Compromise After Compromise Is Just Defeat After Defeat

Discussion in 'Politics' started by Synthaholic, Dec 8, 2010.

  1. Synthaholic
    Offline

    Synthaholic Platinum Member

    Joined:
    Jul 21, 2010
    Messages:
    35,578
    Thanks Received:
    5,029
    Trophy Points:
    1,130
    Location:
    Kicking PoliticalChic's ass up & down the forum
    Ratings:
    +8,832
    12/07/2010

    Compromise After Compromise Is Just Defeat After Defeat(Updated):
    If the Rude Pundit was a congressional Democrat this morning, he'd feel like he woke up with the biggest fucking hangover. He'd feel like he went to a party at his friend Barry's place and got so shitfaced that he only remembers dribs and drabs of the evening before. Sure, sure, Barry's not his best buddy, but he trusted the dude enough that he felt safe drinking his ass off there. But some jerks must have been invited and they must have fuckin' roofied his drink 'cause he sure didn't ask anyone to write "Cum Bitch" on his forehead. And he's thinks he tastes semen. And why are his leg muscles feeling strained? And, holy fuck, why does his asshole hurt? Yeah, if he was a Democratic House member, especially, he'd feel like he'd have to find a bucket to vomit in and never stop and he'd be left to wonder what the hell happened and no one, no one, not Barry, not anyone else at the party, would be able to adequately say. And he'd be have a couple of choices on what to do: find out who did this to him so that person can be punished or let it go and try, no matter how difficult, to move on.

    There's writers on the left trying to spin President Obama's deal on extending the Bush tax cuts for two years. They talk about long-term strategy and the potential for 2012. Essentially, what that means is that the President'll re-argue one of the very things that inspired a large majority to vote for him in the first place. In other words, Obama's next campaign would have to say something along the lines of, "Hey, you know how I said I'd let those tax cuts on the wealthy expire last time? Boy, I really, really mean it now." Yeah, man, let's have that soul-searching discussion of American tax rates. Let's see how it goes.

    We're talking about a public that was too stupid to realize that health care reform was not a government takeover of Grandma's feeding tube. We're talking about a public that didn't realize that Obama lowered taxes for 95% of the population, that were dead sure that an evil socialist Kenyan was taking money out of their pockets to pay ACORN to have Black Panthers stare blackly and pantherly at white voters in Crackerville, Pennsylvania. Thumbs up for thinking ahead. How'd that kicking it down the road work out before the midterms?

    Yes, compromise supporters are correct that an extension of unemployment insurance for 13 months to those whose benefits are just running out (but not those whose ran out before now) is a good thing. And the only thing one can say to that is that the GOP sure fucking outgunned the Democrats without ever firing a shot. This is the end result of nearly two years of nonstop capitulation. Was there a single speech by the President where he said that Republicans were keeping food from the mouths of poor children in order for rich people to give their kids cars with sweeter rims? No, and that's because the poor are always the pawns, man, readily sacrificed until they're really needed. There were ways to have this fight. Get governors involved because a shift of 2 million people off unemployment would have meant a fuck of a lot of people needing public services mostly provided by overburdened, under-revenued states. Take the fight big and open instead of small and backroom.

    As far as compromises go, what would Republicans give up? The word "permanent"? That's about it. And what would Democrats give up? One of the major planks of their platform. Fuck, this doesn't even include a vote on Don't Ask, Don't Tell. And it ain't even definite that Republicans are gonna support the extension of unemployment because they're just motherfuckers.

    ...
    More at the link
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 2
  2. Coyote
    Offline

    Coyote Varmint Staff Member Senior USMB Moderator Gold Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Apr 17, 2009
    Messages:
    44,534
    Thanks Received:
    7,574
    Trophy Points:
    1,830
    Location:
    la résistance
    Ratings:
    +17,341
    I have conflicting feelings on the "compromise" which seems to me gives it all to the Republicans. But, some points were brought up that made sense:

    Failure to extend any tax credits and unemployment benefits would have put an unacceptable burden on middle class Americans and a fragile economy.

    It's quite possible that had no agreement been reached, then the next congress - a more hostile congress - might not have passed any of Obama's tax ideas for the middle class and small business and would pass and make PERMANENT all the Bush-era tax cuts, including for the wealthiest, and not extended any unemployment.

    What I don't understand though, is why the Democrats - and, why Obama isn't leading the Democrats into making a political point of this: the republicans care more about the 2% wealthiest getting lower taxes then they do about the unemployed.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  3. Bass v 2.0
    Offline

    Bass v 2.0 Biblical Warrior For God.

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2008
    Messages:
    10,655
    Thanks Received:
    528
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Paris, France
    Ratings:
    +528
    I'm disappointed but not shocked that Obama compromised and I hope the Dems kill "Obama's" compromise because I don't see any place where he actually won anything. I'm especially stung by his hypocrisy, how can he cave in to give tax cuts to the rich which he thinks is benefiting everyone and simultaneously call for a freeze on the salaries of all federal employees, most of whom are middle class working people, the ones he claiming to help? Why not freeze the salaries of all the politicians instead for their failure to properly represent the people that elected them and for dragging this country into deeper trouble because of their bickering?


    This is exactly why i put no trust in any politician and keep my trust and faith only in God, every politician is a devil to me because in order to extended and have their political careers they have to do deals with Satan daily and that means someone is always going to get short changed. God has never defeated evil through compromise and doing deals with Satan.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 2
  4. Jarhead
    Offline

    Jarhead Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2010
    Messages:
    20,554
    Thanks Received:
    2,348
    Trophy Points:
    245
    Ratings:
    +3,286
    First, you need to understand. He did not give tax cuts to the rich based on the fact that they are rich. There are many people and economists that believe in supply side economics...and when Mr. Obama saw that after 2 years, pumping mponey into the economy did little to no help, he deemed it best to see if supply side economics will help so he opted to give the business owners a break and allow them to enjoy the tax cuts as well. I suggest you get off the "tax cuts for the rich" thing. The politicians used it to try to stir up the people....but they knew that intelligent self thinking people saw it as employing a strategy along the lines of supply side economics.

    As for freezing government employee wages. What is wrong with that? We are in a recession....or the recovery of one. Most in the public sector did not see an increase in salary...most business owners saw a decrease in income....so why should those WE PAY not suffer a mild setback as well?
     
  5. Bass v 2.0
    Offline

    Bass v 2.0 Biblical Warrior For God.

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2008
    Messages:
    10,655
    Thanks Received:
    528
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Paris, France
    Ratings:
    +528
    Its simple, no one wants to be blames or take any blame for any perceived failures and in this case, Obama compromised because had there been no agreement and the tax cuts would have expired and after that we all know taxes would have risen. Both parties, but more importantly Obama himself, didn't want to be the one to take blame for that. Democrats are losers in all of this because they failed to counter and match the intensity and drive of those mindless Teabaggers, it never occurred to them that they might have to do some real in all this. Well they have a chance now to hold Obama's feet to the fire on the promises he made.
     
  6. VaYank5150
    Offline

    VaYank5150 Gold Member

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2009
    Messages:
    11,779
    Thanks Received:
    1,047
    Trophy Points:
    138
    Location:
    Virginia
    Ratings:
    +1,055
    But wasn't it John Boehner who said that extending the tax cuts for the richest Americans was necessary, as those richest Americans are the ones who create jobs?
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  7. Bass v 2.0
    Offline

    Bass v 2.0 Biblical Warrior For God.

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2008
    Messages:
    10,655
    Thanks Received:
    528
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Paris, France
    Ratings:
    +528

    Freezing my wages, yes I am a government employee, was dumb, its not as if we're all living good while people in the private sector have it worse than us, they actually make more than we do on average, if they want to freeze some wages freeze the wages of those high ranking government employees sitting in jobs where they get paid loads of money where they're not needed or freeze the wages and benefits of those millionaire politicians. Since most government employees are upper to lower middle class why freeze our wages?
     
  8. Jarhead
    Offline

    Jarhead Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2010
    Messages:
    20,554
    Thanks Received:
    2,348
    Trophy Points:
    245
    Ratings:
    +3,286
    I cant speak for Boehner but if I had to guess, he was responding to the fact that the other side of the aisle continually referred to them as "richest Americans"....
    But those Americans are not targeted by the GOP to get the cuts based on their wealth...they were targeted to get those cuts as well based on the theory of supply side economics....

    And I, for one, do not think Boehner is worthy of Speaker....but that is another thread for another day.
     
  9. Jarhead
    Offline

    Jarhead Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2010
    Messages:
    20,554
    Thanks Received:
    2,348
    Trophy Points:
    245
    Ratings:
    +3,286
    Your complaint is not one of wage freeze. It is one of equality...and I agree. If you freeze the wage of one government employee then you should freeze the wage of all government employees......elected officials included.
     
  10. Coyote
    Offline

    Coyote Varmint Staff Member Senior USMB Moderator Gold Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Apr 17, 2009
    Messages:
    44,534
    Thanks Received:
    7,574
    Trophy Points:
    1,830
    Location:
    la résistance
    Ratings:
    +17,341
    I don't think that is the reasoning at all.

    "Supply side" economics has not been a dubious success at best. Giving tax cuts to the wealthiest 2% has not been shown to help the economy or increase jobs. The fact that Obama compromised on that particular facet was in order to get agreement on the other tax cuts, small business tax cuts and extension of unemployment.

    Frankly, people should be stirred up when it comes to advocating for tax cuts for the wealthiest - a tiny proprotion of tax payers - who's spending habits are utterly unaffected by those tax cuts while decrying extending unemployment benefits during a time of high unemployment and a bad economy.

    Which costs more? Extending the tax cuts for the wealthiest 2%.
     

Share This Page