Hold on Tight!!

[TwinTownBisonFan]

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.

scare tactic? how so? you make 435 members of congress have to run the way that the maybe 50-60 "swing seats" have to, and what you'll end up with is exactly what i described. you think all they do now is fundraise? i promise you, if all the seats were toss-ups, they might never leave their call time rooms. that's the reality. if they had to buy tv ads - especially in expensive markets - they'd need to raise 2-4 million to run and win - and that would go up quickly.

when you work for a swing district member - EVERY vote is a political calculation - and all you do is raise money. if all of the members had to think like that - they'd hunker down and defer every big decision. nothing would ever be voted on that could possibly hurt them - because they are always too close to the next election.

[LeadBolt]

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...

So perhaps BHO should have stayed the course and not tried to bring about change???

[TwinTownBisonFan]

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...

So perhaps BHO should have stayed the course and not tried to bring about change???

clever - but not the point at all. Obama had 2 years - the country then lurched again in another direction... the problem, frankly isn't the direction of one party or another per-se, but rather the lunging back and forth.

[LeadBolt]

So perhaps BHO should have stayed the course and not tried to bring about change???

clever - but not the point at all. Obama had 2 years - the country then lurched again in another direction... the problem, frankly isn't the direction of one party or another per-se, but rather the lunging back and forth.

So to recap your argument, change in your direction is good, change in the opposite direction is bad...

[TwinTownBisonFan]

clever - but not the point at all. Obama had 2 years - the country then lurched again in another direction... the problem, frankly isn't the direction of one party or another per-se, but rather the lunging back and forth.

So to recap your argument, change in your direction is good, change in the opposite direction is bad...

no.

to recap my argument: stability is preferable to chaos, change can be good - but should be measured and any large changes should take time to avoid shocks to the system, while it's easy and convenient to say "throw them all out" such a sentiment I believe ignores the consequences of such thinking.

while I believe wave elections are fine... they are not desirable every two years - no matter the direction.

[kalm]

I hate defending the Democrats or Obama, but 1/3 of the bailout being tax cuts was a compromise, further entrenching for-profit health insurance companies was a compromise, and extending the Bush tax cuts was a compromise. And that's not to mention the wild swing to the right in general that both parties have made over the past couple of decades. If they were alive today, Teddy Roosevelt would be Green Party and Eisenhower would causcus with the congressional progressive caucus.

Taxes are at the lowest rate since the 1920's. TTBF was right about Grover Norquist.

[GannonFan]

So to recap your argument, change in your direction is good, change in the opposite direction is bad...

no.

to recap my argument: stability is preferable to chaos, change can be good - but should be measured and any large changes should take time to avoid shocks to the system, while it's easy and convenient to say "throw them all out" such a sentiment I believe ignores the consequences of such thinking.

while I believe wave elections are fine... they are not desirable every two years - no matter the direction.

Hence why the Senate only changes completely over a 6 year period and the Presidency every 4. The House has always been designed to be reflective of rapid change, if needed. If those elected could show a better track record, we wouldn't turn people out every 2 years. Stability is acheived through doing your job well - we just aren't seeing enough of that right now.

[89Hen]

I hate defending the Democrats or Obama

Still working on that street cred I see.

[GannonFan]

I hate defending the Democrats or Obama, but 1/3 of the bailout being tax cuts was a compromise, further entrenching for-profit health insurance companies was a compromise, and extending the Bush tax cuts was a compromise. And that's not to mention the wild swing to the right in general that both parties have made over the past couple of decades. If they were alive today, Teddy Roosevelt would be Green Party and Eisenhower would causcus with the congressional progressive caucus.

Taxes are at the lowest rate since the 1920's. TTBF was right about Grover Norquist.

1/3 of the bailout being tax cuts were not really a compromise - again, those were all short term tax cuts that were the equivalent of Bush's handing out of $500 checks to every one. A quick surge in money supply that didn't work the last time and obviously didn't work this time either. Just calling them tax cuts and saying they were a compromise doesn't make them so. I'm pretty sure the GOP is in favor of more permanent tax cuts, not the quick Keynesian money supply version. Same with the Bush-era tax cuts - extending them for two years with the promise of higher rates thereafter is the same thing.

[TwinTownBisonFan]

no.

to recap my argument: stability is preferable to chaos, change can be good - but should be measured and any large changes should take time to avoid shocks to the system, while it's easy and convenient to say "throw them all out" such a sentiment I believe ignores the consequences of such thinking.

while I believe wave elections are fine... they are not desirable every two years - no matter the direction.

Hence why the Senate only changes completely over a 6 year period and the Presidency every 4. The House has always been designed to be reflective of rapid change, if needed. If those elected could show a better track record, we wouldn't turn people out every 2 years. Stability is acheived through doing your job well - we just aren't seeing enough of that right now.

I'm not saying the elections for the House shouldn't be every four years - they should be, they are a pressure valve... my point is that with only 50-60 potential swing seats, we already have problems... you make 400+ seats that way, and you won't get anything resembling continuity of government...

the problem with the "doing your job well" argument is that it doesn't correspond with reality. "doing your job well" means what exactly? Doing what people want? because, let me tell ya, if the results of the last two elections have established anything, it's that a decent segment of the population don't know what the fuck they want. or is it making hard decisions and leading? if that's the case, anyone making those decisions is bound to make enemies and be a target, and likely defeated for re-election - even if they do "a good job"

[kalm]

I hate defending the Democrats or Obama

Still working on that street cred I see.

Conks live on lanes, places, courts, not streets.

[GannonFan]

Hence why the Senate only changes completely over a 6 year period and the Presidency every 4. The House has always been designed to be reflective of rapid change, if needed. If those elected could show a better track record, we wouldn't turn people out every 2 years. Stability is acheived through doing your job well - we just aren't seeing enough of that right now.

I'm not saying the elections for the House shouldn't be every four years - they should be, they are a pressure valve... my point is that with only 50-60 potential swing seats, we already have problems... you make 400+ seats that way, and you won't get anything resembling continuity of government...

the problem with the "doing your job well" argument is that it doesn't correspond with reality. "doing your job well" means what exactly? Doing what people want? because, let me tell ya, if the results of the last two elections have established anything, it's that a decent segment of the population don't know what the **** they want. or is it making hard decisions and leading? if that's the case, anyone making those decisions is bound to make enemies and be a target, and likely defeated for re-election - even if they do "a good job"

Darn those pesky voters getting in the way of government. They should just stay home and let the politicos figure it all out.

[TwinTownBisonFan]

I'm not saying the elections for the House shouldn't be every four years - they should be, they are a pressure valve... my point is that with only 50-60 potential swing seats, we already have problems... you make 400+ seats that way, and you won't get anything resembling continuity of government...

the problem with the "doing your job well" argument is that it doesn't correspond with reality. "doing your job well" means what exactly? Doing what people want? because, let me tell ya, if the results of the last two elections have established anything, it's that a decent segment of the population don't know what the **** they want. or is it making hard decisions and leading? if that's the case, anyone making those decisions is bound to make enemies and be a target, and likely defeated for re-election - even if they do "a good job"

Darn those pesky voters getting in the way of government. They should just stay home and let the politicos figure it all out.

delightfully glib, but it doesn't change my point.

[kalm]

I hate defending the Democrats or Obama, but 1/3 of the bailout being tax cuts was a compromise, further entrenching for-profit health insurance companies was a compromise, and extending the Bush tax cuts was a compromise. And that's not to mention the wild swing to the right in general that both parties have made over the past couple of decades. If they were alive today, Teddy Roosevelt would be Green Party and Eisenhower would causcus with the congressional progressive caucus.

Taxes are at the lowest rate since the 1920's. TTBF was right about Grover Norquist.

1/3 of the bailout being tax cuts were not really a compromise - again, those were all short term tax cuts that were the equivalent of Bush's handing out of $500 checks to every one. A quick surge in money supply that didn't work the last time and obviously didn't work this time either. Just calling them tax cuts and saying they were a compromise doesn't make them so. I'm pretty sure the GOP is in favor of more permanent tax cuts, not the quick Keynesian money supply version. Same with the Bush-era tax cuts - extending them for two years with the promise of higher rates thereafter is the same thing.

Spoken like a self proclaimed "independent".

[grizzaholic]

Still working on that street cred I see.

Conks live on lanes, places, courts, not streets.

What about those who live on lakes?

[GannonFan]

1/3 of the bailout being tax cuts were not really a compromise - again, those were all short term tax cuts that were the equivalent of Bush's handing out of $500 checks to every one. A quick surge in money supply that didn't work the last time and obviously didn't work this time either. Just calling them tax cuts and saying they were a compromise doesn't make them so. I'm pretty sure the GOP is in favor of more permanent tax cuts, not the quick Keynesian money supply version. Same with the Bush-era tax cuts - extending them for two years with the promise of higher rates thereafter is the same thing.

Spoken like a self proclaimed "independent".

Thanks - I take pride in being independent. You should try it - much better than being beholden to one particular party. It's nice, you can pick and choose what each party is right about without being saddled with what they are each wrong about. Don't be afraid, it is possible.

[GannonFan]

Darn those pesky voters getting in the way of government. They should just stay home and let the politicos figure it all out.

delightfully glib, but it doesn't change my point.

Oh, I know, you still want voters to get out of the way. I get it.

[kalm]

Conks live on lanes, places, courts, not streets.

What about those who live on lakes?

Unless it's boat in only, you may not qualify.

[kalm]

Spoken like a self proclaimed "independent".

Thanks - I take pride in being independent. You should try it - much better than being beholden to one particular party. It's nice, you can pick and choose what each party is right about without being saddled with what they are each wrong about. Don't be afraid, it is possible.

Party independence ain't the same as open mindedness their spunky but nice try.

[GannonFan]

Thanks - I take pride in being independent. You should try it - much better than being beholden to one particular party. It's nice, you can pick and choose what each party is right about without being saddled with what they are each wrong about. Don't be afraid, it is possible.

Party independence ain't the same as open mindedness their spunky but nice try.

I'm very open minded - go ahead, try to explain why a short term tax cut with a looming tax increase should be considered the same as a more permanent tax cut in terms of its effect on both short term and long term behavior. I'm ready and willing to listen. Go ahead sparky.

[AZGrizFan]

Scare

Tactic

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

You are attempting to protect your friends and former employers.

Next.

scare tactic? how so? you make 435 members of congress have to run the way that the maybe 50-60 "swing seats" have to, and what you'll end up with is exactly what i described. you think all they do now is fundraise? i promise you, if all the seats were toss-ups, they might never leave their call time rooms. that's the reality. if they had to buy tv ads - especially in expensive markets - they'd need to raise 2-4 million to run and win - and that would go up quickly.

when you work for a swing district member - EVERY vote is a political calculation - and all you do is raise money. if all of the members had to think like that - they'd hunker down and defer every big decision. nothing would ever be voted on that could possibly hurt them - because they are always too close to the next election.

Perfect. Then we wouldn't have Obamacare, we wouldn't have any of the wasted stimulus packages, etc., etc.

[kalm]

Party independence ain't the same as open mindedness their spunky but nice try.

I'm very open minded - go ahead, try to explain why a short term tax cut with a looming tax increase should be considered the same as a more permanent tax cut in terms of its effect on both short term and long term behavior. I'm ready and willing to listen. Go ahead sparky.

I would if that was my assertion. But is wasn't, so I won't.

Democrats have put over a trillion in spending cuts on the table. Perhaps I missed the part where any Republican has suggested tax increases.

[GannonFan]

I'm very open minded - go ahead, try to explain why a short term tax cut with a looming tax increase should be considered the same as a more permanent tax cut in terms of its effect on both short term and long term behavior. I'm ready and willing to listen. Go ahead sparky.

I would if that was my assertion. But is wasn't, so I won't.

Democrats have put over a trillion in spending cuts on the table. Perhaps I missed the part where any Republican has suggested tax increases.

Spending cuts aren't the same as reducing the rate of spending increases, especially when you base them on already inflated spending benchmarks. If that were the case, I'll tell my wife I'm going to cut my spending next year, but only after I buy a new car, a new TV, etc, this year. Year on year, I'll definitely see a spending cut next year!

[TwinTownBisonFan]

I would if that was my assertion. But is wasn't, so I won't.

Democrats have put over a trillion in spending cuts on the table. Perhaps I missed the part where any Republican has suggested tax increases.

Spending cuts aren't the same as reducing the rate of spending increases, especially when you base them on already inflated spending benchmarks. If that were the case, I'll tell my wife I'm going to cut my spending next year, but only after I buy a new car, a new TV, etc, this year. Year on year, I'll definitely see a spending cut next year!

my favorite tired trope federal budget = my home budget...

[CAA Flagship]

I thought this thread would be about anal sex.

And I was right.