Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

"Super-committee" headed for imminent failure.

Market down 300 already today.

U.S. credit rating to be knocked down another level or two.

Congress busy trying to assure re-districting set to stack deck towards re-election.

Obama providing staunch leadership.

Campaign 469 never sounded better!

I can't believe that anyone is honestly surprised by this result, given the way the "supercommittee" was staffed in the first place.

Ivytalk wrote:I can't believe that anyone is honestly surprised by this result, given the way the "supercommittee" was staffed in the first place.

I'm not. It's extremely pathetic. ANd of course, these people want our vote on election day. Why should we? They can't work with each other. Let's give someone else a chance.

Politicians already trying to line up votes for legislation to block some of the automatic cuts.

bluehenbillk wrote:"Congress busy trying to assure re-districting set to stack deck towards re-election.

To me, this is the single biggest problem in american politics - districts are drawn to reinsure reelection, not competitive districts.

Cluck U wrote:Politicians already trying to line up votes for legislation to block some of the automatic cuts.

Our congress is such an embarassment.

dbackjon wrote:

bluehenbillk wrote:"Congress busy trying to assure re-districting set to stack deck towards re-election.

To me, this is the single biggest problem in american politics - districts are drawn to reinsure reelection, not competitive districts.

i disagree... the only thing worse than the careerism we have in politics - would be amateur hour.

an overabundance of swing districts would create a shitload of freshman legislators EVERY cycle... because if there is one thing that is EASY to do - it's take down a swing-district freshman Congressperson by cherry-picking a few committee votes with unexpected consequences and burying them for them.

What is truly embarrassing in all of this is the slavish devotion to one lobbyist being shown by an entire political party.

Make no mistake - all of this falls at the feet of one American: Grover Norquist.

TwinTownBisonFan wrote:

dbackjon wrote:

To me, this is the single biggest problem in american politics - districts are drawn to reinsure reelection, not competitive districts.

i disagree... the only thing worse than the careerism we have in politics - would be amateur hour.

an overabundance of swing districts would create a shitload of freshman legislators EVERY cycle... because if there is one thing that is EASY to do - it's take down a swing-district freshman Congressperson by cherry-picking a few committee votes with unexpected consequences and burying them for them.

Not this.

TwinTownBisonFan wrote:What is truly embarrassing in all of this is the slavish devotion to one lobbyist being shown by an entire political party.

Make no mistake - all of this falls at the feet of one American: Grover Norquist.

Spoken like a true political operative. Sure he's a problem, but the problem has existed for years and years now and certainly didn't start with him. The problem is bigger and deeper than one guy.

TwinTownBisonFan wrote:

dbackjon wrote:

To me, this is the single biggest problem in american politics - districts are drawn to reinsure reelection, not competitive districts.

i disagree... the only thing worse than the careerism we have in politics - would be amateur hour.

Right. As if the "professionals" are doing such a great job.

GannonFan wrote:

TwinTownBisonFan wrote:What is truly embarrassing in all of this is the slavish devotion to one lobbyist being shown by an entire political party.

Make no mistake - all of this falls at the feet of one American: Grover Norquist.

Spoken like a true political operative. Sure he's a problem, but the problem has existed for years and years now and certainly didn't start with him. The problem is bigger and deeper than one guy.

20 years ago conservatives were willing to accept a balance of tax increases and spending cuts - and that compromise led to an incredible economic expansion throughout the 90's.

their anti-tax obsession is the ONLY reason we're in this mess. The Dems have been more than willing to compromise and make hard choices (that are unpopular with their base I might add) - but the GOP literally WILL NOT compromise - and the reason? They either a) live in fear of Norquist and his toadies... or b) they ARE the toadies.

TwinTownBisonFan wrote:

GannonFan wrote:
Spoken like a true political operative. Sure he's a problem, but the problem has existed for years and years now and certainly didn't start with him. The problem is bigger and deeper than one guy.

20 years ago conservatives were willing to accept a balance of tax increases and spending cuts - and that compromise led to an incredible economic expansion throughout the 90's.

their anti-tax obsession is the ONLY reason we're in this mess. The Dems have been more than willing to compromise and make hard choices (that are unpopular with their base I might add) - but the GOP literally WILL NOT compromise - and the reason? They either a) live in fear of Norquist and his toadies... or b) they ARE the toadies.

Spoken like a true Democrat. Hey, at least your steadfast in your political partisanship. As an Independent, though, I see plenty of blame to go around when it comes to both parties. Democrats and Republicans have walked hand in hand into the mess on this one.

GannonFan wrote:

TwinTownBisonFan wrote:
20 years ago conservatives were willing to accept a balance of tax increases and spending cuts - and that compromise led to an incredible economic expansion throughout the 90's.

their anti-tax obsession is the ONLY reason we're in this mess. The Dems have been more than willing to compromise and make hard choices (that are unpopular with their base I might add) - but the GOP literally WILL NOT compromise - and the reason? They either a) live in fear of Norquist and his toadies... or b) they ARE the toadies.

Spoken like a true Democrat. Hey, at least your steadfast in your political partisanship. As an Independent, though, I see plenty of blame to go around when it comes to both parties. Democrats and Republicans have walked hand in hand into the mess on this one.

Bullshit. Not this time. The Dems have given and given on this... hell, the damn supercommittee exists because the Dems gave in in the first damn place.

It's easier to just do the "a pox on both their houses" and seem above it all and sanctimonious about it - but it's just not the case at this point. The GOP is REFUSING to compromise... the most charitable explanation for which is their obsessive devotion to never ever raising revenues... the hacky-er explanation is that they are playing chicken with our entire country in an attempt to weaken the President... because they are just that cynical. (i tend to think it's more of the former...)

TwinTownBisonFan wrote:

GannonFan wrote:
Spoken like a true political operative. Sure he's a problem, but the problem has existed for years and years now and certainly didn't start with him. The problem is bigger and deeper than one guy.

20 years ago conservatives were willing to accept a balance of tax increases and spending cuts - and that compromise led to an incredible economic expansion throughout the 90's.

their anti-tax obsession is the ONLY reason we're in this mess. The Dems have been more than willing to compromise and make hard choices (that are unpopular with their base I might add) - but the GOP literally WILL NOT compromise - and the reason? They either a) live in fear of Norquist and his toadies... or b) they ARE the toadies.

In 1990 Federal Government Spending was approx. $1253 billion. In 2010 Federal Government Spending was approx. $3721 billion, an increase of approx. 3 times.

During the same time period GDP grew from approx. $5801 billion in 1990 to $14552 billion in 2010, an increase of approximately 2.5 times.

Federal spending as a % of GDP went from 21.6% in 1990 to 18.1% in 2000 to 25.6% in 2010, out stripping economic growth and the ability of the country to pay for government spending, that is why thinking people are focusing on cutting spending first...

Democrats and Republicans be damned. I could care less about either. I am a taxpayer and as a taxpayer I am unwilling to send another red cent, or blue cent if you will, to Washington until all of those clowns demonstrate a willingness to spend less of my money. I know perfectly well that if I send in an additional dollar they will find some new program on which to spend it. A pox on the lot of them.

TwinTownBisonFan wrote:

GannonFan wrote:
Spoken like a true Democrat. Hey, at least your steadfast in your political partisanship. As an Independent, though, I see plenty of blame to go around when it comes to both parties. Democrats and Republicans have walked hand in hand into the mess on this one.

Bullshit. Not this time. The Dems have given and given on this... hell, the damn supercommittee exists because the Dems gave in in the first damn place.

It's easier to just do the "a pox on both their houses" and seem above it all and sanctimonious about it - but it's just not the case at this point. The GOP is REFUSING to compromise... the most charitable explanation for which is their obsessive devotion to never ever raising revenues... the hacky-er explanation is that they are playing chicken with our entire country in an attempt to weaken the President... because they are just that cynical. (i tend to think it's more of the former...)

This is the group chanting "We Want More!" right? More of what? Oh right, my tax dollars...

TwinTownBisonFan wrote:

dbackjon wrote:

To me, this is the single biggest problem in american politics - districts are drawn to reinsure reelection, not competitive districts.

i disagree... the only thing worse than the careerism we have in politics - would be amateur hour.

Spoken by one of the people who made a living creating this problem.

Peter Schweizer is correct. Washington is a company town...party is irrelevant. Participants make a living creating political fodder over which they waste taxpayer dollars bickering to create theater.

Throw out all elected officials.

Fire all career bureaucrats.

When term limits were instituted in CA, the same scare tactics were used by the professional obfuscators.

The only negative aspects were the faux govt. jobs created for the termed-out leaders: All failures which have polluted our nation's legislative bodies.

I don't advocate term-limits in Congress, but this current Congressional leadership is largely responsible for our nation's decline. Furthermore, they're doing NOTHING to resolve the problems, and in fact, their failure to produce is hastening our economic collapse.

Vote them all out.

Every one.

Out!

TwinTownBisonFan wrote:

dbackjon wrote:

To me, this is the single biggest problem in american politics - districts are drawn to reinsure reelection, not competitive districts.

i disagree... the only thing worse than the careerism we have in politics - would be amateur hour.

an overabundance of swing districts would create a shitload of freshman legislators EVERY cycle... because if there is one thing that is EASY to do - it's take down a swing-district freshman Congressperson by cherry-picking a few committee votes with unexpected consequences and burying them for them.

Spoken like a true insider.

So you prefer to have the districts drawn the way many are - with so many that are so safe that the only races are in the primaries - where the extremists from each side dominant - leading to extreme ideologues that are beholded only to the fringes.

TwinTownBisonFan wrote:

GannonFan wrote:
Spoken like a true Democrat. Hey, at least your steadfast in your political partisanship. As an Independent, though, I see plenty of blame to go around when it comes to both parties. Democrats and Republicans have walked hand in hand into the mess on this one.

Bullshit. Not this time. The Dems have given and given on this... hell, the damn supercommittee exists because the Dems gave in in the first damn place.

It's easier to just do the "a pox on both their houses" and seem above it all and sanctimonious about it - but it's just not the case at this point. The GOP is REFUSING to compromise... the most charitable explanation for which is their obsessive devotion to never ever raising revenues... the hacky-er explanation is that they are playing chicken with our entire country in an attempt to weaken the President... because they are just that cynical. (i tend to think it's more of the former...)

No, it is this time. Take off the blue-tinted glasses. Like the other poster said, spending is way, way, way up. What have the Dems given? So far just to agree to limit the rate of growth of spending. How's that a give back? You jack up spending way beyond where it's normally been, agree to reduce it a hair going forward, and you still end up with record spending levels going forward. Doesn't seem like any ground is being given.

And as for the political posturing, it goes two ways. Obama choosing not to be a part of this (despite that being his normal mode of operation, ala the sit back and let Congress figure it out plan that worked so "well" with the health care fiasco) is his way of making sure that Congress gets the brunt of criticism and blame for this not working. It works great for Dems because first term Republicans will be the likely political losers in this and that's great come election time.

Anyway you slice it, both parties are doing their best to look out for their own electoral interests, regardless if it hurts the voters that are trying to sway in the first place. You're a self-professed political operative - it's almost in your blood to solely focus on the political fortunes of your particular political party - I'm not surprise of your take in this.

dbackjon wrote:

TwinTownBisonFan wrote:
i disagree... the only thing worse than the careerism we have in politics - would be amateur hour.

an overabundance of swing districts would create a shitload of freshman legislators EVERY cycle... because if there is one thing that is EASY to do - it's take down a swing-district freshman Congressperson by cherry-picking a few committee votes with unexpected consequences and burying them for them.

Spoken like a true insider.

So you prefer to have the districts drawn the way many are - with so many that are so safe that the only races are in the primaries - where the extremists from each side dominant - leading to extreme ideologues that are beholded only to the fringes.

you think politicians avoid the big problems now?!? wait until every damn one of them has a big re-election fight on their hands... you think money is to prevalent in politics now?!? wait until they all have to buy TV ads. you think, as a guy who has made my living running candidates in competitive districts, that I wouldn't prefer a couple more potential places to work every two years?!? you've got to be kidding. If we went with super-competitive districts like that - I'd be in the freaking clover... but what would result is even more gridlock, as everyone would be terrified to make any big decisions and actually lead... it's bad now... but it would be so much worse in the scenario you describe.

dbackjon wrote:

TwinTownBisonFan wrote:
i disagree... the only thing worse than the careerism we have in politics - would be amateur hour.

an overabundance of swing districts would create a shitload of freshman legislators EVERY cycle... because if there is one thing that is EASY to do - it's take down a swing-district freshman Congressperson by cherry-picking a few committee votes with unexpected consequences and burying them for them.

Spoken like a true insider.

So you prefer to have the districts drawn the way many are - with so many that are so safe that the only races are in the primaries - where the extremists from each side dominant - leading to extreme ideologues that are beholded only to the fringes.

Yup, sounds that way. Can't ever imagine someone trying to extol the virtues of not having to run for office every election and rather rest comfortably knowing no matter what you do in your job, you're safe because of the letter at the end of your name designating your party. Win it on merit or not at all should be the way to go - political parties get in the way of that.

TwinTownBisonFan wrote:

dbackjon wrote:

Spoken like a true insider.

So you prefer to have the districts drawn the way many are - with so many that are so safe that the only races are in the primaries - where the extremists from each side dominant - leading to extreme ideologues that are beholded only to the fringes.

you think politicians avoid the big problems now?!? wait until every damn one of them has a big re-election fight on their hands... you think money is to prevalent in politics now?!? wait until they all have to buy TV ads. you think, as a guy who has made my living running candidates in competitive districts, that I wouldn't prefer a couple more potential places to work every two years?!? you've got to be kidding. If we went with super-competitive districts like that - I'd be in the freaking clover... but what would result is even more gridlock, as everyone would be terrified to make any big decisions and actually lead... it's bad now... but it would be so much worse in the scenario you describe.

Scare

Tactic

There are no American political historical situations to support your assertion.

You are attempting to protect your friends and former employers.

Next.

GannonFan wrote:

dbackjon wrote:

Spoken like a true insider.

So you prefer to have the districts drawn the way many are - with so many that are so safe that the only races are in the primaries - where the extremists from each side dominant - leading to extreme ideologues that are beholded only to the fringes.

Yup, sounds that way. Can't ever imagine someone trying to extol the virtues of not having to run for office every election and rather rest comfortably knowing no matter what you do in your job, you're safe because of the letter at the end of your name designating your party. Win it on merit or not at all should be the way to go - political parties get in the way of that.

you see it that way - i see it as a problem of changing directions too frequently. a lack of stability leads to vacillating between one direction and another... swing voters - or at least fickle partisans who sit out some elections - are the cause... they don't know what they want, so they get what we've got...

Interesting - Me, TravMan and GannonFan agreeing on something