Republicans walk out

[ruckman101]

of the budget talks because democrats want to address the issue by raising taxes on corporations and the rich, rather than gutting the safety nets of the poor.

True colors.

Where are the jobs? Why the focus on social agendas? Why force government further into our private lives?


It truly angers me.
neal

[Lanval]

of the budget talks because democrats want to address the issue by raising taxes on corporations and the rich, rather than gutting the safety nets of the poor.

True colors.

Where are the jobs? Why the focus on social agendas? Why force government further into our private lives?


It truly angers me.
neal

I don't know if the they repubs were ever the party of the small local businessman the way some like to claim, but if they were, they aren't now, and haven't been since Reagan took to say "less gov't spending" and doing "more gov't spending"; he did so on the back of defense, which is de facto about big business ~ one does not build jets in a local shop.

The repubs only care about the wealthy/big business/elite. Anything that touches those is of necessity impossible.

Mike

[Velokid1]

I saw that little walkout more as a curious indication of the politicians' overly emotional character, I.e. "I have to walk away to keep from hitting you.". In other words, a tantrum.

I also see it as a publicity stunt.

[ruckman101]

The middle class and poor must pay for the financial mistakes of the elite, and in the process, the middle class will join the ranks of the poor. Hasn't that been the Reagan (Mommy, can I have more watermelon jelly bellys?)/neocon plan all along, still working towards ultimate fruition?

Today elites are frantically, desperately, sucking up as much wealth as possible, blatantly, with the shrieking, screaming, deafeningly loud message of capital's newly enabled legal voice. By any means necessary.

Right on schedule.


neal

[vdubyah73]

the republicans want to force Obama to go on record and reveal some kind of outline that has his stamp on it. they want him to reveal his ideas on how to handle this. they've been trying for 2 years to force him to lead the process, on the record. it's all maneuvering. both parties are doing it. it's worriesome. The oral minorities from both sides are making to much noise. the silent majority will speak in 2012. some of you guys would probably like the way new england republicans think. socially progressive and fiscally conservative.

how come nobody seems to mention that if we get the 13 something million people out of work, back to work and paying income tax the revenue would go a long way to reducing the deficit. reduce the deficit and lay out a long term plan so the movers and shakers can make their own plans accordingly.

[ruckman101]

Excellent point re: jobs generate taxes.


neal

[Velokid1]

the republicans want to force Obama to go on record and reveal some kind of outline that has his stamp on it. they want him to reveal his ideas on how to handle this. they've been trying for 2 years to force him to lead the process, on the record. it's all maneuvering. both parties are doing it.

Absolutely. And hey, there's nothing wrong with being strategic. Being strategic is smart. When people go from being strategic to setting ambushes, that's not okay. Being strategic implies that you have what you believe is a viable and fair solution to a problem, you're just waiting for the proper time to reveal your solution and implement it, whereas NOT having a viable solution and choosing instead to point the finger at someone else for not having a viable solution so that they'll crash and burn and you and your nonviable solution will enjoy the power or position that the other guy had... that's an ambush.

We need more solutions and less attacks.

The oral minorities from both sides are making to much noise. the silent majority will speak in 2012.

The zealots at each pole are indeed making too much noise, but I'm not sure I buy into this idea of a silent majority. The whole concept of a silent majority implies that there is a huge swath of people between each extreme/pole that are in agreement with one another on a broad spectrum of issues. I don't believe that exists. I believe the middle is colored with all sorts of people who hold different views on all sorts of issues.

It's an important distinction because the idea of a silent majority implies that if this mythical group of people were given the power to choose their own fate, they would do so in magical accord and walk off into the sunset hand-in-hand. When the reality is that living in peace with one another requires something more than magic, it requires work. Being tolerant of one another, being willing to compromise even when it means that Person A is only 33% satisfied with the outcome, Person B is only 33% satisfied and Person C (you) is only 33% satisfied.

There is no huge middle ground of people who will all be 100% satisfied with every decision that is made on the public's behalf. Or even 75% satisfied.

But we can be 100% satisfied with the fact that we are living peacefully with one another in spite of various minor grievances we will surely have.

Sorry... that was very tangential...

how come nobody seems to mention that if we get the 13 something million people out of work, back to work and paying income tax the revenue would go a long way to reducing the deficit. reduce the deficit and lay out a long term plan so the movers and shakers can make their own plans accordingly.

I agree with you. I have a sneaky suspicion that we probably disagree on how to get there (reducing unemployment).

[Randy in Maine]

Of course if those 13 million folks were making "the big money" and not paying much for taxes, would that also help?

[Velokid1]

I don't know really. My uneducated hunch is that people who make $200K a year actual SPEND that money, so it generally circulates within the economy, while people who make a bazillion dollars a year tend to sit on their fortune and/or invest in international businesses that don't contribute greatly to the US economy.

[ruckman101]

Of course if those 13 million folks were making "the big money" and not paying much for taxes, would that also help?

If you mean "obscenely big money", the thirty or more year experiment that wealth will trickle down to the rest of us is an obvious fabrication based on the facts.


neal

[vdubyah73]

Velo
they are all being strategic, they are campaigning for 2012 already. the silent majority are everywhere, we just don't make a lot of noise, to busy with life i guess. the oral minorities are either on the coasts, including the great lakes, or the bible belt and beyond. the silent majority, a lot of whom voted for Obama, are disappointed with his performance on the economy and unemployment. He is just now touting rebuilding Americas manufacturing capabilities. should'a been doing that a year ago.

the silent majority wants moderates from both sides in office so that those 33% pieces of pie are easier to achieve.

[airkooledchris]

the silent majority wants moderates from both sides in office so that those 33% pieces of pie are easier to achieve.

it can't be easy determining what a 'silent majority' wants unless either A. they aren't silent or B. their wants are presumed.

[Velokid1]

I think my point is valid. Namely that the concept of a silent majority presupposes that there exists a majority of Americans who all agree with one another on all issues. The idea is kind of silly. Whether you're in Portland or Pigeon Forge, good luck finding a Denny's full of people who all agree on five different issues. Heck, you won't find that kind of consensus amongst the congregation of a single church even.

[Sylvester]

I think my point is valid. Namely that the concept of a silent majority presupposes that there exists a majority of Americans who all agree with one another on all issues. The idea is kind of silly. Whether you're in Portland or Pigeon Forge, good luck finding a Denny's full of people who all agree on five different issues. Heck, you won't find that kind of consensus amongst the congregation of a single church even.

I don't agree with you, heh.

[Amskeptic]

I think my point is valid. Namely that the concept of a silent majority presupposes that there exists a majority of Americans who all agree with one another on all issues. The idea is kind of silly. Whether you're in Portland or Pigeon Forge, good luck finding a Denny's full of people who all agree on five different issues. Heck, you won't find that kind of consensus amongst the congregation of a single church even.

For example, 86% of Americans want to raise the taxes on the wealthy and retire the tax breaks for oil companies.
70% of all Americans want stiffer gun control.
The historical "Silent Majority" is a myth used by some to promote unsupported agendas.
It was a large majority who voted for Obama. So far, that majority (now in the 47-51% range) who currently approves of Obama, has watched his effort crash into a wall of minority opposition whose approval rating is 22%. Go figure.
Colin