Thread: This Is Not A CraigsList Notice

Tweet

Dave S.: not trying to provoke anger here, but thought I'd bring this one over from the other thread. Since you and I both decry voter apathy from time to time, though with somewhat differing perspective, I'd like you take on this (and anyone else for that matter). It relates to a theme that will beaten to death from now to election day.....the idea that the President could have "saved the country" if only..................

Originally Posted by Dave Severson

I for one like to hear feel good stuff, really fed up with the doom and gloom bs..... But you're right, it will never happen the way Congress works. A democratic President could never propose anything that would be acceptable to a Republican controlled house. The art of compromise is gone in politics.

I guess it's up to the voters to decide if they want things to continue on this downhill tumble, or if they want to vote some individuals in to Congress who will actually do something for the entire country without worrying about what the lobbyists want done!!!!! Nobody gets my vote this year who promises to 'back the party 100%, don't care what party it is. If this country is to be saved from a total collapse it's going to take people in Congress with a whole different mind-set then the "sold to the highest bidder" bunch we have in there now!!!!!!

I'd say the election in 2012 is the voters last chance to start getting things turned around!!!!!! The status quo and business as usual just isn't going to get anything fixed!!!!!!

Not sure if it was your intention or not, but the way that you've worded that the definition of compromise is doing what the President wants, right or wrong. I realize that's the way a majority of the media frames it, but is that what citizens want/believe? Are we to ignore that a President elected in 2008 with a super majority in the Senate, and an immense majority in the house, who got everything his own party would approve through in his first two years, and who was then repudiated by the voters in 2010 who took away that huge house majority, and almost took away his Senate majority? If that's what you meant I'd love to hear why the Pres deserves to be given a pile of blank checks.

Originally Posted by Bob Parmenter

Dave S.: not trying to provoke anger here, but thought I'd bring this one over from the other thread. Since you and I both decry voter apathy from time to time, though with somewhat differing perspective, I'd like you take on this (and anyone else for that matter). It relates to a theme that will beaten to death from now to election day.....the idea that the President could have "saved the country" if only..................






Not sure if it was your intention or not, but the way that you've worded that the definition of compromise is doing what the President wants, right or wrong. I realize that's the way a majority of the media frames it, but is that what citizens want/believe? Are we to ignore that a President elected in 2008 with a super majority in the Senate, and an immense majority in the house, who got everything his own party would approve through in his first two years, and who was then repudiated by the voters in 2010 who took away that huge house majority, and almost took away his Senate majority? If that's what you meant I'd love to hear why the Pres deserves to be given a pile of blank checks.

You know I'm not that great putting thoughts into words.... I don't think Obama can take all the blame or all the credit for anything that's happened since he was elected! The 2010 vote was both good and bad, brought in a lot of the tea party candidates with some good ideas, but also some way out in left field radical ideas that will never make it into law.---Though many of their issues did make good campaign trail fodder and sound bites.

I don't see anybody in government right now I trust with a check book, certainly not the President or the Congress!!!! Don't really see where I implied that compromise meant doing everything Obama's way, certainly not the way I see compromise, anyway. The President has some good ideas, the Congress has some good ideas, and all of them have some really lame ideas for straightening things out. The art of compromise would be to take the good points from both sides, iron out some of the differences and get some legislation working that is good for all of the country, not just this segment or that. But, I'm enough of a realist to know that seeing as how this is an election year, neither side will give an inch on their position... I guess if you don't pass any laws you can't be accused of passing bad laws!!!!!

It's up to the voters this year, time to make a big statement to Congress about what is expected of them and that ineptness will no longer be tolerated! I just hope that the campaigns aren't just all about super rich "giving" their money to the super poor. I think that whole argument is nothing more then a smoke screen to hide behind so that no politicians aren't subject to accountability for their poor performance! Politicians are shrewd in their rhetoric, they know full well if they can get the populous ranting, raving, and pointing fingers about the emotional issues that everything else will be forgotten! People have got to make the candidates stick to the real issues and present their plans for a real solution. If they can't do that, they don't deserve your vote!!!! Seems the people in Congress now can really talk the talk--we need to send them home and get some new blood in their that can walk the walk!!!!!

Originally Posted by Dave Severson

You know I'm not that great putting thoughts into words.... I don't think Obama can take all the blame or all the credit for anything that's happened since he was elected! The 2010 vote was both good and bad, brought in a lot of the tea party candidates with some good ideas, but also some way out in left field radical ideas that will never make it into law.---Though many of their issues did make good campaign trail fodder and sound bites.

I don't see anybody in government right now I trust with a check book, certainly not the President or the Congress!!!! Don't really see where I implied that compromise meant doing everything Obama's way, certainly not the way I see compromise, anyway. The President has some good ideas, the Congress has some good ideas, and all of them have some really lame ideas for straightening things out. The art of compromise would be to take the good points from both sides, iron out some of the differences and get some legislation working that is good for all of the country, not just this segment or that. But, I'm enough of a realist to know that seeing as how this is an election year, neither side will give an inch on their position... I guess if you don't pass any laws you can't be accused of passing bad laws!!!!!

It's up to the voters this year, time to make a big statement to Congress about what is expected of them and that ineptness will no longer be tolerated! I just hope that the campaigns aren't just all about super rich "giving" their money to the super poor. I think that whole argument is nothing more then a smoke screen to hide behind so that no politicians aren't subject to accountability for their poor performance! Politicians are shrewd in their rhetoric, they know full well if they can get the populous ranting, raving, and pointing fingers about the emotional issues that everything else will be forgotten! People have got to make the candidates stick to the real issues and present their plans for a real solution. If they can't do that, they don't deserve your vote!!!! Seems the people in Congress now can really talk the talk--we need to send them home and get some new blood in their that can walk the walk!!!!!

I think you understate your communication skills, that's why I asked for clarification. Although I thought it a curious twist when you referred to Tea Party ideas from radical LEFT feild. And you violated one of the rules of modern commentary........NEVER use the word "radical" in the same sentence with the word "left".

We're going to be beaten to death with a "do nothing Congress" message from our President for the next several months. I would think we'd have a better informed electorate if in any discussion of that by our vaunted communication media if the facts about some 15 so called jobs bills have been advanced from the House, only to die in a pigeon hole on the Seanate leaders desk. If compromise and action are the appropriate goals, wouldn't advancing those bills to committe or floor in the Senate be action, and debate be an effort to compromise? How does refusing to even consider a legitimate bill advance the case for compromise/action? Where's the 60 Minutes, hard hitting investigative journalism? And where is the investigation by a "fair" media into why the Senate leader hasn't done anything about fulfilling the Constitutional obligation to submit an annual budget for over 1000 days. Not a fig leaf amendment attached to another bill, an actual budget. A corporation can't get away with abusing it's share holders with any such malfeasance, but the guys who write laws about that?

There may be other examples of less significant "obstruction" on both sides, but these two, especially in our current economic state, are, or should be, a couple biggies. I'm not hearing any bitching about it. I guess I'm too radical................