Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : View from the Center and Left -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Steve Lokness who wrote (239280)	12/4/2013 11:06:43 AM
From: Wharf Rat	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 541921

They don't regard Shrub as one of their own (in retrospect); he's a big spender. forbes...George W. Bush Was No Conservative forbes.com Yes, they want no government, except bombers and border guards. No government, as in "dismantle it". Republican Ron Johnson’s frustration level seems to be growing. In a little-noticed speech last month at David Horowitz’s West Coast Retreat 2013, Wisconsin’s senior U.S. senator said his goal for the federal government was to “dismantle that beast.” Read more from Journal Sentinel: http://www.jsonline.com/blogs/news/194893771.html#ixzz2mWTkVj6c Follow us: @JournalSentinel on Twitter

To: Steve Lokness who wrote (239280)	12/4/2013 11:08:56 AM
From: Alex MG	Respond to of 541921

Oh Geez, why won't the left just respect the ideas of Louie Gohmert, Ted Cruz, and the rest of the teabagger brigade who are certifiably insane.... maybe if Obama would just go play golf with these guys they would suddenly become sane

To: Steve Lokness who wrote (239280)	12/4/2013 11:11:09 AM
From: JohnM	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 541921

Oh pooh! Yes they do. The biggest - HUGE - increase in government came under Bush - Homeland Security. I could go on, but it is just not true that they don't want government. They want their government! And the left wants their government! That hasn't changed. What has changed though is our respect for the other side. For ideas we don't agree with and for the people pushing those ideas. You could, of course, add to this prescription drug support under Medicare. But Bush is definitely not a hallowed figure in Republicanville. So it doesn't help your argument to use him. Let me give you some counter examples--Dems offering compromises which Reps refused to even engage in legislative work, let alone support. 1. Obama's ACA is built on will know Republican principles, Heritage stuff no less, rather than many Dems preference for single payer systems. Obama did that explicitly much to the chagrin of leftie Dems like me. Reps would not even talk about this approach. And offered no governing alternative. Supports Wharfie's notion of opposition to governing. 2. Obama accepted the cap and trade system which I think McCain advocated as recently as his 2008 presidential campaign. Again, Obama adopted, quite explicitly, a known Republican plan. Did the Reps acknowledge it as such and begin discussions? No, once again. Total opposition with no alternative. More evidence for Wharfie's argument. 3. Grand fiscal bargains. Obama has made it clear he would put "entitlement reform" on the table if the Reps would put tax increases for the wealthy on the table. They refuse and offer no alternative short of "take it or leave it." Again, Obama has moved to the "center"; the Reps have refused to meet him there. More evidence for Wharfie's argument that the Reps aren't interested in governing; only in opposing Obama. I could, of course, go on and on. I'm not happy, not happy at all, about these Obama efforts. I would have preferred a major effort at getting out the base, addressing the economy from the get go, taking successes from it to work on healthcare. But it's hardly evidence that the Dems, as a party, are unwilling to compromise. It's all false equivalence.