Previous 11 - 20 Next
In response to:

Compromise With Obama? Surely, You Jest!

Kibitzer Wrote: Aug 08, 2014 11:30 AM
Obama made it clear early in his first term that he wasn't interested in compromise when he was leaving a meeting with congressional leaders and said, "I won." He knew or should have known that every one of them had likewise won their last election, but he didn't care. It was and is all about him getting his way.
In response to:

The UN Prevents Peace

Kibitzer Wrote: Aug 08, 2014 11:16 AM
The UN is for the most part an impotent debating society. We should stop paying the disproportional paying for the costs of its operation. It wouldn't be a bad idea to invite this body to leave the US and go somewhere else. A cost benefit analysis would likely show that any marginal benefit that the US gets from the UN isn't worth the cost.
"Start over." How about just repeal it and quit while ahead. The federal government has no legitimate basis for interfering with the states in the regulation of health insurance. They just add cost with zero benefit.
"Democrats have significant reason to reduce their downside and accept a deal that most citizens would find reasonable." While it may appear that Democrats have significant reason to make a deal, they are Democrats, and they will never accept the fact that they could be wrong.
It takes two parties to come to a compromise. Where is the willingness of the liberals to compromise? When has Obama ever been wiling to compromise on anything?
The revenue problem that you suggest is because the politicians do not have the guts to raise taxes to pay for the spending out of fear of being voted out of office. So they resort to deficit spending to maintain the flow of "benefits" while pretending that debt doesn't matter. Corporate executives that would behave like our politicians would be fired and possibly prosecuted. Members of the Congress get re-elected.
Yes, but why? Most incumbent members of the Congress enjoy approval ratings of around 50% and more, but the collective approval is only around 10%. Why don't the pollsters look at why their respondents disapprove of the whole body so much while approving of their own members so much more. I think I know why the collective rating is so low. Liberal respondents think the Congress isn't providing enough benefits while conservative respondents hold the opposite view. The result is that the vast majority is dissatisfied, but not for the same reason. My guy or gal is great, but those other guys and gals won't let him or her do what I want done.
Actually Obama never said that he would cut the debt by even a dime much less in half. To cut the debt in half would require either cutting most government services significantly, increasing tax revenues significantly, or more likely both. The debt simply cannot be cut in half within the period of any one administration's tenure. What Obama did say was that he would cut the deficit in half. Cutting the deficit in half simply means slowing the rate of increase in the debt to half as fast as it was. But, did he even do that?
In response to:

An Open Letter to the Political Right

Kibitzer Wrote: Aug 04, 2014 7:59 PM
"Sadly, the only part of that quote that is in question is whether or not the resulting dictatorship will, in fact, become a monarch(y)." True, but there isn't really that much difference between a monarchy and a dictatorship.
By passing the continuing resolutions the Congress still authorized the spending.
Well, actually Bush didn't take out the credit card, the Congress did that and by the way both houses of the Congress were controlled by the Democrats during Bush's last two years'
Previous 11 - 20 Next