left. Not that I think he is particularly extreme, just more prone to propose things based on a principled ideaology. And often proposing legislation that has an unrealistic chance of passing. But there are not many like him currently.

There are pragmatists on the right, too, but those folks are too scared of the Tea Party sentiment and, I think, fear that their career could be in jeopardy if they are too enthusiastic to strike a deal.
 
wahday said:
There are pragmatists on the right, too,
Click to expand...

I'll bet that Boehner is one of them. I believe he wants to make a deal but the tea party ideology is pulling him back. It's unfortunate because real progress towards solving problems and fixing programs could be made if honest negotiation would take place instead of this theatrical performance we've been given.
 
boiker said:
I'll bet that Boehner is one of them. I believe he wants to make a deal but the tea party ideology is pulling him back. It's unfortunate because real progress towards solving problems and fixing programs could be made if honest negotiation would take place instead of this theatrical performance we've been given.
Click to expand...

Well, and I think that's really at the crux of a lot of this. Those with extreme views, no matter the end of the spectrum, seem to feel that if "their" candidate gets elected than its their ideological agenda that will or should be advanced and screw the others - they lost the election, afterall, so suck it up, its our turn.

But elected officials represent ALL the constituencies in their district, regardless of who voted for them, and as such have an obligation to consider all of those peoples' positions, issues and concerns. I think this is a lot of what has plagued Obama and why he has come to be characterized as more centrist (or at least pragmatic) than many expected. I think he realizes that he represents the ENTIRE nation and not just one camp and that is why he has been so willing to make the kinds of comprimises that he has. It may not be the way he would do it if he were king, but since he's not, he has to find a way forward that takes ALL peoples' positions into consideration. As a result, many on the left have felt he "sold out" but personally I think that is a short sighted and childish view of what it means to BE president (and not just RUN for president). You really are accountable to everyone, not just your party. Its interesting to me that despite this, some on the right continue to characterize him as a leftist/communist/socialist idealogue who is "forcing his agenda down the American peoples' throats." Personally, I don't see that anything in our political process allows anyone to shover anything down anyone's throat. Its just not that simple.

In the end, I feel the Tea Party affiliates' "my way or the highway" intractible attitude is not real politics and definitely lacks in any kind of diplomacy. It ignores the fact that those who disagree with their very specific views are, in fact, still Americans and that in the end, we must comprimise to get anything done. I would say that, in history, there have been and will be times when significant elements of the populace backed an action or a position that was simply morally wrong (like slavery, Jim Crow laws, discrimination of various sorts, protectionism, etc.) but I don't think any of the issues we are wrestling with now fit into that category.
 
wahday said:
Well, and I think that's really at the crux of a lot of this. Those with extreme views, no matter the end of the spectrum, seem to feel that if "their" candidate gets elected than its their ideological agenda that will or should be advanced and screw the others - they lost the election, afterall, so suck it up, its our turn.

.
Click to expand...

I think its worse. Those with extreme views also consider that if their candidate loses the election is was some sort of nefarious plot and the actual winner is instantly illegitimate.

In other news, today is the 5 year anniversary of Dick Cheney shooting a man in the face with a shotgun.
 
Random Vapid Political Thought:

I was watching part of the Prime Minister's questions this morning during a session about the phone-hacking scandal. For how reserved the Brit's have a stereotype of being, PMQ's can get awfully rowdy. I used to remember seeing it on C-SPAN from time to time and always thought it was the most entertaining thing that C-SPAN aired. :D
 
rcgplanner said:
Random Vapid Political Thought:

I was watching part of the Prime Minister's questions this morning during a session about the phone-hacking scandal. For how reserved the Brit's have a stereotype of being, PMQ's can get awfully rowdy. I used to remember seeing it on C-SPAN from time to time and always thought it was the most entertaining thing that C-SPAN aired. :D
Click to expand...

My old room mate in college was a history major and he told me in Parliament there had to be adjustments to have more space between the two sides. The reason? Because countrymen were brandishing their swords to fight each other during proceedings.

So the next time we think about how awful American politics is...:p
 
HomerJ9139 said:
My old room mate in college was a history major and he told me in Parliament there had to be adjustments to have more space between the two sides. The reason? Because countrymen were brandishing their swords to fight each other during proceedings.

So the next time we think about how awful American politics is...:p
Click to expand...

If they all got each other we might actually get something done...

Tis' but a flesh wound.
 
When I think about all this talk in politics nowadays about spending cuts and this 'starve the beast' mentality, I ask myself, "HomerJ, do you really think spending cuts improve the performance of any particular organization?"

And my answer isn't a 100% no, but I find it to be another example of the very same quote Ofos uses as his signature ;)

Case in point: The history of developers I have become more familiar with in my region. There were the groups who:
-Thought they knew everything better than anyone else (often times these were the local developers), and
-Thought they can spend half the money to make a product twice as good

Aaaaaaaannnd their stuff today will very often look like crap.

Then there are groups that have brought new projects from the outside who:
-Listened to what the departments suggested
-Compromised
-Weren't cheap in every way possible, because they know spending extra money on ohhhh like a public improvement connected to the development will make their buildings look better too. In the long term it will probably make them more money, and give them a better reputation with the nearby muni's

I guess I am posting this because I see this cut, cut, cut mentality as getting a little out of control. Yes we should do what we can to manage spending, and if that means cutting the budget incrementally I would agree that it is a valid goal.

But for the most part, let's be honest, I don't think politicians actually believe that cutting a program will increase it's performance (or at least I hope not), they simply don't support that program.
 
HomerJ9139 said:
But for the most part, let's be honest, I don't think politicians actually believe that cutting a program will increase it's performance (or at least I hope not), they simply don't support that program.
Click to expand...

The truth is that smaller government only counts in certain areas. If anyone (on either side) actually believed in smaller government, we would cut military first, then domestic spending.

Instead, many would rather see the EPA or FDA removed completely.

Much of the cuts hit "big government" AKA regulatory agencies that aren't friendly with the R's.
 
Hink_Planner said:
Instead, many would rather see the EPA or FDA removed completely.

Much of the cuts hit "big government" AKA regulatory agencies that aren't friendly with the R's.
Click to expand...

Ladies and gentlemen, now we have one of the primary reasons for the cutters. Connect the dots to who their primary campaign contributers are. It's the same reason the tax credits for the oil companies didn't get rescinded. It's the same reason they are fighting soo hard for the tax breaks. Granted, they may share some of the philosphical/political ideas, but it's about the $$$$$$$$.
 
wahday said:
Those with extreme views, no matter the end of the spectrum, seem to feel that if "their" candidate gets elected than its their ideological agenda that will or should be advanced and screw the others.
Click to expand...

I will state this again..you can't comprise with ideology. Go ask the many jihadest terrorist on that subject.

Simply put.. the majority of the republicans in the house and senate have bent over backwards to placate to the right of the party. The debt limit is their line in the sand.. unfortunately, they picked the "wrong" issue to draw a line. When we default and interest rate hikes hit main street... make sure to call or email your local rep and basically thank them for fucking up what little economic recovery we had going :(
 
Why is it that the GOP is so intent on protecting the wealthy, at the expense of the middle class? I just don't get it.
 
btrage said:
Why is it that the GOP is so intent on protecting the wealthy, at the expense of the middle class? I just don't get it.
Click to expand...

Me either, but then I've been amazed at the things the GOP has been able to get away with (during W.'s presidency, for example). People in Europe protest over government actions far less damaging than what's going on here. I suspect some politicians think that people will be complacent... and in many cases, that's true.
 
btrage said:
Why is it that the GOP is so intent on protecting the wealthy, at the expense of the middle class? I just don't get it.
Click to expand...

It's probably better to be a wealthy Democrat because you can take the tax breaks and still point fingers at the the GOP at the same time. There are no clean hands in politics.
 
ofos said:
It's probably better to be a wealthy Democrat because you can take the tax breaks and still point fingers at the the GOP at the same time. There are no clean hands in politics.
Click to expand...

John Kerry anyone? Yacht? There are lots of examples of this. Just like R's that are for "family" and then cheat, or father a baby, or turn out to be gay.

Do as I say, not as I do....
 
ofos said:
It's probably better to be a wealthy Democrat because you can take the tax breaks and still point fingers at the the GOP at the same time. There are no clean hands in politics.
Click to expand...

Hink_Planner said:
John Kerry anyone? Yacht? There are lots of examples of this. Just like R's that are for "family" and then cheat, or father a baby, or turn out to be gay.

Do as I say, not as I do....
Click to expand...

But this isn't about hypocritical politicians, of which there are many. This is about who you choose to support, the wealthy or the middle class. What happened to the Roosevelt Republicans who realized that big business, unchecked, is a detriment to the middle class? I wish I could support the GOP like I used to, but if I vote Republican, I am voting against my own self-interest. It's just all so damn disappointing. The GOP just shows no balance between the everyday man and the business community. The only time the GOP cares about the everyman, is when it comes to social issues. They don't care if you're poor, but if you get pregnant, you better have that baby, and when you do, you'll get no help from us!!!
 
I think both parties cater to the wealthy. The republicans are just more honest and extreme about it. But what concerns me more is the GOP's willingness to trash the economy to score political points. Many of the GOp congressmen should be tried for treason.
 
btrage said:
But this isn't about hypocritical politicians, of which there are many. This is about who you choose to support, the wealthy or the middle class. What happened to the Roosevelt Republicans who realized that big business, unchecked, is a detriment to the middle class? I wish I could support the GOP like I used to, but if I vote Republican, I am voting against my own self-interest. It's just all so damn disappointing. The GOP just shows no balance between the everyday man and the business community. The only time the GOP cares about the everyman, is when it comes to social issues. They don't care if you're poor, but if you get pregnant, you better have that baby, and when you do, you'll get no help from us!!!
Click to expand...

Just to clarify, when I said Democrats, I wasn't referring to the politicians but to very wealthy people (think entertainment industry but there are business and inherited wealth folks as well) who advocate very liberal/progressive social policies but don't seem to ever take public stands on tax issues that might affect them directly.
 
ofos said:
Just to clarify, when I said Democrats, I wasn't referring to the politicians but to very wealthy people (think entertainment industry but there are business and inherited wealth folks as well) who advocate very liberal/progressive social policies but don't seem to ever take public stands on tax issues that might affect them directly.
Click to expand...

Gothcha...
 
imaplanner said:
I think both parties cater to the wealthy. The republicans are just more honest and extreme about it. But what concerns me more is the GOP's willingness to trash the economy to score political points. Many of the GOp congressmen should be tried for treason.
Click to expand...

So, you think that Republican congressmen should be tried for treason because you don't agree with their take on economic policy?

United States Constitution, Article III, Section 3: Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort.

18 U.S.C. § 2381: Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason...
Click to expand...
 
Bubba said:
So, you think that Republican congressmen should be tried for treason because you don't agree with their take on economic policy?
Click to expand...

I didnt say convicted. Just tried. Its not agreeing or disagreeing. By bringing our country to default they are waging economic war on America. If our credit rating drops because of the political games they are playing by not raising the debt ceiling like 87 of the previous 87 times, both my wifes and mine jobs may be cut and we will be screwed. Not to mention the rest of the crap that will happen to America. Its already happening today. The crap is hitting the fan. Yes- they (not all GOPers - but some. Specifically the ones who are outright saying they refuse to budge because a default will be bad for Obama. Yes- those ones should be tried for treason.

The other thing that pisses me off is that of the 14 trillion dollar debt, 6 - 8 trillion can be placed squarely on policies/spending actions Bush and the GOP congress instituted and didnt pay for, an additional 4-6 trillion is due entirely on the economic downturn that is arguably the GOP's fault, and 2 trillion is due to Obama policies. They spent it and they are refusing to pay for it and are going to blow up the economy for it.
 
ofos said:
Good for them, now if they'll also give up their Federal tax breaks too that would be even better. Interesting to note that the NY "millionaires" tax hits individuals making more than $200K and families making over $300K. No wonder nobody can figure out who is in the middle class.
Click to expand...

I was thinking the same thing when I saw this, can't really call it a millionaire tax then. Is there no way to have a tax system without brackets? Has anyone ever proposed a "bell curve tax" system?
 
stroskey said:
No disrespect intended, but it's hard to take you seriously when you say things like this.
Click to expand...

Are you not paying attention to congresspeople who are outright saying we should default because the collapsing economy will be blamed on Obama? How can anyone support or defend such a thing??
 
imaplanner said:
Are you not paying attention to congresspeople who are outright saying we should default because the collapsing economy will be blamed on Obama? How can anyone support or defend such a thing??
Click to expand...

1) What foreign enemy are these people fighting for?
2) Saying words does not equal aiding the enemy.
3) Did you commit treason when you said some nasty things about GWB? I bet you wanted him to fail politically.
4) Not liking a politician does not mean you hate the country.
5) Slippery slope.
6) Is Obama committing treason because he isn't agreeing with the House majority? Which of the three "equal branches" is "the government"?

I won't post anymore because it's impossible to debate with such a hardliner.
 
stroskey said:
1) What foreign enemy are these people fighting for?
2) Saying words does not equal aiding the enemy.
3) Did you commit treason when you said some nasty things about GWB? I bet you wanted him to fail politically.
4) Not liking a politician does not mean you hate the country.
5) Slippery slope.
6) Is Obama committing treason because he isn't agreeing with the House majority? Which of the three "equal branches" is "the government"?

I won't post anymore because it's impossible to debate with such a hardliner.
Click to expand...

Fine. Its not treason. Its hyperbole. Something else should happen to them tho. I never have, and as far as I know our country has never ever had elected representatives wanting and actively trying to destroy the economy to gain political points. For the life of me I can't get it through my tiny little brain how anyone can defend such actions.
 
imaplanner said:
Are you not paying attention to congresspeople who are outright saying we should default because the collapsing economy will be blamed on Obama? How can anyone support or defend such a thing??
Click to expand...

stroskey is not defending such things by that particular statement. Instead, he is questioning the charge of "treason". Complexity of theory and nuance of ideology aside, while it could be argued that such activity might merit a definition of treason (as one would find in a reputable dictionary), it doesn't merit the legal definition that would produce criminal charges. Making that leap is a radical position, perhaps even more so than the things the congresspeople you mention are advocating.
 
imaplanner said:
Fine. Its not treason. Its hyperbole. Something else should happen to them tho. I never have, and as far as I know our country has never ever had elected representatives wanting and actively trying to destroy the economy to gain political points. For the life of me I can't get it through my tiny little brain how anyone can defend such actions.
Click to expand...

Hyperbole is legal. The way our system works is that these idiots can be voted out by their constituents. They get 2 or 6 years to do what they want. That is how we set up the system. I don't agree with my congressman (House Speak Boehner) most of the time, but I don't think he is doing anything other than what politicians do.

I am not defending what they are doing, but they have the right to do what they believe will be best for the country.

We can argue all day about whether it is best or not, but I honestly believe they think it is best. Which is completely protected under our system.
 
Hink_Planner said:
Hyperbole is legal. The way our system works is that these idiots can be voted out by their constituents. They get 2 or 6 years to do what they want. That is how we set up the system. I don't agree with my congressman (House Speak Boehner) most of the time, but I don't think he is doing anything other than what politicians do.

I am not defending what they are doing, but they have the right to do what they believe will be best for the country.

We can argue all day about whether it is best or not, but I honestly believe they think it is best. Which is completely protected under our system.
Click to expand...

I meant my comments are hyperbole. Congresspeople trashing the economy on purpose to score political points is something else. Maybe its not treason- but its something really bad. I disagree with lots of stuff that republicans and democrats do - and some of it affects me personally and is upsetting. Thats politics. Trashing the economy on purpose to make the president look bad? Thats not politics. That's indefensible. If they actually were doing what they believed best then that would be one thing - but when they say a default and economic pain will be good because it will make Obama look bad? That's something else entirely.

Edit to add: I was clearly off-base on the treason thingy. But am I off-base for thinking trashing the economy on purpose to score political points is an acceptable and expected aspect of our political system?
 
Last edited:
Hink_Planner said:
Hyperbole is legal. The way our system works is that these idiots can be voted out by their constituents. They get 2 or 6 years to do what they want. That is how we set up the system. I don't agree with my congressman (House Speak Boehner) most of the time, but I don't think he is doing anything other than what politicians do.

I am not defending what they are doing, but they have the right to do what they believe will be best for the country.

We can argue all day about whether it is best or not, but I honestly believe they think it is best. Which is completely protected under our system.
Click to expand...


Hey, they were voted into office. What can you do? It's probably pretty common that whenever the economy is so bad, massive swings occur in each upcoming election. It's pretty scary that this is going to be the third one in a row, and it just makes it even harder for anything to get done when both sides are so divided.
 
I really don't know what to make of all this. Last time we, as a country, was so riven was during the civil rights legislation, which was the last great political battle of the civil war. This fight seems mostly driven by greed. Ideology is just the political framework for that greed. This also seems to be a political battle, not a battle of the people. There is no civil unrest this time. It's all just politics and greed.
 
imaplanner said:
:scissors:

Edit to add: I was clearly off-base on the treason thingy. But am I off-base for thinking trashing the economy on purpose to score political points is an acceptable and expected aspect of our political system?
Click to expand...

Perhaps you were thinking of sedition, instead of treason? And, no, I don't think you are off base at all.
 
Back
Top