Announcement

Collapse

Forum Rules - You must read(Updated!)

DISCLAIMER

You agree to NOT use this site or its affiliated sites, services you may have access to as a result of being a member here (subscriber or otherwise), to post items (images, textual material, etc.) that are pornographic in nature, illegal in the United States and/or the country you reside in, support or encourage illegal activities (e.g., terrorism), advertise for your own personal profit, or send unsolicited messages (i.e. SPAM) to members or non-members.

AND

You agree that if any clause or component of this document is found to not be legally binding in a court of law of proper jurisdiction then the remainder of this document shall remain fully binding and in full force.

AND

You agree to NOT hold Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd. (makers of the forum software), uspoliticsonline.com, sites affiliated with uspoliticsonline.com, its administrators, its moderators, others associated with its operation, and its owners liable for any and all of the following (in whole or in part):
Personal insults/attacks by other members.
The content posted by other members, whether directed at you personally or a label/classification you associate with. This includes remarks you consider to be libelous or slanderous in any way.
Any financial or time loss due to your participation here or as a result of something you read at this site, including posts/PMs by other members and feature(s)/software available at the domain uspoliticsonline.com.
The dissemination of any personal information about you as a result of either your negligence (e.g. staying logged into a computer that others have access to) or willingness to post such information on a public and or private forum, private message or chat box. This includes using your real name or other details that could allow other members and/or the general public to determine your true identity. You are prohibited from using your real name on these forums, either as your username or in posts / PMs you write.

FORUM RULES, IN ADDITION TO THE DISCLAIMER

1. These rules apply to all sections of USPOL, including public and private forums, blogs, and visitor messages.

2. You cannot attack and/or personally insult someone. You cannot bait other forum members; this includes referring to posters by derogatory terms. Please, remain courteous and respectful to all forum members at all times. You agree to take responsibility for reporting such posts when you come across them. Please, use the ignore feature if need be. Any member who intentionally and continually posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages with the primary intent of provoking readers into an emotional response, or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion, may be regarded as a “troll” by staff, and have their account suspended or banned.

3. You cannot harass (sexually or otherwise) other members. This includes malicious, slanderous, or defamatory comments. If you are not sure if something you write is inappropriate or not then don't say it. Err on the side of caution.

4. Copying and Pasting Articles, and Starting New Threads. You cannot simply cut and paste in posts or when starting threads. You MUST provide the identifying information (source, author, date, and URL). You must also offer some original thoughts along with the cut and paste. You may copy and paste an excerpt or series of excerpts from the article. Excerpts really shouldn’t be more then a paragraph or two. Furthermore, if you use images or other copyrighted material in your posts or signature you must have permission of the copyright holder unless you know for a fact that the image is in the public domain. In addition:
a. It must include the identifying information; e.g., where available, the author, the publication, the date, the URL.
b. The member must offer some context, including: How did you hear of this article? What is your opinion? Why is it important to you? Why should it be important to forum readers? The more context you provide, the more you assist others in gauging the excerpted information's significance.
c. You may copy and paste an excerpt or series of excerpts, not the whole thing or even the majority of the whole thing to encourage people to read the entire article.

A violation of any of the above will result in the deletion or closing of the post or thread and could earn you a warning or suspension. If you have any questions concering any of the above please PM a moderator and we will be happy to clarify.

5. You cannot post the same thing in multiple forums. You must not open similar threads about the same or a similar topic. You cannot spam the board or send unsolicited messages to members via PM, email or any other means.

6. Do not post off-topic. You cannot derail a thread with off topic posts.

7. You cannot shout in posts. This includes posting in all CAPS, bold, lIkE tHiS, and extra large font. Posts should also be one color, although you may use an additional color for highlighting ideas you wish to address.

8. You may not alter quotes in a way that misrepresents what was originally said.

9. Multiple accounts are not allowed. If you are found to have more than one account all accounts will be permanently terminated.

10. You cannot have a user name, avatar, signature, or post images that are deliberately offensive. That includes the display of overly explicit or graphic images that may not be suitable for minors.

11. Signatures can not have more than three lines of text, with a font size no larger than "4", and no more than two font colors. Images in signatures cannot be any larger than 800 pixels wide x 200 pixels tall. Animated images are not allowed.

12. You are prohibited from taking any action to disturb the use of the services by others, distribute material that contains viruses, spyware or any other malicious code or harmful programs. This includes interfering with the working of the network, attempts to gain unauthorized access to a service or other computer systems that are part of the site or any other site, by use of the available services.

13. Discussion of moderation actions in public and/or private forums is not permitted. Moderation actions include warnings, suspensions and the editing or deletion of posts. If a member has a concern about a moderation action, he or she is invited to address it with the board staff via Private Message. This rule exists to protect the privacy of all posters with regards to disciplinary action. The moderator team will never publicly discuss the warnings/suspensions of any posters, and we ask that you return the favor, whether about yourself or another poster. Posting about moderation actions in the public forums constitutes a violation. You are free to discuss a moderation action via Private Message with the moderator involved, but you may not harass or abuse the moderators (as already specified in the forum rules). In practical terms, this means that once a moderator tells you his or her decision is final, no further PMs about that moderation action are permitted. If you have a concern about a moderation action, you are free to appeal to a Forum Administrator via Private Message. You may only discuss moderator activities or discussion of moderation with staff member if you chose to private message and are not under any circumstances allowed to use the PM function to forward or promote moderator discussion in regards to specific forum action, amongst other regular members. Administrators do reserve the right to read said PMs and may do so ; if that results in discovery of messaging between posters of such moderator discussion then it will lead to the same violation being received for discussing said moderator actions on the forum. If you receive a message to the effect of having been given moderator information, please report it to a member of staff. Engaging back in that discussion with the original violator will earn you just as stiff a sanction.

14. Do not ignore moderators or administrators. Do not repost something a moderator or administrator has deleted. You cannot have moderators or administrators on your ignore list.

15. Only post in English. Short passages in foreign languages may be acceptable if its use seems helpful for the ongoing discussion and when there is no indication of a potential violation of the forum rules. Always provide a translation into English in such cases. In case of doubt, the incident will be regarded as a violation, no matter of the actual meaning of the foreign language text.

16. The use of words/comments etc. written by other posters, without approval of the poster in your personal signature is not allowed nor are references, by name, to other posters allowed.

17. Please pay attention to announcements by Forum staff that will be found in the "Welcome! / News & Announcements" forum from time to time.

18. Use of "liar", "lies", "lying", etc. Accusing someone of being a "liar" or similar accusations towards other posters will generally be regarded as implying an insult and therewith as a violation of the forum rules. "I question the validity of your statement because...", "That's not the truth" or "you are wrong about that" are sufficient for any decent discussion if you want to disagree with somebody's assertions.

19. Thread opening restriction for new members. In order to control SPAM, new members must have moderator approval to start their own threads.

20. Thread titles must relate to the discussion within. Do not make misleading titles, or titles such as "Guess what..." or "You'll never believe this...". Members need to be able to identify the general gist of the thread via the title. Profanity in thread titles is not permitted.

21. Forum members are instructed to use forum tools and abilities for their intended purposes and no other. If members identify a forum glitch or weakness of any kind that allows you to see or do something you know you shouldn't, please report it. Being aware of any unintended access to the Forum and failing to take appropriate steps to notify staff of said access issues, will create a presumption of seeking to take advantage of the issue, will result in either account suspension, or banishment.

22. Any link to a site that contains graphic content, must contain a warning describing what a person might reasonably expect to view if they click on said link. No graphic pictures are to be posted on the Forum.

23. Threats or advocations of violence toward a public figure, or member of the Forum, will not be tolerated. Conversation about revolution or the like is not prohibited by this rule; directly calling for violence is, eg “It's time to kill every <redacted> that voted for the bill,” is not permitted.

24. Accounts with no posts will be deleted after 30 days. Inactive accounts with low post histories may be deleted after one year.

25. Private forums are something offered to members that decide to contribute directly to this site via donations. These donations help immensely in keeping this site up and running. Private forums are designed to allow the contributing member discuss whatever he/she wants to and to have the power to direct that discussion in whatever way he/she chose. They were not designed nor are they intended for simply talking trash about members that don't have access to the forum. While the targeted members cannot see the forum or the comments, it creates a negative atmosphere that really isn't necessary. If you want to totally rip apart ideas, ideologies, political parties, etc. that is fine. We simply ask that you don't use the private forums as a means to attack other members that aren't privy to such comments. It is difficult enough to have a political discussion forum because the discussion of politics is inherently heated as people are so passionate about their beliefs...the ones that take the time to come to such a site in the first place at least. The idea of private forums is so people of similar political persuasions can discuss whatever they want without fear of being attacked. Nonetheless, we hope that a certain level of maturity would foster itself within such an arena and not simply lend itself to a bashing forum.

Private Forums are governed by all of the above Forum rules. In addition:
  • Private forums that essentially become abandoned homes will be subject to deletion, donation or reorganization. Just like elsewhere in life, clubs sometimes lose their vitality and purpose for a myriad of reasons. If it becomes clear that a private forum has clearly lost its vitality and nobody is going to really use it anymore, owners are advised to consider whether to reuse the forum for something new and productive rather than let them linger or notify the Administration that the forum should be rearranged for other purposes, closed, merged with other compatible private forums, donated to others for new purposes, etc. Do not be concerned that your forum must be a membership and post count race with others to avoid falling under this policy; the question is whether your forum has actual vitality instead of being 'brain dead.'
  • Additionally, private forums may only be owned by subscribed members in the Platinum or Diamond categories.
  • Should the owner of a private forum be banned, quit USPOL or otherwise abandon the forum the PF will be transferred to another owner or closed.
  • Propriety of private forums. Administration staff will determine the desirability of a proposed private forum and enact any conditions upon it to ensure its purpose is productive.
  • Any and all instances of sharing accounts by allowing someone else to log in under their own account so they can see into private forums for which they are otherwise not permitted to access, will be deemed violation of the double account rule and all caught doing so will be permanently banned.
  • Relaying private forum posts and information to other posters who are not members of the particular private forum for any negative or destructive purpose (eg mean-spirited gossip, fueling interpersonal disputes, etc), is not permitted, and will constitute a violation of the Forum rules.
  • For purposes of monitoring USPOL Terms of Service Administrative staff (not Moderators) will have access to Private Forums.
  • All Private Forums must have at least one active Administrator as a member for purposes of handling issues which cannot be addressed through moderation permissions.
  • Discussion of moderation activities is prohibited on the open site and is likewise prohibited in Private Forums.

26. The administrators and moderators reserve the right to edit and/or delete a post,and/or close a thread, and/or delete a thread at any time if of the opinion that the post is too obscene, inappropriate, or the discussion has run its course.

27. 'Back seat moderating' is not allowed. If you take issue with another poster's contribution to the forum, you're welcome to report any posts you think are out of line, but you should not bring it up publicly within the forum.

28. Images in posts (whether embedded or hot linked) must be reasonable in size. 800x800 should be considered a good rule of thumb. Excessively large images make it difficult for users on mobile devices to load pages. If necessary please simply link to very large images using the URL tags. In addition, the following images are not permitted (including, but not limited to pages with images or videos containing):
  • Strategically covered nudity
  • Sheer or see-through clothing
  • Lewd or provocative poses
  • Close-ups of breasts, buttocks, or crotches

29. Any solicitation or communication involving sports betting / gambling / online casinos / bookies and or internet based card or slot machine systems or sites will lead to all said content being physically removed from the site and server, and will lead to any and or all parties involved being permanently removed and banned from the site to the farthest extent possible. This includes any links to any form of bookmaker, casino, any type of game or match or event where money transfers on the outcome or link of any sort to wire act violations and or anything in violation of either the Internet Gambling Regulation, Consumer Protection, and Enforcement Act, Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006, or the Federal wire Act. This applies not only to the open forum but all and or any chat rooms, articles, private messages and or private forums. All content that violates this rule will be deleted, without notice.

CONSEQUENCES

Failure to comply with any of the forum rules may result in your posts being edited or deleted and/or your account being temporarily or permanently banned from the forums. U.S. Politics Online uses a warning system that generates an automated Private Message to members when they are in violation of Forum rules. The decision to issue a warning is left to the discretion of the moderator or administrator handling the violation. If a member does not agree with an action taken by a moderator, they can appeal to an administrator after seeking clarification from the moderator who issued the warning/infraction and appealing to them in the first instance. Members MAY NOT harass a moderator or administrator by sending excessive PMs when they are discussing an appeal.

Violations are assigned a point value. Points are valid for 30 days. When a members earns 10 points, their account will be automatically suspended: five (5) days for a first suspension; ten (10) days for a second suspension; and twenty (20) days for a third suspension. If a member incurs an additional 10 points after having served three periods of suspension, then they will be permanently banned from the Forum.

Point values are as follows:
Zero (0) points – Warning
Two (2) points - Minor infraction / Non post infraction (minor) / Off topic posts / spamming
Four (4) points - Academic dishonesty / Baiting / Discussing moderator or administrator actions / Implying an insult / Minor insults / Moderate infraction / Non-post infraction (moderate) / Thread dumping
Six (6) points - Direct insult at another member / major infraction / Non-post infraction (major)
Ten (10) points - Act of criminality, or advocating thereof

The administrators and moderators also bear the right to issue warnings, temporarily suspend or ban posters for continued trolling or other serious misconduct (eg. professional spamming) even if the poster has not yet reached the maximum warning points or suspensions level. Other options if the above consequences do not seem adequate include placing the member in a moderation queue, which means all posts will have to be approved before they are posted to the board.

PRIVACY POLICY

All information obtained by the end user via the registration process is for internal purposes only and will not be sold to or shared with any third parties. However, if the end user participates in illegal activities and a court of proper jurisdiction orders U.S. Politics Online to release certain information about said user then we will act according to the law. Furthermore, no information will be released on threat of a lawsuit, attempted or actual intimidation, or due to any other reason except as notated in the first sentence of this paragraph. Nonetheless, keep in mind that the information we do have is very limited and generally only consists of the IP address a member uses.

SUBSCRIPTIONS

U.S. Politics Online offers several subscription plans to help cover the operational costs of the site. As a thank you for your donation, you will receive special added benefits meant to enhance your U.S. Politics Online experience. Plans vary in price, starting at only $0.05/day, and benefits vary with the price. Benefits include ability to go straight to new posts, to search the forum, larger avatar, private forums, invisible mode, photo gallery, email, web hosting, and no advertisement banners. Please, click here for more details.
See more
See less

House rejects President's budget 414-0

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • House rejects President's budget 414-0

    House ready to OK GOP budget, rejects rival plans - Yahoo! News

    That's two budgets in a row. Is there a reason the President submits such unserious budget proposals?

  • #2
    Re: House rejects President's budget 414-0

    Originally posted by adaher View Post
    House ready to OK GOP budget, rejects rival plans - Yahoo! News

    That's two budgets in a row. Is there a reason the President submits such unserious budget proposals?
    The GOP is a disgrace.

    They got us into this mess with unfunded mandates, two unfunded wars, and massive tax cuts for the rich, and now their answer to fixing how they got us in this economic mess is to make poor people, seniors and students pay for it while they propose that Obama and Romney get even more tax cuts.

    Don't tell me that the President is not serious in his budget proposal when it includes every popular thing out there from taxing millionaires to billionaires, to funding research and development, to cutting the yearly deficits in a balanced way.

    It failed 414-0 because of a stupid political stunt that the GOP was playing out the other day.

    To show just how unserious the GOP is at wanting to pass something serious, they continue to say that poor people and women and students should pay for their mess, that taxes should be reduced on the rich even further, that cuts to defense should be lighter, that nothing should go into transportation or rail projects and that old people will get voucher coupons so that they can know the joy of leaving their assisted-living arrangements to shop on the free market!

    Giving people a fraction of a subsidy to then go out on the private market where health care plans would be astronomically expensive for seniors would end up causing a much higher debt in the long-run since seniors enjoy all sorts of benefits with their Medicare plans the way they are now.

    Let's say it costs an average of $10k a year to provide for health insurance to a senior.

    The GOP is basically saying, "We'll give you a voucher coupon of $3,000 and you too can play the open market, and and and, there's competition on the open market and the competition will be so fierce for all you ailing seniors that it won't cost $10k a year for your coverage, but closer to $3k!".

    It's just the stupidest thing I've ever had to read, and now two years in a row of this bullshit.

    Give seniors a $3k voucher coupon and subject them to the same free market that exists for the rest of us and by next year it'll cost $20k to pay for ailing seniors a year, creating the largest donut hole in coverage the likes we've never seen before.

    It's still the same old GOP playbook from last year. Just send Gramma out onto the free market and the free market will take care of Gramma, yippeeee!!

    Fuck, the GOP used to have smart people in it, but the Medicare plan alone is so amazingly stupid and ignorant that it amazes me that old white idiots will vote for the team that wants to royally fuck them.

    מה מכילות החדשות?


    • #3
      Re: House rejects President's budget 414-0

      Originally posted by adaher View Post
      Is there a reason the President submits such unserious budget proposals?
      To prove that he is an un-serious leader?

      Here we have a bill, a budget, so horrible, so irresponsible, so disgusting, that not one member of Obama's own party would vote for it.

      Telling... very telling...

      מה מכילות החדשות?


      • #4
        Re: House rejects President's budget 414-0

        The House also rejected what was essentially the Simpson-Bowles plan as well, by like 380-38. It cut too much too fast for liberals, and Republicans were unanimously against it because it raised taxes on "job creators".

        Until the Republicans admit that modest tax revenues must be coupled with balanced spending cuts, Boehner and his cohorts can't be taken seriously.

        All they keep doing is posturing and then pandering to the teabagger base with a totally fucked up proposal to fuck everyone over except to give their rich friends steep discounts.

        Not even a pretense of fairness by those guys while at least Obama spreads the sacrifice around to seemingly everyone in one way or the other.

        מה מכילות החדשות?


        • #5
          Re: House rejects President's budget 414-0

          Originally posted by Jason Marcel View Post
          The House also rejected what was essentially the Simpson-Bowles plan as well, by like 380-38. It cut too much too fast for liberals, and Republicans were unanimously against it because it raised taxes on "job creators".

          Until the Republicans admit that modest tax revenues must be coupled with balanced spending cuts, Boehner and his cohorts can't be taken seriously.

          All they keep doing is posturing and then pandering to the teabagger base with a totally fucked up proposal to fuck everyone over except to give their rich friends steep discounts.

          Not even a pretense of fairness by those guys while at least Obama spreads the sacrifice around to seemingly everyone in one way or the other.
          Completely ignoring the issue at hand... but hey, there you go...

          מה מכילות החדשות?


          • #6
            Re: House rejects President's budget 414-0

            Originally posted by tsquare View Post
            To prove that he is an un-serious leader?

            Here we have a bill, a budget, so horrible, so irresponsible, so disgusting, that not one member of Obama's own party would vote for it.

            Telling... very telling...
            "Democrats said Republicans had forced a vote on a version of Obama's budget that contained only its numbers, not the policies he would use to achieve them."

            Republicans did that as a gimmick since they knew no one would vote for a budget they couldn't actually read.

            But keep defending the outright stupidity of Boehner and his moronic House, it's your right!

            Meanwhile, do you actually believe that sending old people onto the free market with voucher coupon subsidies that are a fraction of their health care costs will magically make the private insurers give them cheaper plans now that they're on the free market?

            Paul Ryan has got to be the one of the most retarded politicians ever, putting this awfully stupid idea back up for a second go around.

            I thought Republicans weren't going to want their base to yell at them at town hall meetings for a second year, but that's exactly what's going to happen the minute they find out that Ryan and the GOP tried to fuck over their own pissed off voters a second straight year with their stupid voucher coupon idea, which has no basis in reality.

            Send old people onto the free market and there's no way in hell that they'll ever be able to afford anything close to what their plans would end up costing, what with all the things that ail old folks.

            Just as an issue of human decency, I find it appalling that people would ignore such an outright assault on seniors with double-talk and promises of a for-profit free market that will somehow take care of granny better than the non-profit system they've got now.

            מה מכילות החדשות?


            • #7
              Re: House rejects President's budget 414-0

              Originally posted by tsquare View Post
              Completely ignoring the issue at hand... but hey, there you go...
              No, I clearly addressed the issue at hand in a previous post, but I know reading comprehension is not your strong suit.

              מה מכילות החדשות?


              • #8
                Re: House rejects President's budget 414-0

                The Republicans are going to pass a budget. YOu may hate it, but you know what they stand for.

                Will the Democrats vote for any budget at all? Or just say no to everything? They don't like the Ryan budget, that's fine. They don't like the President's budget, that's fine too. But they have a duty to propose one of their own and actually vote for it and stand by those votes. I've heard that Democrats have proposed a budget, at least in the House. They'd better get behind that budget if they want to be taken seriously.

                As for the President, he has no voice on budget issues because he has no plan. The last two budgets he's proposed only exist because he couldn't get away with not submitting a budget.

                מה מכילות החדשות?


                • #9
                  Re: House rejects President's budget 414-0

                  Originally posted by adaher View Post
                  House ready to OK GOP budget, rejects rival plans - Yahoo! News

                  That's two budgets in a row. Is there a reason the President submits such unserious budget proposals?
                  Unfortunately what is happening now is both sides have realized the other has no interest in any sort of bi-partisan effort to create a realistic plan. Only made worse by us now being well into an election season. So, now we have both sides proposing plans and budgets that have no chance of passing exclusively due to the "well this is our solution and the hell with the other side" attitude. This 414-0 is a stunt, and will likely be just additions to an already painful election season...

                  The House also voted 414-0 Wednesday to reject Obama's budget, with Democrats accusing the GOP of forcing the vote to embarrass them. Democrats were concerned Republicans would use campaign ads to link Democrats who supported Obama's plan to all of its details, including tax increases and boosts for unpopular programs.
                  This supports clearly what I am saying. Obama is not being serious with his proposals, nor is the House GOP with their proposals. This is purely about the election and what will be said at the mic all the way into November. Political party strategy over solutions, Democrats and Republicans are clearly guilty of this. There is not a single serious plan on the table right now to handle our budget needs or our debt concerns, that is the takeaway from the story.

                  מה מכילות החדשות?


                  • #10
                    Re: House rejects President's budget 414-0

                    The Republicans are being serious. They propose a budget, and they vote for the budget. Democrats don't vote for any budget at all. How can you hold a party accountable when they won't back ANY budget?

                    If they don't want to make any hard choices, then the public should relieve them of that duty ASAP.

                    מה מכילות החדשות?


                    • #11
                      Re: House rejects President's budget 414-0

                      Originally posted by adaher View Post
                      The Republicans are being serious. They propose a budget, and they vote for the budget. Democrats don't vote for any budget at all. How can you hold a party accountable when they won't back ANY budget?

                      If they don't want to make any hard choices, then the public should relieve them of that duty ASAP.
                      Perhaps I could have said this another way, a little better. If Republicans and Democrats were serious about budgets and our debt concerns they would be working together on a passable plan. No one would be happy because it would mean compromise. However, neither side is interested in that now. There is little to no sense of bi-partisan effort on the hill at this point and Obama is well into campaign mode to bother with it.

                      No real plan offered by Republicans have had much chance of making the Senate floor let alone Obama's desk for signature. You could say Senate Democrats are not interested in budgets at all, not bothering to pass one in well over 1000 days. You could also say that Obama is presenting campaign motivated proposals at this point basically punting until after the election. However, while Republicans are passing plan every now and then, that does not really get Republicans off the hook entirely.

                      The leverage here is political effort for public opinion headed into an election seasion. We still have a split congress to deal with. Both lead by those not interested in working with the other party. Which supports my position that it is not about any real serious effort. It is about a political effort that seems to be working with their respective bases. In the mean time, no serious solutions offered.

                      מה מכילות החדשות?


                      • #12
                        Re: House rejects President's budget 414-0

                        I dont think the House should pass a budget on party lines. Its as unserious as the President passing a budget no one supports. Like it or not, the people elected 40% democrats in the House. Their concerns should be reflected in anything that passes. If that means nothing passes, then so be it. At some point, voters are going to have to choose a side, not keep putting opposing forces in control.

                        מה מכילות החדשות?


                        • #13
                          Re: House rejects President's budget 414-0

                          This is playing out very much like the 1995-1996 battles between President Clinton and the Republican Congress. Republicans won a midterm election and would really like to win the Presidency. In order to do that, they have to highlight their differences with Democrats.

                          If the Republicans win it all in 2012, then they succeeded and they'll govern their way. If they keep Congress and the President wins reelection, then they'll start working together. Obama will want a legacy, he's not going to be running for reelection anymore. The Republicans will have to live with him for four more years. And then they will start to deal.

                          It happened after the 1996 election, it will happen this time. It might even produce more fruit, because first, Boehner is not as much of a dick as Gingrich, and second, we're unlikely to have a Lewinsky scandal to tear apart relations betwee nthe two parties after the election. Things will get done from 2013-2016 no matter who wins.

                          מה מכילות החדשות?


                          • #14
                            Re: House rejects President's budget 414-0

                            Originally posted by adaher View Post
                            This is playing out very much like the 1995-1996 battles between President Clinton and the Republican Congress. Republicans won a midterm election and would really like to win the Presidency. In order to do that, they have to highlight their differences with Democrats.

                            If the Republicans win it all in 2012, then they succeeded and they'll govern their way. If they keep Congress and the President wins reelection, then they'll start working together. Obama will want a legacy, he's not going to be running for reelection anymore. The Republicans will have to live with him for four more years. And then they will start to deal.

                            It happened after the 1996 election, it will happen this time. It might even produce more fruit, because first, Boehner is not as much of a dick as Gingrich, and second, we're unlikely to have a Lewinsky scandal to tear apart relations betwee nthe two parties after the election. Things will get done from 2013-2016 no matter who wins.
                            But with more new media, things are more devided than ever. Obama is much more devisive and hostile than Clinton was. Republican voters are more stubborn. And everyone is seeing everything happen.

                            מה מכילות החדשות?


                            • #15
                              Re: House rejects President's budget 414-0

                              That's true, but I think you'll be surprised at how much the mood changes if Obama wins reelection. When the Republicans won the House, they had the public massively behind them and only two years before a Presidential election. Obama can't win reelection on his own record, so he has to contrast himself with Republicans. Republicans have the same goal. So it's in no one's political interest to really compromise right now except to avoid imminent disasters that would cause voters to just kick everyone out, like a national default.

                              If Obama wins reelection, it's not two years till the next Presidential election, it's four, and he won't be the nominee. That changes things for everyone.

                              Not that there won't still be partisan bickering and outright warfare, but in the midst of all that noise, real legislation will pass on a bipartisan basis.

                              מה מכילות החדשות?

                              Working...
                              X