DesideriScuri
Posts: 12225
Joined: 1/18/2012 Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: fmfclwu quote:
ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote:
ORIGINAL: fmfclwu quote:
ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri Obama lied the entire campaign, blaming it completely on the Republicans, when it's been shown that it was Obama's Administration that brought it up. Why do people blame it on the Republicans? Because that's what they've been forcefed. So if you hold my child hostage, and I offer you $1000 to give him back, who should people blame for me being out $1000? Not the same thing, and you know it. The R's weren't holding anything "hostage." And, like I said, it takes two to tango. Neither side was compromising. Both are to blame, yet only the R's are being blamed. And, because you probably didn't notice it, but I support the Administrations use of the sequester as a motivator to get both sides to compromise. It failed. That blame is on the D's as much as it is on the R's. First of all, you must have been born in 2012 to think the Republicans weren't holding a hostage. That would be against CM's TOU, I do believe. So, you can rest assured that my youthful (WTF?!?) countenance belies my actual age. quote:
Second, the Republicans' publicly stated position is that no compromise is possible. The Democrats have offered a compromise position that is in line with the vast majority of the country, including a majority of Republican voters, and have publicly stated that they are willing to negotiate. So if you want to assign blame to both parties, you have to answer this question: given the Republicans' publicly stated position that no compromise is possible, what specific thing could Democrats possibly do to achieve that compromise that you're blaming them for not reaching? When you punish both parties for one party's extremism, you incentivise that extremism. Here's a question for you: If your beliefs are completely against what the other side is trying to do, what would you do? Acquiesce, I'm sure, right? Or, would you use any leverage you could possibly have to inject fiscal sanity into the picture? Ending "Bush tax cuts for the rich" would net $800B over 10 years. The $1+T of spending cuts they were offering? The expected reductions in war spending. They were counting cost reductions that were going to happen anyway. WTF kind of offer is that?!?
_____________________________
What I support: - A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
- Personal Responsibility
- Help for the truly needy
- Limited Government
- Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
|