Real Change

A

A'sD

500+ Posts
Enough Said, actually less than 1 term but WTF is another trillion or 2?

4187.jpg
 
Didn't Congress just approve a spending bill for next year without passing a budget again?

Oh yes, here it is,

www.reuters.com/article/2011/12/17/us-usa-budget-idUSTRE7B72MK20111217

So you see it is necessary to pass a debt ceiling increase in order to borrow the money needed to fund this spending bill. Obama administration did sign this and it is necessary or the government would have to shut down at some point next year. However you really need to be pointing your finger at Congress who has continually passed spending bills without being able to pass a budget, who has failed to agree on higher levels of spending cuts, and has been unable to adopt the bipartisan debt commission recommendations to decrrease the deficit. This current spending bill sailed through and I hope we don't see another showdown like we saw this past summer.

I agree that there are spending problems. But let's focus on where that issue starts. It starts with the spending. And that starts with the legislation to authorize spending with no budget in place and with no balanced budget approach. Everything else that follows including the need to raise the debt ceiling is caused by the spending bill. I didn't hear many ***** and moan when that happened. That is when the outcry should have started knowing that the rest of this would be inevitable.
 
Compromise isn't a trait common to legislators. Most legislators are attorneys. Most attorneys are trained to win, not lead or compromise.

Really? Are you just making this up as you go along? What was the composition of Congress back in the days when compromise was the art of politics? As in, how many of those legislators were attorneys?
 
The problem is not with Obama or Congress. If you want to know where the problem lies, look in the mirror. That's right: it's us. We keep electing the same group of amoral, unprincipled ******** because they promise us a free lunch or "morning in America" or some other touchy-feely crap.

Walter Mondale showed in 1984 what happens when you are truthful with the American people. During a debate he said "By the end of my first term, I will reduce the Reagan budget deficit by two-thirds. Let's tell the truth. It must be done, it must be done. Mr. Reagan will raise taxes, and so will I. He won't tell you. I just did."


Well, the American voter heard that and said "I don't want my taxes raised!" and voted for Reagan. It was a landslide. Of course, two years later ---- just as Mondale said ----- Reagan signed off on what was the biggest tax increase in US history.


963341.jpg
 
Are you a lawyer? From experience, I can tell you that if you bring lawyers into a business licensing negotiation meeting, the chances of a deal being brokered goes way down.

From your response I can't tell if you even understood the basis for my critique of your asssertion. Let me spell it out for you.

You claim that the reason we have no spirit of compromise in today's Congress is because there are too many attorneys serving in Congress. This is a dubious claim and not helped by your business example.

I Socratically wondered what was the composition of Congress back in the day when compromise was the art of politics. That is, if the composition of congress was, say, 60% attorneys back then and close to 60% today, then the change (from a state of compromise to a state of non-compromise) cannot be attributed to the attorney factor. There is something else going on.

And quite clearly there is: there are more ideologues in Congress, what with the Tea Party and the religious right. This, and not "attorneys", is the cause.
 
Uninformed, you are living up to your name. The vast majority of cases never see the courtroom. They settle, meaning a compromise is worked out, and no, it usually isn't the parties saying, "let's just ignore our lawyers and just get it worked out ourselves." The lawyers might posture, bluff, or B.S., but they don't like the work or the risk of trial if they can avoid it. They ultimately want compromise.

In the context of negotiating a business deal, if you don't like the stance your lawyer is taking, then overrule him or at least make him explain himself. You're in charge, not him. If you don't like his style or if you think he's resisting compromise so he can bill you more, then he's not trustworthy, and you should fire him and get somebody else. I'm sure there are plenty out there who would like to have your business.

As for the current inability of Congress to reach compromises, I don't think there's a connection with the occupations of the members. The non-lawyers resist compromise as much as anybody - maybe a little more. The real driving force that is destroying compromise is the polarization of the parties' respective primaries.

Keep in mind that general elections don't matter for about 90 percent of members of congress because of redistricting/gerrymandering. The party primaries are the only elections that really matter to them. Who votes in primary elections? It's the hardcore ideological voters who are politically active. Because of that, if a member of congress forges a compromise, he makes himself susceptible to a primary opponent who will portray the compromiser as ideologically impure. Sadly, that argument works very well in both parties' primary elections.

People already spout off on the Tea Party, but it's no different for Democrats. Suppose Sheila Jackson-Lee were to find religion and decide to stop being a race-baiting dumbass who just spouts abusive and hateful rhetoric to serve her own political interests and decided she wanted to actually serve her country by forging compromises on the big issues of the day. To do that, she'd have to work with the GOP and would have to agree to things the hardcore liberal base of her district opposed.

What would happen to her? Would moderates or conservatives rally around her to make sure she kept her seat? No. A prominent black guy or gal in her district would complain that she's turned into an "Aunt Jemima" who sold out to Whitey, and she'd get shellacked in the Democratic primary. Could she stay on the ballot and run as an Independent? Yes, but the district is about 80 percent Democratic. She'd get hammered in the general election. That's why it's so hard to work out a compromise in Congress. Jackson-Lee is a lawyer (though I doubt she's actually practiced much law), but the same would happen to Eddie Bernice-Johnson, Maxine Waters, and a whole host of other liberal Democrats who aren't lawyers.
 
i woulodnt compare lawyers of the 1700's, who were scholars and philosopher's, to the lawyers of today, a great percentage of whom are whores, and the majority of those in congress, who are the latter.
 
This must be the first A'sD post that isn't about the world ending and actually makes a point. Congrats dude, maybe this will matter or will we all be dead on 12/22/12?
 
"5. Compromise isn't a trait common to legislators. Most legislators are attorneys. Most attorneys are trained to win, not lead or compromise." And from what we've all witnessed for many years in our govt. common sense isn't so common amongst our legislators either.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

NEW: Pro Sports Forums

Cowboys, Texans, Rangers, Astros, Mavs, Rockets, etc. Pro Longhorns. The Chiefs and that Swift gal. This is the place.

Pro Sports Forums

Recent Threads

Back
Top