Politics

[aknowledgeableperson]

I don't really get what you're trying to argue here. If their political position is moderate and their party affiliation is Democrat, they are moderate Democrats. I honestly can't parse out what the "DINO" comment is supposed to be getting at. Are you trying to argue that in fact moderation is a trait of the GOP, and that any "moderate" Dems actually belong in the Republican party? Or are you complaining that "moderate" Dems only appear so insofar as they're too far right to fit with the supposedly left-wing Democratic party, and their having abandoned leftism while retaining the Dem affiliation makes them appear "moderate" when in fact they're outright conservative? Or maybe the opposite, that the Dem party should be centrist but many Dems are too far to the left and are no longer really Dems?

I would define "moderate" as being willing to make compromises and incorporate some of the other side's ideas to reach an agreement; according to that definition, there are precious few remaining moderate Republicans. On the other hand, if anything, I would say the problem with the Dems is that they're too moderate -- they don't just incorporate some of the GOP's ideas, they basically pass GOP legislation (eg ACA), which the GOP nonetheless rejects just...because. The Republican slogan at this point should be "give us an inch and we'll take a mile." Effective governance requires politicians to meet in the middle on most issues, but that doesn't mean the politicians themselves must always be centrist -- the GOP is dragging our political conversation much too far rightward and there aren't enough genuinely left wing Dems to keep the "middle" anchored in a reasonable place. Couple this with the fact that people tend to assume that when there are two sides to an argument, both are equally meritorious -- when the far right GOP clashes with the center-right Obama, it simply must be the case that both sides have staked out positions on opposite extremes, right? -- and we end up deciding there are no moderate politicians left.

Mostly the "DINO" was made in jest, but also attacking the Tea Party/far conservative wing of the GOP who wage battles with good moderate elected officials just because they do not toe the line 100% of the time. At the same time, though, there are a few Dem battles (like Joe Lieberman in Conn) between the middle and the left of the party.

Meeting in the middle is hard these days since the issues are mainly defined as for or against. Much like slavery 150 years ago there is little middle ground in wanting higher taxes or not, cutting the budget or not, abortion or not, gay marriage or not, entitlement reform or not. Immigration reform offers the best chance of some sort of bi-partisan agreement except for the issue of amnesty.

Maybe something will come from a future dinner. Lindsey Graham proposed a dinner between the President of some GOP members of the Senate and it looks like up to 12 Senators will attend.

Both sides are guilty of playing politics instead of legislating.

[grovester]

And the first debt limit standoff was a manufactured crisis. That had been a simple procedural vote for years.

And not making the deal that made it go away would have been irresponsible. I'm very happy to see that the gop have seen that debt limit fights are a losing proposition. Except, it seems they are getting 85 billion in arbitrary cuts. Which will again come around to bite them in the ass.

[chaglang]

And the first debt limit standoff was a manufactured crisis. That had been a simple procedural vote for years.

And not making the deal that made it go away would have been irresponsible. I'm very happy to see that the gop have seen that debt limit fights are a losing proposition. Except, it seems they are getting 85 billion in arbitrary cuts. Which will again come around to bite them in the ass.

That's the manufactured part for me - gop has no problem raising it 12 times, but the 13th time is armageddon. shenanigans!

[grovester]

I guess I'm saying shenanigans aren't commutative, just because the original crisis was manufactured doesn't mean all the resultant situations are. They are just consequences. Calling them all equally manufactured just gives the GOP an undeserved pass. One of the GOP's game plans the past few years is to lump their obstructionism as "just regular politics". It's not.

[aknowledgeableperson]

And the first debt limit standoff was a manufactured crisis. That had been a simple procedural vote for years.

I am not sure how you define "simple" but it was not routine. Even Obama voted against an increase when he was a Senator.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/...obamas ... aa8cf8c4-5...

“I think if you look at the history, getting votes for the debt ceiling is always difficult, and budgets in this town are always difficult.”

— President Obama, news conference, Jan. 14, 2013

“The fact that we are here today to debate raising America’s debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. It is a sign that the U.S. government can’t pay its own bills. ... I therefore intend to oppose the effort to increase America’s debt limit.”

— Then-Sen. Barack Obama, floor speech in the Senate, March 16, 2006



As the saying goes, “where you stand depends on where you sit.” This is certainly true of the votes to boost the national debt limit, where almost by tradition, the party not holding the presidency refused to support an increase in the debt limit. (One big exception, as we have noted, is in 1953 during the Eisenhower presidency.)

The president has acknowledged that his previous vote against the debt limit was “a political vote.” On Monday, at a news conference, he urged lawmakers to boost the debt limit without conditions: “We’re going to have to make sure that people are looking at this in a responsible way, rather than just through the lens of politics.” (In other words, don’t do what I did back when I was a lawmaker.)

The vote in 2006

The increase in the debt limit passed on a vote of 52 to 48, with a handful of Republicans joining all Democrats (including then-Senators Joe Biden and Hillary Rodham Clinton) in opposition.

[grovester]

Simple procedural votes were the perfect forum for principled grandstanding as long as there was no chance of it not passing. Times have changed.

[aknowledgeableperson]

Say that after the vote. If it passes then what the GOP is doing now is politics as usual.

Times have not changed, just what sides the political parties are on.

[KCMax]

Meeting in the middle is hard these days since the issues are mainly defined as for or against. Much like slavery 150 years ago there is little middle ground in wanting higher taxes or not, cutting the budget or not, abortion or not, gay marriage or not, entitlement reform or not. Immigration reform offers the best chance of some sort of bi-partisan agreement except for the issue of amnesty.

Of course there is middle ground on taxes and the budget. Its not like the GOP is saying there should be NO taxes and Dems say the tax rates should be 100%. We're talking about 39% vs. 36% on the top 1%. We're talking about mortgage interest deductions vs. earned income tax credits. On the budget we're talking about a $500 million cut to defense vs. a $300 million cut to defense. With Medicare you have a ton of options - means testing, CCPI, raising the age, raising the cap on premium taxes, cutting benefits. There's tons of middle ground here.

I agree the social issues tend to be more binary, but you can even find middle ground on that. Like in Kansas, people still oppose gay marriage. But 64% in a recent poll approve of gay civil unions. Seems to be a decent middle ground for now.

[pash]

.

[aknowledgeableperson]

Of course there is middle ground on taxes and the budget. Its not like the GOP is saying there should be NO taxes and Dems say the tax rates should be 100%. We're talking about 39% vs. 36% on the top 1%. We're talking about mortgage interest deductions vs. earned income tax credits. On the budget we're talking about a $500 million cut to defense vs. a $300 million cut to defense. With Medicare you have a ton of options - means testing, CCPI, raising the age, raising the cap on premium taxes, cutting benefits. There's tons of middle ground here.

I agree the social issues tend to be more binary, but you can even find middle ground on that. Like in Kansas, people still oppose gay marriage. But 64% in a recent poll approve of gay civil unions. Seems to be a decent middle ground for now.

Yes, there are middle grounds on taxes and the budget, but only if you are willing to give ground. For example if one thinks the tax rates are already high enough than why vote to increase?

With regards to gay marriage civil unions might have worked 10 years ago but the cat is already out of the bag so gay unions is not a back up position (but then maybe a gay person would be a better person to answer that).

[mean]

Yes, there are middle grounds on taxes and the budget, but only if you are willing to give ground. For example if one thinks the tax rates are already high enough than why vote to increase?

Because sometimes doing something, even if it is something you have a policy disagreement with, results in a better outcome for the people you supposedly serve than doing nothing.

I just don't understand what the republicans are thinking here. I reject outright the idea that this is some principled stand against taxation. It's fear of losing office. But is sequestration really better for them in that regard? I can't see how it is.

[aknowledgeableperson]

But is sequestration really better for them in that regard? I can't see how it is.

Have read a few articles lately about sequestration and politics. In short there are two ways to lower the deficit. One is to raise taxes. The other is to cut spending. Of course one could do both but the point is to lower the deficit you have to deal with taxes/spending. To make it personal, for many individuals/families for these past few years they have had to deal with flat or lower incomes. So to make a go of it they have had to reduce spending. And they feel if they can/had to reduce their spending, and in many instances their local and state governments have reduced spending, why can't the federal government?

So, yes, the elected officials can see a benefit to the lower spending.

Every politician has to make a choice (of course this is one of many). Do I represent those that elected me and vote the way they want me to or did they elect me to make my decisions as I see fit?

[chaglang]

To make it personal, for many individuals/families for these past few years they have had to deal with flat or lower incomes. So to make a go of it they have had to reduce spending. And they feel if they can/had to reduce their spending, and in many instances their local and state governments have reduced spending, why can't the federal government?

There's a great argument that Americans were living way the bleep outside of their means for years, and "making a go of it" really only entails spending the money they earn. Not a heroic concept. But this is where the pernicious "we should run the government like a (business/household)" falsehood has gotten us. Governments operate in a fundamentally different manner than my household or the Quickie Mart down the street, but that matters little to some #tcot tweeting schlub who cancels his Netflix subscription to save money and then bitches that the government still funds AFDC.

Also, state and local governments have not reduced spending. It's plateaued Missouri and Kansas, but that was only in the last 2 years or so. And if I had to guess it was because the stimulus money stopped coming in.
Source: http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/

[grovester]

That is the big lie, the same folks who insist they live within their means are paying on a mortgage their entire life. OMG THE DEBT!!!!

[aknowledgeableperson]

Yes, those may be your feelings and there is some accuracy to those statements but consider that almost half of the workforce live paycheck-to-paycheck and over 40% are trying to stay current on their bills and try to avoid excessive debts and bankruptcy (survey from NetCredit).
And to add to those numbers there are many retirees who did retire with the idea that interest from their investments will help supplement their income, and we all know what interest rates are now.

Whether they are right or wrong with their thoughts and beliefs they do express their thoughts and beliefs and they do vote. Pols have to listen to them as well and take their opinions into account.

[chaglang]

Actually, the interest rates would matter little to retirees. Standard advice for years has been to move into bonds as you get closer to retirement. The overall balance of their investments would have dipped in 2008-09, but unless they panic-sold the market is back where it was and they should be fine. Very few people have enough money to live solely off the interest their investments generate.

I would have an easier time letting people go on with their thoughts and beliefs if that particular line of fallaciousness wasn't prepackaged and sold on the 8s on every AM radio station across the country.

[aknowledgeableperson]

Guess you do not do much reading. Low interest rates have hurt many retirees. Instead of bonds many stayed with CD's for various reasons. As those CD's matured the interest rates were lowered. Those CD's were their investments. Ownership of stocks, having investment accounts, investing in mutual funds are recent choices for many 'common' folk. The establishment of IRA's jump started these investment opportunities. And for many of the 'common' folk, including myself, those first IRA investments were in CD's especially since you could start with a small amount, no commissions or loads were paid, and it was as easy as just going to where you bank.

With regards to state and local expenditures for many jurisdictions there has been revenue, and therefore expenditure, growth but that revenue growth rate was less than the growth rate of expenses resulting in cuts. Look at the annual budget cuts/problems KCMO had for many years that was avoided only recently with a tax increase. The headlines in the past were full for years of this state or that state having budget problems with layoffs and pay freezes and that was before the stimulus.

[KCMax]

Yes, there are middle grounds on taxes and the budget, but only if you are willing to give ground.

Correct. That is why its called "middle ground."

Do I represent those that elected me and vote the way they want me to or did they elect me to make my decisions as I see fit?

Well, the politicians will have to vote the way they want to, because the voters want the impossible. In polling, voters want to see the deficit reduced, taxes to go down, and spending to remain unchanged or go up.

[aknowledgeableperson]

Ashley Judd vs McConnell???????????????????????????????????????

[chaglang]

Ashley Judd vs McConnell???????????????????????????????????????

Only if Morgan Freeman does the voiceover.