If I remember correctly those term limits were just voted in in 08, so it's hard to know if they'll have any effect.
If I remember correctly those term limits were just voted in in 08, so it's hard to know if they'll have any effect.
Cone_Junky wrote: If I remember correctly those term limits were just voted in in 08, so it's hard to know if they'll have any effect.
Proposition 140 was passed 21 years ago (see PDF for reference)
fast_eddie_72 wrote: We're seeing what happens without compromise, though. Nothing. I think people are liking that less than the compromise. There were a lot of Rasmussen polls being tossed out in another thread. The most amazing one I saw today was most Americans now fear the government will do to *little* about the economy. Last time I looked, it was the other way around and not in a small way. It's a democracy. Without compromise there is no governing. Government without compromise is a dictatorship. Someone needs to remind the folks on both sides of the aisle that we don't have one of those, even if they think we do.
First, a reference to the bolded sections - It's not a democracy, it's a representative republic by design. If/when compromise can't be achieved, stalemate is the next best alternative; again, by design. Throwing the "dictatorship" label is (at best) an inappropriate choice of terms; we aren't there yet.
A democracy is akin to mob rule, which is cool (in theory) until the mob bearing pitchforks and axes is after you.
Eddie, you can rail against "one side" all you want but the droids you're looking for dominate both sides of the ballot.
oldsaw wrote: Eddie, you can rail against "one side" all you want but the droids you're looking for dominate both sides of the ballot.
Man, that's really true. It seems like the perfect time for the birth of a 3rd (or 4th) major party . Interested to see what comes out of the Tea Party and Occupy movements as they mature.
fifty wrote:Cone_Junky wrote: If I remember correctly those term limits were just voted in in 08, so it's hard to know if they'll have any effect.Proposition 140 was passed 21 years ago (see PDF for reference)
You're right. I was thinking of the Amendment initiative that was approved in 09 to drop the term limit from 14 to 12 years. That one goes on the ballot in 2012.
California's biggest problem is our propositions. We can get any proposition on the ballot if enough signatures are gathered. It's great that we get to make constant changes to our State gov't, but propositions don't have to be funded. So we prop the crap out of our elections with no way to pay for all the crap we wanted.WTF?
Cone_Junky wrote: ....It's great that we get to make constant changes to our State gov't, but propositions don't have to be funded. So we prop the crap out of our elections with no way to pay for all the crap we wanted.WTF?
Hey, but we are getting high speed rail!!!
(and yes, this is the state that has a barely functional passenger rail system and very little light rail)
But don't worry, it's free, we are paying for it with bonds!!
Now I'll post criticism only from Republicans on this issue:
"Former House speaker Newt Gingrich, who is seeking the party’s presidential nomination, warned that the showdown could end badly for Republicans, citing his own experience in losing the political battle to President Bill Clinton during the 1996 government shutdown."
"The Wall Street Journal’s editorial board captured the frustration among Republicans in the paper’s Wednesday editions, asking whether the GOP’s handling of the tax debate “might end up re-electing the President before the 2012 campaign even begins in earnest.”" The Wall St. journal is most definitely right leaning as are most moneyed institutions.
"Sen. Bob Corker (R-Tenn.) said the House GOP must get past the issue. “Are Republicans getting killed now in public opinion? There’s no question,” he said Wednesday on CNBC. “Both Republicans and Democrats have agreed that this is going to happen, and probably the best thing to happen now is just to get it over with.”"
"A growing number of Senate Republicans, having approved the short-term extension Saturday, have called on House Republicans to avoid any threat of a tax increase in the new year. About 10 GOP senators have said the best option would be to approve the short-term plan to avert the pinch in workers’ paychecks and to move off of an issue that has been politically damaging to the party."
"On Tuesday night, Sen. John McCain (Ariz.), the 2008 Republican presidential nominee, said that the standoff is “harming” the party and that, in the near term, the House must relent. “I think we have to recognize reality,” McCain told CNN. “And that is we are not going to see the payroll tax cut expire on the first of January. And we have to accommodate to that reality. It would not be fair to the American people at this time.”"
So now some of you have to ask yourselves, "Am I for the Republican party or for Congressional Republicans?" because there is a split here. If you blindly follow the conservative line you are in an uncomfortable position. Now you are forced to make a decision based on your own thoughts and not those dicated to you by lock step talking points. Where do you fall on the issue?
mguar, pork is what's killing us. Time to do away with that system. Since it seems our elected representatives insist that their senority gives them the right to a bigger share of that pork thus ensuring their reelection so they can further feather their own nests at our expense it's time to get rid of the senority system. Thus, term limits. No one has senority any more.
Curmudgeon wrote: mguar, pork is what's killing us. Time to do away with that system. since it seems our elected representatives insist that their senority gives them the right to a bigger share of that pork, time to get rid of the senority system. Thus, term limits.
Totally agree. Seniority does not give anyone the right to fleece the taxpayers for their own pet projects.
In reply to Curmudgeon:
You're making me hungry.
Mmmm, pork.
oldsaw wrote: A democracy is akin to mob rule, which is cool (in theory) until the mob bearing pitchforks and axes is after you. Eddie, you can rail against "one side" all you want but the droids you're looking for dominate both sides of the ballot.
Well, I'm one of the few who can admit that I'm a partisan hack from time to time. So my view may be biased- in fact, I 'm sure it is, as all our views are. Again, at least I'll admit as much. But let me make a case for my view, only calling from recent history.
Health care. As much as they like to say it was ram-rodded through, the only reason there was any trouble at all is because so much of an effort was made to make it some kind of wattered down "bi-partisan" BS. In fact, the law is flawed because if that effort. And what do the President and Democrats get for that effort? We continue to hear about "Government Health Care" even though many of us who wanted that are disapointed that we didn't get it.
Second- why does it now take 60 votes to get any legislation through the Senate? I won't take the time to look up the info, but it's all out there. We have never in history seen the wheels of government ground to a hault on a regular basis by so few.
The debt ceiling nonsense. That was not the time nor the place for that debate. If you want less spending, run members of Congress on that platform and get them elected. But everything we spend money on HAS been voted on by Congress. Making it all get voted on again isn't fair or appropriate.
So- is the current nonsense with the payroll tax extension a political game by the Democrats? You bet it is. But can you blame them? Time and again they hit a brick wall. They have been willing to compromise, but the Republicans haven't given an inch. So what are they supposed to do? Their position is absurd and the payroll issue is a good place to illustrate that. It points out to the voters that they are so unwilling to compromise at all that they'll allow taxes to go up. You have to admit, it's a good play by the Democrats. I hate any legislation that is almost entirely designed as a political manuver. I honestly do. But I understand why they are doing it.
Facts are facts. Most people in America want taxes to go up on the very wealthy along with reductions in spending. One party is proposing that, the other party will not even consider it.
There's my admitedly partisan view.
fast_eddie_72 wrote: Facts are facts. Most people in America want taxes to go up on the very wealthy along with reductions in spending. One party is proposing that, the other party will not even consider it. There's my admitedly partisan view.
To clarify, which party is proposing reductions in spending? Because I've not seen that out of either party.
DILYSI Dave wrote:fast_eddie_72 wrote: Facts are facts. Most people in America want taxes to go up on the very wealthy along with reductions in spending. One party is proposing that, the other party will not even consider it. There's my admitedly partisan view.To clarify, which part is proposing reductions in spending? Because I've not seen that out of either party.
But facts are facts man. Unless they're opinions. But sometimes opinions are facts, like on the interwebs.
Exactly, the only thing I've seen out of either party was a reduction of future increases. Which only counts as a cut in Washington-speak.
Okay, you guys win. Everything I said is wrong because you win the game of 'gotcha' on a semantic point. Bonus points for dismissive quips.
Congratulations. All our problems are now solved. And we wonder why things don't get better.
THat's not a "semantic" point. It's THE point. I refuse to stand here and accept a tax increase when they refuse to reduce their gargantuan spending habits. Quid pro quo Clarice.
In reply to Bobzilla:
I thought we were talking about a tax cut.
In reply to Bobzilla:
Or are you a 1%er?
fast_eddie_72 wrote: Okay, you guys win. Everything I said is wrong because you win the game of 'gotcha' on a semantic point. Bonus points for dismissive quips. Congratulations. All our problems are now solved. And we wonder why things don't get better.
I wasn't trying to play "GOTCHA!" But decreases versus increases is hardly semantics.
Bobzilla wrote: THat's not a "semantic" point. It's THE point. I refuse to stand here and accept a tax increase when they refuse to reduce their gargantuan spending habits. Quid pro quo Clarice.
Sorry to differ, but it is not THE point. At least not in this thead or this discussion. More specifically it is not THE point of my post which you have dismissed entirely.
And that's my fact, unless it's your opinion. In which case you are free to rant and rave all you like. We were talking about the payroll tax cut wich, near as I can tell, isn't a tax increase. I also addressed the Republicans in Congress and their inability to compromise. Also not a tax increase. If you have nothing to add to the current discussion, I'd respectfully ask you to pipe down.
If that strikes you as dismissive or confrontational, hey, quid pro quo, Clarence.
DILYSI Dave wrote: I wasn't trying to play "GOTCHA!" But decreases versus increases is hardly semantics.
We're really getting side tracked. Say it however you like- you're actually making my point - the one no one is talking about. There's not but a hair of difference between the two sides on the cut (or lack of cut) side of the equation. But on the tax side, one party is stone walling even though most people in America want them to negotiate.
THAT was my point. Or my opinion, unless it's the internet which makes it a fact. Don't sell your mule to buy a plow 'cause it's messier than a soup sandwich. See, when you plant 'taters you get 'taters, and trying to make them 'maters is harder than riding a bike with no handlebars.
Hoping an abundance of avuncular witticisms will make my case seem stronger.
DILYSI Dave wrote: To clarify, which party is proposing reductions in spending? Because I've not seen that out of either party.
As part of the Senate bill both parties agreed to 38 billion in reductions. The Congressional Republicans shot that all to hell. The source for this info is the link I posted earlier.
fast_eddie_72 wrote: We're really getting side tracked. Say it however you like- you're actually making my point - the one no one is talking about. There's not but a hair of difference between the two sides on the cut (or lack of cut) side of the equation. But on the tax side, one party is stone walling even though most people in America want them to negotiate.
Exactly this. One party is so dead set on letting anything happen that they've contradicted themselves. That or they've finally shown they really only care about the rich. The contradiction being that they've said for 30 years they're all for tax cuts. Now they have one. Served on a silver platter. What happens? They turn up their noses because it's not a long enough term. WTF?!
Our elected representatives make up new entitlements to placate the masses (that's us). In return we say what a great job they are doing for their constituents (that's us, again) and we reelect them. We complain that taxes are too high so they cut taxes for the masses (that's us, again). The two are not compatible. But we have trained these goobers that if they will throw money at us by simultaneously cutting taxes and raising entitlement spending we will reward them with reelection so that they can feather their own nests.
I cannot live beyond my means by whipping out a credit card every time I need something, like, say, groceries. Or gas. That way lies financial suicide. But we expect the gubmint to be able to do it. 
Since We the People have proven we cannot be trusted to act in our own best interest we have proven ourselves to be the basis of the problem. The responsible among us will need to raise enough hell that at some point the time they can actually do the damage we want them to do is limited by law.
In reply to Curmudgeon:
That right there was brighter than a tin roof mid-day in July. And if folk was ta listen to ya, it's lible to get just about as hot for them politicians in Washington.
I'm plum tired of it. Thing is, lookin' fur a compromise with Congressional Republicans is like a white-tailed deer huntin' fur Sassafras leaves in Januay. Puttin' them pigs in suits makes um slikcer than slatherin' um up with grease. 'Specially that Boehner. That ole boy's hide couldn't be tanned no more if'n you was to salt 'im, soak 'im and burry 'im in lime.
You'll need to log in to post.
