You gotta win before you can do anything. And politics is the art of the possible.
Let me have somebody who *will *get in and *will *do some of what I think needs doing rather than take a serious risk of getting anybody who will cause us to regress instead.
Thanks.
I was curious if anyone would take up the challenge to provide actual factual evidence to a legitimate site/cite to prove the presented-as-fact “about 99%” figure; I suppose a couple of opinion pieces (albeit intelligent and informed) suggested “almost entirely” IS close enough…both to proving the actual percentage AND as passing as “factual”.
For the record - and not that ANYbody cares, at this point - I agree that the Reps/Conservatives HAVE caused most of the obstructionism to ensure nothing gets done; anyone with half a brain probably could have seen THAT [old, white, white-haired male] train coming down the track, the moment the POTUS-elect didn’t look anything like anyone they’d ever seen before.
However, pointing it out and pointing at them, saying “They’re doing it!!!” is ALSO playing a part in making sure nothing gets done…except making us feel better that we didn’t start it. It’s a typical refrain from fighting and tussling children, when their parents have had just about enough of their fighting and tussling. Most effective parents put BOTH of 'em in time-out, 'til they learn how to get along with one another.
Well, that ain’t an option here, is it?
What would you suggest we do about them, then?
Didn’t you just get through stipulating that the fault lies almost entirely on one side? As in the preceding paragraph? :dubious:
This is a political version of game theory - like, “Would you rather have a 50% chance of winning $10,000, or a 25% chance of winning $20,000?”
@ ElvisL1ves:
No, I wrote I agree with the opinion that the conservatives have done most of the initial stone-walling, as the issues arise. My agreement with that opinion does NOT make it a fact, just as someone stating that opinion to begin with, does not make it a fact.
I then went on to say that “THEY started it” does nothing to do with working towards a resolution.
The rest of what I’ve written is still there, so rather than attempting to change it into something it’s not nor has ever been, feel free to go back and re-read it for yourself. If you still can not understand it, I can not help you.
When THEY are batshit insane and completely divorced from reality, no amount of sitting down and reasoning together is going to help.
And you’re still not offering what would do that. You are, however, condemning those are trying to be the adults as being no better than those determined to be the children. You acknowledge the fact, then pretend the situation is just the opposite anyway. You can try to avoid responsibility for such bullshit if you like, but your name *is *on it.
Except it’s not for many. For those who’s positions are best represented by moderates there’s a clear strategy. There’s an options that maximizes both the odds and the reward for those people.
As noted above, the moderate faces a 50% chance of winning $20,000 or a 25% chance of winning $10,000. There’s no tradeoff there.
Generally speaking I have 2 responses:
Fiscal conservatives, in today’s parlance, love deficit spending. Meaning they support tax cuts unmatched by spending cuts. This really isn’t responsible and nobody should pretend otherwise. Also, I seriously wonder whether most self-styled fiscal conservatives have realistic and arithmetically consistent fiscal plans.
Firstly, the Democratic Party is to the right of Europe, just like Thatcher’s UK was to the left of Carter’s America. So it’s certainly the case that US and Western European policies should differ to some extent. I’ll quibble about something though: European policies generally speaking are realistic for America insofar as they’ve already been tested in Europe. The US may very well have bigger spaces, but it’s not like our snow or weather is that different. That said, I agree that transplanting Europolicies directly in every detail would not be desirable: we have different traditions after all.
European policies inform the US about what is plausible. And visa versa. Cross country comparisons provide a solid basis for policy evaluation, though not the last word.
I’m sorry…I - and only I, while participating in this conversation - have been deemed The One for coming up with The Solution?
WTF? Was I elected POTUS a year-and-half early and someone forgot to mention it to me?
Oh, what the hell…I’m game for the game.
A nifty trick and stunt to force an end to the stonewalling would have been for the POTUS and/or every single non-stonewalling Senator and Representative to sit on the floor and NOT leave until EVERYone returned to negotiating sessions.
Hell, they’re perfectly willing to filibuster for hours on end, they should be able to sit quietly for days, if need be.
OK, now it’s somebody else’s turn…what would YOU do to find a solution? If your answer is good enough, I’ll consider you for my Vice-President. 
The Democrats should agree to the pipeline to get passage for health care better than the Affordable Health Care Act, a Republican concept.
I’d replace “self styled fiscal conservatives” with “American politicians.” It seems to be a failing regardless of how they represent themselves on fiscal issues. I’m fiscally conservative and can manage to make both sides of typical debates annoyed. My take on business taxes especially makes both sides either applaud happily or scream in anger depending on which parts of the total package I’d cover first.
Our political terrain is hugely different in one key area - strong states with limits on federal government. Tha can produce some difficulty in comparison a completely federal level solution with one that negotiates the state/federal division of powers in a hybrid fashion.
I agree they do provide a basis for understanding. We probably disagree on how favorable the comparison is fiscally.
Clinton delivered a budget surplus. Reagan proposed budgets with a certain level of deficit spending, and the Democratic congress would return budgets with different priorities but a similar deficit, often a little lower. If the executive branch leads, Congress often follows. As it is our budget deficits are headed downwards. Calculated Risk: "The Rapidly Shrinking Federal Deficit"
More to the point though, I’m unimpressed with self-styled fiscal conservatives. It’s easy to call for tax breals and unspecified spending cuts. A “deficit hawk” who can substantiates his claims without magic asterisks would be another matter.
We’re talking in generalities here, but yes it’s appropriate to take into consideration US federalism.
Cross country comparison is still fruitful with some adjustment. Education is mostly a state level responsibility in the US for example, but that doesn’t mean that Pennsylvania can’t learn from South Korea or Australia.
I could support a halving of the corporate tax rate combined with sharply lower deductions and somewhat higher taxes on top tier personal incomes. Combined with some sort of congressional reform to discourage future tax breaks.