Political Discussion

[FLBK7]

What happens if you don't get everything the way you want it? Do you wish for the country to fail unless you get everything your way? Listen, I have my own set of beliefs, but I know that I can't have everything the way I want it to be. I love my country too much to hope for it to fail.

Agree 100%.

[FLBK7]

I agree.

Without ANY middle ground, or room to compromise, we may as well turn off the lights, lock the place up and concede defeat as we revert to savagery.

Anyone seen The Road?

Not appealing. There ARE ways to stave off this impending collapse of our society and economy. But Americans are spoiled, and as illustrated above, there are millions of people who simply WON'T be satisfied until things are done THEIR way.

I have always had a tremendous disdain for folks who say things like, "There is your way and there is my way. My way is the right way. No compromise, and no stopping until I have forced EVERY LAST PERSON IN THE COUNTRY to abide by my system. It is for your own good, and you will thank me later."

Later is here, and there may not be very many tomorrows left.

::::::::::::::::::::::

[backtoschool]

What happens if you don't get everything the way you want it? Do you wish for the country to fail unless you get everything your way? Listen, I have my own set of beliefs, but I know that I can't have everything the way I want it to be. I love my country too much to hope for it to fail.

I totally agree with you LimpDisc. What really bothers me about ultra ultra conservatives is that they are hoping for Obama and Congress to fail. But failure will equal millions of people suffering as the economy worsens. Why would anyone wish for suffering?

[backtoschool]

I agree.

Without ANY middle ground, or room to compromise, we may as well turn off the lights, lock the place up and concede defeat as we revert to savagery.

Anyone seen The Road?

Not appealing. There ARE ways to stave off this impending collapse of our society and economy. But Americans are spoiled, and as illustrated above, there are millions of people who simply WON'T be satisfied until things are done THEIR way.

I have always had a tremendous disdain for folks who say things like, "There is your way and there is my way. My way is the right way. No compromise, and no stopping until I have forced EVERY LAST PERSON IN THE COUNTRY to abide by my system. It is for your own good, and you will thank me later."

Later is here, and there may not be very many tomorrows left.

I agree DMC that compromise is the only way we are going to move forward. The economy is going to get worse before it gets better, and without compromise, we will not be able to dig ourselves out of the hole we are in.

[JRScott]

People on both sides have dug in too deep and are unwilling to budge. I thought Democrats were hard on Bush, but Republicans have taken it to a new level with Obama. What do you think happens if Obama is a one term president? The next Republican president will have it 10 times worse than Obama.

The only way we will fix this current mess is to follow Rome's path.

You need to stop thinking in terms of Democrat and Republican, I'm neither. Haven't voted for either for President since Bush/Quayle in 1988. I typically vote for the Reform, Constitution or Libertarian candidates depending which is allowed to be on the ballot in my state in a given year and which I think the better choice.

If we think only in terms of Democrat and Republican we cannot fix the mess. We need to break both national parties to see real reform and save the Union. I'd like to see a list of 10 things that all Republicans and all Democrats agree about. Why are there left and right wings of both parties? Shouldn't there be more parties rather than some umbrella meant to be as inclusive as possible just for the sake of maintaining power for themselves.

It is to early to tell whether Obama will be a 1 term president. Both Reagan and Clinton were unpopular in their first 2 years. They made adjustments after midterm elections and are considered among the best presidents of the latter half of the 20th century.

Many of you talk of the need to compromise, so far I've seen no compromise from Obama, I've seen words promising such but actions very different from the words. If his actions were matching his rhetoric from the campaign and recent statements then his popularity wouldn't be taking the hits it has.

The best thing for the nation would be if a third party got a good number of seats in the House, even if we could get say 50-75 seats split between 3-4 third parties. It would actually force far more compromise and common sense that has so sorely lacked in Washington for decades.

Medicare is practically broke already it started using its principle last year to pay out benefits and will completely run out of money in 2017 if current projections hold. It makes no sense to add more folks to its roles without first stabilizing it. Without stabilizing it a national health care system run by the government won't work. The only way to stabilize it is to double the tax for it and to reduce benefits while also raising the age of benefits from those born after 1959.

Social Security is also headed down the same path. It has more in its trust fund and is expected to complete run out of money around 2039 and start using its principle in 2012. Once again the way to fix this is to raise the age of benefits for those born after 1959. You wouldn't have to quite double the tax but probably a 20% increase to pay it.

Until we have fully funded and can pay for what is promised already, I am against any increase or new government programs. We can only do that if we first pay off the national debt and create a balanced budget.

Edit:

Forgot about Rome you seem not to understand what killed Rome. We are doing exactly what Rome did, exporting jobs to other entities, welfare programs for our people, etc. It killed Rome and it'll kill us.

[WhatMoney]

It was a Rueter's news story, since rescinded at the request of the White House.

So OF, you compound one lie with another lie. Why is it so hard for Rush Limbaugh dittoheads to tell the truth?

The story was withdrawn by Reuters (note correct spelling) because it was factually wrong, from the headline on down.

The Feb 1 story headlined "Backdoor taxes to hit middle class" is wrong and has been withdrawn. The story said lower-income families will pay more under tax provisions scheduled to expire Dec 31. The Obama administration's budget calls for the extension of those tax provisions for households earning less than $250,000. There will be no substitute story.

There is no tax increase for those with net incomes under $250,000, or $200,000 for a single taxpayer, in the Obama tax proposals.

[WhatMoney]

I have no interest in budging. I won't sacrifice my beliefs to appease you. There is no middle ground between liberalism and conservatism.

And that is the problem in this country today. OF, YOU are the problem.

There was a time when the Republicans and Democrats could reach compromises on any major legislation, regardless of who had the majority in the Senate. But today the Republican's are a solid block of right wing obstructionists who want the country to fail as long as Obama is in the White House. I call these folks traitors, and I call you a traitor for supporting this view, er... Rush Limbaugh's view, as it's clear where you get most of your misinformation and lies.

[MSbklawyer]

What happens if you don't get everything the way you want it? Do you wish for the country to fail unless you get everything your way? Listen, I have my own set of beliefs, but I know that I can't have everything the way I want it to be. I love my country too much to hope for it to fail.

There are times and there are areas where compromise is not in order or where enough compromise has already been made.

For years U.S. politicians - Republicans and Democrats - have bought votes by promising more and More and MORE free stuff to people. Generally speaking, Democrats promised free stuff and, once in office, delivered it. Republicans promised an end to the free stuff and, once in office, were as bad or worse than Democrats about giving it away. Those chickens are coming home to roost. Entitlement programs alone are threatening to consume the entire federal budget -- and then some. And now the government is demanding more and More and MORE of my money to give it to those people it deems more deserving of it than I am.

I, and most tax payers (as opposed to tax consumers) have compromised enough, thank you. I never got any of the free stuff. So I'm all compromised out.

No reasonable person wants to see the country fail, but if avoiding failure means indentured servitude through ever higher taxes because of government wealth transfers, then maybe it needs to fail.

[MSbklawyer]

There is no tax increase for those with net incomes under $250,000, or $200,000 for a single taxpayer, in the Obama tax proposals.

Yeah. I remember that one. I also remember those same people saying that none of the jobs that would be going overseas or being done here by illegal immigrants would be ones that Americans would want to have anyway. They also said that the income tax, originally imposed to pay for WWI, would end when the war was over and paid for.

It didn't quite work out that way.

[OhioFiler]

What happens if you don't get everything the way you want it? Do you wish for the country to fail unless you get everything your way? Listen, I have my own set of beliefs, but I know that I can't have everything the way I want it to be. I love my country too much to hope for it to fail.

Of course in a typical liberal leap off the rational train you determine my unwillingness to change my beliefs to yours is somehow a dream for the country to fail. My beliefs are specifically designed for the success of our country and based on over 200 years of historical success. It is the liberal who sees the Constitution as a "living breathing" document in need of fine-tuning to meet whatever whim is popular today. Sad really.

If you truly loved your country so much you'd honor the founding documents and respect my choice not to agree with your politics. However, as a typical liberal, you fail to accept the concept of ideas differing from yours. You need to turn everything into a personal attack.

I really don't care whether you are willing to sacrifice your beliefs for some middle ground (although I can tell by your posts you think liberalism is some middle ground). You are free to believe, write and speak anything you wish and I will always respect that. It is the liberal who wants to silence oppositional discourse.

I happen to be a person with conviction and will not compromise by Constitutionally based beliefs to appease you or Nancy Pelosi. If your convictions are temporary (or ever changing to justify your current behavior as many libs are want to do) that is fine with me. It doesn't mean I have to act accordingly.

As such, and as a result of your silly rant about me and Rush Limbaugh, I've determined you are no longer fun to play with here on bkforum. This is the last post I'll ever direct at you or supply as answer to you.

Have a great bankruptcy!

[backtoschool]

There are times and there are areas where compromise is not in order or where enough compromise has already been made.

For years U.S. politicians - Republicans and Democrats - have bought votes by promising more and More and MORE free stuff to people. Generally speaking, Democrats promised free stuff and, once in office, delivered it. Republicans promised an end to the free stuff and, once in office, were as bad or worse than Democrats about giving it away. Those chickens are coming home to roost. Entitlement programs alone are threatening to consume the entire federal budget -- and then some. And now the government is demanding more and More and MORE of my money to give it to those people it deems more deserving of it than I am.

I, and most tax payers (as opposed to tax consumers) have compromised enough, thank you. I never got any of the free stuff. So I'm all compromised out.

No reasonable person wants to see the country fail, but if avoiding failure means indentured servitude through ever higher taxes because of government wealth transfers, then maybe it needs to fail.

I have no problem with letting inflation take it's course, letting unemployment get to the 25-30% that it would be at without government intervention in monetary policy and bailouts, letting all houses be declared at their market value, and making the banks put all of their shadow inventory on the market.

We will have another Great Depression as a result, or maybe something worse.

It seems a bit provincial to want that to happen just because you did not get a big enough hand out, or got no hand out at all.

I know that you do not mean that you really want this country to fail, but in this case failing means suffering for millions. We cannot cut entitlement programs with a whole generation on them that have no back up plan, and we cannot change our banking system overnight even though we need to change it as soon as possible.

[OhioFiler]

And that is the problem in this country today. OF, YOU are the problem.

There was a time when the Republicans and Democrats could reach compromises on any major legislation, regardless of who had the majority in the Senate. But today the Republican's are a solid block of right wing obstructionists who want the country to fail as long as Obama is in the White House. I call these folks traitors, and I call you a traitor for supporting this view, er... Rush Limbaugh's view, as it's clear where you get most of your misinformation and lies.

You are a sad little person. Do you suffer SPS? I'm sure you do, little man.

You too are on permanent ignore. Sorry for spelling Rueters incorrectly. Way to show me! I didn't write the story and I have no idea why Rueters chose to publish it then retract it. The truth is Obama will be raising taxes on EVERYONE.

Your personal attack puts you on the ignore list permanently. If you can't debate without becoming a slobbering fool I choose not to deal with you.

I hope you have a great weekend!

[backtoschool]

Of course in a typical liberal leap off the rational train you determine my unwillingness to change my beliefs to yours is somehow a dream for the country to fail. My beliefs are specifically designed for the success of our country and based on over 200 years of historical success. It is the liberal who sees the Constitution as a "living breathing" document in need of fine-tuning to meet whatever whim is popular today. Sad really.

If you truly loved your country so much you'd honor the founding documents and respect my choice not to agree with your politics. However, as a typical liberal, you fail to accept the concept of ideas differing from yours. You need to turn everything into a personal attack.

I really don't care whether you are willing to sacrifice your beliefs for some middle ground (although I can tell by your posts you think liberalism is some middle ground). You are free to believe, write and speak anything you wish and I will always respect that. It is the liberal who wants to silence oppositional discourse.



I happen to be a person with conviction and will not compromise by Constitutionally based beliefs to appease you or Nancy Pelosi. If your convictions are temporary (or ever changing to justify your current behavior as many libs are want to do) that is fine with me. It doesn't mean I have to act accordingly.

As such, and as a result of your silly rant about me and Rush Limbaugh, I've determined you are no longer fun to play with here on bkforum. This is the last post I'll ever direct at you or supply as answer to you.

Have a great bankruptcy!

I think I have been included in your ignore list, but I will put this comment here for the rest of those reading this thread.

Conservatives change their beliefs to fit their needs just as much as liberals do. There is many a conservative that got elected on lowering spending, only to increase the deficit greatly by funding tax cuts and perks for the rich, and wars for the military-industrial complex.

I think it is more the tone of your posts, than the content that is so annoying OF. You seem to always be insulting anyone who does not agree with you. This is a debate, and your view is not the only truth. You make a lot of good points, but they get lost in your condescending, judgmental tone.

The problem with always citing the Constitution, is that the Constitution can be interpreted in various ways. There is no certainty that your interpretation of the Constitution totally meshes with the intent the original writers of the document had hundreds of years ago.

I have stood up for you on this forum on numerous occasions, and I still believe you are a valuable member of this forum. But there are views other than yours that are legitimate views and those views deserve to be heard without insults and contempt in my opinion.

[OhioFiler]

I totally agree with you LimpDisc. What really bothers me about ultra ultra conservatives is that they are hoping for Obama and Congress to fail. But failure will equal millions of people suffering as the economy worsens. Why would anyone wish for suffering?

Which ultra ultra conservatives are hoping for failure for the country? It's quite a leap from believing Obama, Reid and Pelosi's initiatives are destined to destroy our country to we want people to suffer.

I believe their policies are going to create more suffering. Their policies will destroy the health care industry via socialization. Their policies will create debt this country can not repay, ever. Their policies will extend this recession for decades. Their policies are completely anti-job.

[OhioFiler]

I think I have been included in your ignore list, but I will put this comment here for the rest of those reading this thread.

Conservatives change their beliefs to fit their needs just as much as liberals do. There is many a conservative that got elected on lowering spending, only to increase the deficit greatly by funding tax cuts and perks for the rich, and wars for the military-industrial complex.

I think it is more the tone of your posts, than the content that is so annoying OF. You seem to always be insulting anyone who does not agree with you. This is a debate, and your view is not the only truth. You make a lot of good points, but they get lost in your condescending, judgmental tone.

The problem with always citing the Constitution, is that the Constitution can be interpreted in various ways. There is no certainty that your interpretation of the Constitution totally meshes with the intent the original writers of the document had hundreds of years ago.

I have stood up for you on this forum on numerous occasions, and I still believe you are a valuable member of this forum. But there are views other than yours that are legitimate views and those views deserve to be heard without insults and contempt in my opinion.

You have never been on my ignore list.

Yes, liberals are all about tone and feelings. Condescending, judgmental tone? I expected better from you. Would it not be better to deal with CONTENT on this discussion? Why is tone even relevant?

As to "funding tax cuts". Come on. That is as convoluted as one can get. Congress doesn't fund tax cuts. Congress funds it programs through tax increases. Tax cuts always increase revenue to the Treasury.

Wars are necessary. Ask John Kennedy.

I am also waiting for you to admonish the poster above who's tone included calling me a traitor directly. But I understand why you don't.