U.S. Politics, 12

[TerraPrime]

Doesn't sound that way to me at all given that it calls for a two-rate flat tax with "generous deductions for families".

Did you perhaps miss the "As a transition" qualifying phrase preceding the two-rate tax system? So, what is it transitioning to, if not a complete flat tax system?

[awesome possum]

This is too funny: Most Voters Think House GOP Likely To Disappoint By 2012

Hold the celebration. Most voters expected Republicans to win control of the House of Representatives on Election Day, but nearly as many expect to be disappointed with how they perform by the time the 2012 elections roll around.

A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds, in fact, that 59% of Likely U.S. Voters think it is at least somewhat likely that most voters will be disappointed with Republicans in Congress before the next national elections. That includes 38% who say it is Very Likely.

"Dear Republicans,

You had the best rhetoric this time around, but we still remember that you're pretty much worthless.

Your Friend,

America"

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Ser Poss.,

If you don't believe have that power in the first place where is there room for compromise or bipartisanship?

(BTW this is where you ppoint out that many of the Republican's in the prior Congress were arguing for a reform package similar to the one that was passed back in 1993.)

;)

[Tormund Ukrainesbane]

Here's a fantasy of mine - Obama gets on the TV today and says "Congratulations Republicans. I will expect your proposal for a balanced budget on my desk 01/03/1011. Thanks, and good luck."

[Commodore]

Here's a fantasy of mine - Obama gets on the TV today and says "Congratulations Republicans. I will expect your proposal for a balanced budget on my desk 01/03/10. Thanks, and good luck."

The budget will be very interesting, both to see if the GOP will submit one that is balanced, and whether Reid can convince enough Dems (Nelson/Manchin/Webb/Conrad are all up in 2012) to vote against it.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Tormund,

"01/03/10" he wants them to make there proposal 11 months ago? That would be awesome in the true sense of the word.

(I do see what you mean and it would be cool. Force them to put their money where their mouth's are.)

[Tormund Ukrainesbane]

The budget will be very interesting, both to see if the GOP will submit one that is balanced, and whether Reid can convince enough Dems (Nelson/Manchin/Webb/Conrad are all up in 2012) to vote against it.

I will make a bet right now with any takers. The republican authored budget for next year will not only fail to cut spending, it will increase spending.

Tormund,

"01/03/10" he wants them to make there proposal 11 months ago? That would be awesome in the true sense of the word.

(I do see what you mean and it would be cool. Force them to put their money where their mouth's are.)

Gah! Fixed.

[Reek]

Hold the celebration. Most voters expected Republicans to win control of the House of Representatives on Election Day, but nearly as many expect to be disappointed with how they perform by the time the 2012 elections roll around.

A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds, in fact, that 59% of Likely U.S. Voters think it is at least somewhat likely that most voters will be disappointed with Republicans in Congress before the next national elections. That includes 38% who say it is Very Likely.

You don't think that is because the electorate is about evenly split to begin with?

[WhiteHaven]

Seems like the American voter is even more insane then the German one. Which means a lot, because people here are all crazy.

So what does this mean? Two years of deadlock? Yep. That's what the world (and America of course) needs. A Superpower doing...well nothing actually.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Tormund,

Only a great fool would take that bet... I am not a great fool so clearly I cannot take your bet...

[Commodore]

I will make a bet right now with any takers. The republican authored budget for next year will not only fail to cut spending, it will increase spending.

I'll take that bet, Paul Ryan is writing the budget, no way he submits one that doesn't at least reduce spending.

Winner picks the others' avatar for a month.

A flat tax on discretionary income (say above $25k) removes all of the meaningful regressivity (sp?) without discouraging productivity. Pretty simple.

[Guest Raidne]

WH, in all fairness, you can bet that all Americans would prefer all superpowers, particularly those that are not us, to do nothing.

Even the most liberal of us, I think, get kind of unsettled when Europeans or whoever else start acting like that would be a bad thing.

(Assuming, of course, that getting out of Iraq isn't doing "something.")

[Tormund Ukrainesbane]

Tormund,

Only a great fool would take that bet... I am not a great fool so clearly I cannot take your bet...

But you would have known I was not a great fool. You would have counted on it, so I can clearly not take the bet in front of you!

I'll take that bet, Paul Ryan is writing the budget, no way he submits one that doesn't at least reduce spending.

Winner picks the others' avatar for a month.

A flat tax on discretionary income (say above $25k) removes all of the meaningful regressivity (sp?) without discouraging productivity. Pretty simple.

Anyone else want in on this before Commodore is featuring Nancy Pelosi in lingerie for a month?

[Inigima]

So, here's a link from Talking Points Memo. Mitch McConnell saying that the Democrats are learning the wrong lesson from the midterms:

"Listening to what they've had to say this morning, they may have missed the message," McConnell warned. "I get the impression that their view is that we haven't cooperated enough. I think what the American people were saying yesterday is they appreciated us saying 'no' to things that the American people indicated that they were not in agreement with."

http://tpm.ly/aJz47w

Here's the hell of it for me: I think McConnell may have a point. Voters don't seem to like the Democrats' agenda. They did reward Republican obstructionism. But we tend to hate the Republicans for obstructing when we should instead resent the dipshit electorate, because the Republicans do seem to be giving them what they want. It's just that the electorate has an awful lot of know-nothing retards who don't have any idea about anything.

This is going to sound a lot like liberal elitism, and that's because it is. I'll say it: the voters have shown that they're dumb and vote for things that are bad for them and bad for the country. The Republicans are merely permitting them to do so.

I make this claim because an enormous number of conservative policies have been shown to be nonfunctional or aggressively bad ideas, and a lot of liberal policies have been shown to benefit the public. But maybe it's time to stop blaming Republican politicians and start blaming the people who vote for them. Or maybe we should start blaming the Democrats for failing to get their message out properly.

[Commodore]

Rand Paul suggested that the compromise should be about what spending to cut (i.e. Dems get to cut some stuff like defense, and GOP cut other things).

I thought that was an interesting way to frame the debate.

[WhiteHaven]

WH, in all fairness, you can bet that all Americans would prefer all superpowers, particularly those that are not us, to do nothing.

Even the most liberal of us, I think, get kind of unsettled when Europeans or whoever else start acting like that would be a bad thing.

(Assuming, of course, that getting out of Iraq isn't doing "something.")

Americans prefer it when their country is standing still? Huh? I am sure that my English skills failed me and this isn't what you meant :).

Obama made the descision to leave Iraq before the election, did he not? What can we expect in the next two years? I mean apart from Reps telling the world that Obama is Stalin reborn.

[Reek]

But you would have known I was not a great fool. You would have counted on it, so I can clearly not take the bet in front of you!

You've made your decision then?

[Guest Raidne]

An article I was reading asserted that Obama has failed to lay out any kind of "theory of the case" - you know, some kind of grand vision of how the Democrats see the role of government in the 21st century.

There have been hints, kind of, in things Obama has said about governing in the 21st century, how it's so different to be President now then it even was 15 years ago, etc. that make me think that this has not been done because we suspect the public would not like the answer. Or that, perhaps, after coming into the role, he's changed his mind and really isn't sure yet, what the role of the President and the federal government is in the 2010s. After all, Guantanamo is still open.

But whatever the reason, yeah, that's why the election was lost. You can run on "we are not Bush!" but after two years, you better run on what you are, and not in terms of just what your policy positions are, but in terms of what your vision is - people should be able to take that and predict what your policy positions will be.

So yeah, I blame the Democrats. But sometimes I wonder if Obama didn't make less of an effort on purpose. I wonder how corrupt he thought the House Democrats were. How much he wanted to clean his own house...

ETA: WhiteHaven - yes, precisely.

[The Iceman of the North]

WH, in all fairness, you can bet that all Americans would prefer all superpowers, particularly those that are not us, to do nothing.

So you're of the opinion that most Americans would prefer if there were new laws and no enforcement of current laws in the US for the forceable future?

[Tormund Ukrainesbane]

You've made your decision then?

Not remotely! Because republicans come from the South, as everyone knows! And the South is entirely people with criminals. And criminals are used to having people not trust them as you are not trusted by me so I can clearly not take the bet in front of you.