Balta1701 Posted January 12, 2011 Share Posted January 12, 2011 QUOTE (Tex @ Jan 12, 2011 -> 05:36 PM) Democratic Party Yeah, the people who contributed to those Dem campaigns have gotten nothing back for their money. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Texsox Posted January 13, 2011 Author Share Posted January 13, 2011 Yep, the very wealthy benefit from the higher minimum wage, health care, social security, Medicare, Medicade . . . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted January 13, 2011 Share Posted January 13, 2011 QUOTE (Tex @ Jan 13, 2011 -> 07:50 AM) Yep, the very wealthy benefit from the higher minimum wage, health care, social security, Medicare, Medicade . . . So...by "The Democratic Party" you mean "The Democratic party of the 1960's." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NorthSideSox72 Posted January 13, 2011 Share Posted January 13, 2011 Kind of related, and I think I like this idea... Senator Mark Udall (the Colorado Udall) suggests that for the SOTU address, instead of the parties sitting divided by party, they sit mixed together (possibly by state, all parties). I like - not only sends a good message and forces some better collegiality, but might also help reduce the stupid orchestrated crap. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lostfan Posted January 14, 2011 Share Posted January 14, 2011 QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jan 10, 2011 -> 11:27 AM) But's it's still a fallacy to assume that because B lies between A and C, B is a good compromise. It could be that A is terrible, B is bad, C is good, so compromising from C to B would be a bad idea. Basically it assumes that the current political window represents the true range with extremes on each end and good, pragmatic solutions in the middle. edit: here's a blog post I found expanding on the idea a little more. http://www.raisethehammer.org/blog/1718/pu..._ground_fallacy ^^example, first round of tax cuts in '01. Democrats want $300 billion and want to keep the surplus. Republicans want some absurdly high number like $1.3 trillion and absolutely won't compromise on it. After a while of gridlock some hack senator comes out and says, as if this was an ingenious solution, "I got an idea, how about we all just vote for a $800 billion tax cut instead!" That's not moderation, that's just political hackery. There really isn't any principle driving it. And yes I did mean argument to moderation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted January 14, 2011 Share Posted January 14, 2011 QUOTE (lostfan @ Jan 14, 2011 -> 07:32 AM) ^^example, first round of tax cuts in '01. Democrats want $300 billion and want to keep the surplus. Republicans want some absurdly high number like $1.3 trillion and absolutely won't compromise on it. After a while of gridlock some hack senator comes out and says, as if this was an ingenious solution, "I got an idea, how about we all just vote for a $800 billion tax cut instead!" That's not moderation, that's just political hackery. There really isn't any principle driving it. And yes I did mean argument to moderation. Just to correct your numbers, it was $1.6 trillion that Bush wanted, and the compromise was $1.3 trillion. Followed up of course by another $100 billion 8 months later (post-911) and another $600 billion 12 months after that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NorthSideSox72 Posted January 14, 2011 Share Posted January 14, 2011 QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Jan 13, 2011 -> 08:01 AM) Kind of related, and I think I like this idea... Senator Mark Udall (the Colorado Udall) suggests that for the SOTU address, instead of the parties sitting divided by party, they sit mixed together (possibly by state, all parties). I like - not only sends a good message and forces some better collegiality, but might also help reduce the stupid orchestrated crap. Apparently, this idea is catching on a bit. Names that have so far, publically supported the idea include Hoyer, Reid, Pelosi, Wasserman, McCain, and of course the rest of the Udall clan. Boehner's office gave a somewhat tepid reaction, but they are probably waiting to see how it goes. McConnell discussed it with Reid and Hoyer, no word yet from his camp. Article Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NorthSideSox72 Posted January 19, 2011 Share Posted January 19, 2011 QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Jan 14, 2011 -> 08:15 AM) Apparently, this idea is catching on a bit. Names that have so far, publically supported the idea include Hoyer, Reid, Pelosi, Wasserman, McCain, and of course the rest of the Udall clan. Boehner's office gave a somewhat tepid reaction, but they are probably waiting to see how it goes. McConnell discussed it with Reid and Hoyer, no word yet from his camp. Article Durbin and Kirk will sit together, and some others are signing on as well. This SOTU layout on the floor will look much different than in times past. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kapkomet Posted January 20, 2011 Share Posted January 20, 2011 Now that the SOTU is nothing but a made for TV event, the whole thing is a sham and pure stupidity - kind of like a campaign, hmmmm... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted January 20, 2011 Share Posted January 20, 2011 QUOTE (kapkomet @ Jan 20, 2011 -> 08:42 AM) Now that the SOTU is nothing but a made for TV event, the whole thing is a sham and pure stupidity - kind of like a campaign, hmmmm... When was it ever not? The Constitution requires the President to give an update about the state of the union. No where does it say a speech. The President could send a notarized document and it would satisfy the requirements of the constitution. The only reason why it has ever been a speech is that it's also a campaign even. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NorthSideSox72 Posted January 20, 2011 Share Posted January 20, 2011 QUOTE (kapkomet @ Jan 20, 2011 -> 07:42 AM) Now that the SOTU is nothing but a made for TV event, the whole thing is a sham and pure stupidity - kind of like a campaign, hmmmm... I actually think that this one is more important than many previous ones. The idea that a lot of these people are going to cross the aisle is of course symbolic - but the whole act is symbolic. And not only is there nothing wrong with that, I think its actually a very good thing. This is needed at this time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Texsox Posted January 20, 2011 Author Share Posted January 20, 2011 I know I have posted this before, but I believe one of the greatest roles for the President is as cheerleader. Using Reagan and Clinton as examples. Reagan came on the heels of a scandelous Nixon, a clumsy Ford, and an inneffective Carter. Then Reagan comes riding into the scene on a horse, standing tall in the saddle, and America got it's swagger back. After a string of old guys, Clinton blows into office to Fleetwood Mac, amazing new technologies, and America regains its vitality and enthusiasm. Symbolic? Hell Yes. Make it a positive symbol showing that united we can do anything and consumer confidence starts to rise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted January 20, 2011 Share Posted January 20, 2011 QUOTE (Tex @ Jan 20, 2011 -> 12:37 PM) I know I have posted this before, but I believe one of the greatest roles for the President is as cheerleader. Using Reagan and Clinton as examples. Reagan came on the heels of a scandelous Nixon, a clumsy Ford, and an inneffective Carter. Then Reagan comes riding into the scene on a horse, standing tall in the saddle, and America got it's swagger back. After a string of old guys, Clinton blows into office to Fleetwood Mac, amazing new technologies, and America regains its vitality and enthusiasm. Symbolic? Hell Yes. Make it a positive symbol showing that united we can do anything and consumer confidence starts to rise. Eh. We are halfway through this Presidency, and confidence is where now? I'm not sure what gets said that changes two years of non-believing, but OK Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bmags Posted January 20, 2011 Share Posted January 20, 2011 QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jan 20, 2011 -> 07:30 PM) Eh. We are halfway through this Presidency, and confidence is where now? I'm not sure what gets said that changes two years of non-believing, but OK Where was reagan at this point? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NorthSideSox72 Posted January 20, 2011 Share Posted January 20, 2011 QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jan 20, 2011 -> 01:30 PM) Eh. We are halfway through this Presidency, and confidence is where now? I'm not sure what gets said that changes two years of non-believing, but OK So by your description, the President has to only do things that change people's entire way of thinking? Kind of a ridiculously high bar to set. I'll say it, and this will sound harsh. I honestly think that if you look at the SOTU address, and its symbolism... and you look at the attempt by some in Congress to go bi-partisan in their seating and standing arrangements... and your reaction is that its all useless? Then you are bitter and jaded. One could argue that you are those things for good reason, given all the bulls*** that goes on, but that's what it is, and that's what that reaction is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted January 20, 2011 Share Posted January 20, 2011 QUOTE (Tex @ Jan 20, 2011 -> 01:37 PM) I know I have posted this before, but I believe one of the greatest roles for the President is as cheerleader. Using Reagan and Clinton as examples. Reagan came on the heels of a scandelous Nixon, a clumsy Ford, and an inneffective Carter. Then Reagan comes riding into the scene on a horse, standing tall in the saddle, and America got it's swagger back. After a string of old guys, Clinton blows into office to Fleetwood Mac, amazing new technologies, and America regains its vitality and enthusiasm. Symbolic? Hell Yes. Make it a positive symbol showing that united we can do anything and consumer confidence starts to rise. You don't think that either of those "Getting their swagger back" moments were impacted by the fact that by the time each president went up for re-election the Fed had cut interest rates and the economy was back moving? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted January 20, 2011 Share Posted January 20, 2011 QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Jan 20, 2011 -> 02:11 PM) So by your description, the President has to only do things that change people's entire way of thinking? Kind of a ridiculously high bar to set. I'll say it, and this will sound harsh. I honestly think that if you look at the SOTU address, and its symbolism... and you look at the attempt by some in Congress to go bi-partisan in their seating and standing arrangements... and your reaction is that its all useless? Then you are bitter and jaded. One could argue that you are those things for good reason, given all the bulls*** that goes on, but that's what it is, and that's what that reaction is. That was actually Tex's analogy, but OK. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lostfan Posted January 21, 2011 Share Posted January 21, 2011 QUOTE (bmags @ Jan 20, 2011 -> 02:32 PM) Where was reagan at this point? In the s***ter. In basically the same place. I'm not even sure that Iran-Contra had really blown up yet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted January 21, 2011 Share Posted January 21, 2011 QUOTE (lostfan @ Jan 21, 2011 -> 07:20 AM) In the s***ter. In basically the same place. I'm not even sure that Iran-Contra had really blown up yet. According to the Wikipedias, the first weapons weren't even sent out until 1985, first year of Reagan's second term, and it wasn't exposed until 2006. The equivalent time period for Obama would be the 1st and second years of President Palin's first term. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted January 21, 2011 Share Posted January 21, 2011 QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Jan 19, 2011 -> 11:44 AM) Durbin and Kirk will sit together, and some others are signing on as well. This SOTU layout on the floor will look much different than in times past. Rep. Paul Broun (R-GA): Well, I agree with you wholeheartedly. In fact, I'm talking to members of Congress. Our leadership said you do whatever you want to do. If you wanna sit with the Democrats, you can. If you wanna sit with Republicans, that you can. We're going to have a conference next week and I'm gonna bring that up there. I already believe very firmly that it is a trap and a ruse that Democrats are proposing. They don't want civility. They want silence from the Republicans. And the sitting together being kissy-kissy is just another way to try to silence Republicans, and also to show — to keep the American people from seeing how few of them there are in the U.S. House now. Then when people stand up to — what the Democrats are going to be doing when Barack Obama spews out all his venom, then, um, if they're scattered throughout all the Republicans, then it won't be as noticeable as if we're sitting apart. So it is a ruse and I'm not in favor of it and I'm talking about it and I hope other members of the Republican conference in the House will not take the bait. That's a solid rant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Texsox Posted January 23, 2011 Author Share Posted January 23, 2011 Perhaps they can negotiate when there will be applause and by whom. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NorthSideSox72 Posted January 24, 2011 Share Posted January 24, 2011 QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jan 21, 2011 -> 04:47 PM) That's a solid rant. By "solid" do you mean pretty darn close to paranoid psychotic? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts