Next six months may redefine Washington
Maybe I’m wrong — it has certainly been known to happen — but I’m thinking that these next six months could prove to be the most interesting and consequential six months of political theater seen in Washington in a long time. In fact, in terms of melodrama and conflict, it may rival or even exceed the 1995 standoff between President Bill Clinton and the Gingrich Republicans.
The recently concluded 112th Congress resolved nothing. As rough as it seemed at times, it proved to be two years of posturing between partners who weren’t quite confident enough to push things to conclusion. Members of both parties lacked both the courage to cut a big deal and the guts to have a knock-down, drag-out fight about it.
But the 113th Congress may be different. Explosive issues that have been put off time and time again — including immigration reform and entitlement spending — can’t be postponed much longer. Partisan and personal resentments that have long simmered seem ready to come to full boil. Confrontation is in the air — between Republicans and Democrats, between the House and Senate, between Congress and the president, between red state and blue state and even within the two political parties.
For example, I’d give House Speaker John Boehner a 50/50 chance of still holding that position come July, and that may be optimistic. His departure could come in any number of ways, from an internal caucus rebellion to a voluntary resignation in frustration. That’s because the man has been handed an impossible job, trapped between his constitutional obligation as speaker to make government work, at least at some basic level, and a Republican caucus that believes it has much to gain politically and in policy by ensuring that government falters.
As events play out, you may begin to see fractures emerge within the Democratic Party as well. For years, the antics and extremism of their Republican colleagues have united Democrats and allowed them to paper over divisions within their own ranks. They haven’t had to make any hard decisions as a party, and that may change in the months ahead, particularly if President Obama reaches some kind of deal with Republicans on the budget. Because as any student of political history knows, unity has always been a rare and temporary phenomenon with Democrats.
This all sounds a bit dangerous, and it is. Conventional wisdom holds that bitter confrontation is something best avoided in politics, and that compromise and bipartisanship are better models for good governance. Most of the time, that conventional wisdom is probably correct. But I’m not sure that’s the case under current circumstances.
At its most basic, politics is a process by which theories are tested and realities are sifted from illusions. It is disciplined by failure. Politics is also a crudely Darwinian process. At some point, you win or you lose. Decisions get made and problems get solved — one way or the other — when you have clear lines of authority and power. Once those things have been established, you have the ground rules that make bipartisanship and compromise possible.
Such lines do not exist within the rambunctious House Republican caucus. They do not exist in the relationship between House Republicans and the rest of the constitutional structure in Washington, and that explains a lot about the system’s dysfunction. But given the important battles that loom, and the apparently growing hunger for confrontation in some quarters, they may become a lot more clear.
– Jay Bookman
Tell us what you think about the site
Customer Care »
Vacation stops, manage subscriptions and more
AJC Services
Sections
Other Editions
Visitor Agreement | Privacy Statement
© 2013 The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
569 comments Add your comment
USinUK - not very ladylike (and former Girl Scout)
January 7th, 2013
10:22 am
CC – “which is why the Democratic president was reelected. simple. More takers voted than makers…”
“which is why the Dems gained seats in the House: because of gerrymandering. hardly any gained in red states….”
gerrymandering was done by the GOP, dearest … that’s the only reason many in the GOP were able to retain seats.
“which is why the Dems retained the Senate it was a longshot for Repubs anyway.. look at 2014…”
“and which is why the economy is getting stronger. What! Perhaps in the land of Oz…”
positive GDP for 3 years. positive job growth for 3 years. facts don’t lie.
Granny Godzilla
January 7th, 2013
10:22 am
williebkind
how last week you remain!
Williebkind
January 7th, 2013
10:22 am
“Obama was reelected because Romney was the best that y’all could come up with.”
Yep he was the better candidate. But you just can not count on the morons on the east coast, west coast, and up north to know what they are voting for.
Morality?
January 7th, 2013
10:22 am
“Good morning looters!” Now the truth hurts and the hit dog always hollers! Lot’s of howling dogs on here!
Joe Hussein Mama
January 7th, 2013
10:23 am
Donovan — “Godd morning, looters.”
STFU, Donny
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0118715/quotes
td
January 7th, 2013
10:23 am
USinUK – not very ladylike (and former Girl Scout)
January 7th, 2013
10:11 am
Let us play. Now let us look at the Oxford definition:
a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.
policy or practice based on the political and economic theory of socialism.
(in Marxist theory) a transitional social state between the overthrow of capitalism and the realization of Communism.
The term ‘socialism’ has been used to describe positions as far apart as anarchism, Soviet state Communism, and social democracy; however, it necessarily implies an opposition to the untrammelled workings of the economic market. The socialist parties that have arisen in most European countries from the late 19th century have generally tended towards social democracy
Under their definition Obamacare is pure Socialism since the government REGULATES the entire healthcare industry and hence controls 20% of the entire GDP of the nation. Add to it Medicare and Medicaid and total redistribution of another 22% of the economy by taxation then our government is controlling about 45% of all the output of the nation.
Paul
January 7th, 2013
10:23 am
And the luck of the Irish to you too, Brosephus!
Steve
January 7th, 2013
10:23 am
What a waste of my time in here. It’s like debating bullyish 7th graders. The ignorance and hypocrisy is astounding.
Face it Confederates with your 7th grade edumacations – WE WON. Deal with it.
USinUK - not very ladylike (and former Girl Scout)
January 7th, 2013
10:24 am
“U.K. – All three describe Obama’s administration…… thank you for agreeing with me!”
ohmygod … you really are comedy GOLD.
and thanks for the specifics.
Kamchak ~ Thug from the Steppes
January 7th, 2013
10:25 am
But you just can not count on the morons…
Aaaaannnnnnnnnnnnnnnnddddd, I quit reading.
td
January 7th, 2013
10:26 am
USinUK – not very ladylike (and former Girl Scout)
January 7th, 2013
10:22 am
“which is why the Dems gained seats in the House: because of gerrymandering. hardly any gained in red states….”
gerrymandering was done by the GOP, dearest … that’s the only reason many in the GOP were able to retain seats.
And how many Republicans won in Blue states? Does Gerrymandering only happen in Red States?
Brosephus™: "Team Gump will prevail over Team Rudy"
January 7th, 2013
10:27 am
indigo: Your idea of write in candidates is not feasible since, almost always, there are NO candidates asking for write in votes.
That’s why I’m suggesting that people get together and start using write-in candidates, duh… If you don’t start it, you can’t complain that it doesn’t work.
Morality?
January 7th, 2013
10:27 am
UK – BOTH sides have failed – with me it’s not a PARTY LOYALIST thing. B.O. has had 4 years of misery as far as the economy goes. Spending your way out of debt just doesn’t work.
Williebkind
January 7th, 2013
10:27 am
“Face it Confederates with your 7th grade edumacations – WE WON. Deal with it.”
Not in Ga.
Erwin's cat
January 7th, 2013
10:27 am
And the luck of the Irish to you too, Brosephus!
O’Brosephus
USinUK - not very ladylike (and former Girl Scout)
January 7th, 2013
10:28 am
“Under their definition Obamacare is pure Socialism since the government REGULATES the entire healthcare industry and hence controls 20% of the entire GDP of the nation.”
if regulation is your definition of socialism, then the economy has been socialist for more than100 years, long before Obama took office.
St Simons - aboriginal BOOTAKOOK 2014
January 7th, 2013
10:28 am
“Next six months may redefine Washington”
dude, the next 6 mos to a year will redefine planet earth.
think big, mon
I’m tellin you, you won’t recognize the place in a few years.
indigo
January 7th, 2013
10:29 am
td
The Govt. also entirely regulates and runs our Military.
This is also pure Socialism.
Is this ok with you?
0311/8541/5811/1811/1801
January 7th, 2013
10:29 am
“NEXT SIX MONTHS MAY REDEFINE WASHINGTON”
You mean the way the last four years has redefined this Republic ???
larry
January 7th, 2013
10:31 am
Under their definition Obamacare is pure Socialism since the government REGULATES the entire healthcare industry and hence controls 20% of the entire GDP of the nation. Add to it Medicare and Medicaid and total redistribution of another 22% of the economy by taxation then our government is controlling about 45% of all the output of the nation.
Then that means every industrialized country is socialist. Because every industrialized country offers some form of government subsidized healthcare. Even some third world countries offer this.
You can not have capitalism without some form of socialism. You can not have socialism without some form of capitalism.
indigo
January 7th, 2013
10:31 am
Brosephus – 10:27
So, have you started geting together with people and suggesting write-in candidates? duh
George P. Burdell
January 7th, 2013
10:32 am
You can call it the Longevity Dividend Payment and Healthcare Provider or whatever you care to. SS and Medicare are simply not sustainable in the current format and either reforms will be made or at some point no one will receive benefits. It is simply math and it is not working in our favor. There are far to few children being born to sustain an elderly population that retires in their mid 60’s and lives for another decade or two. Nothing can change that fact and it is just wishful thinking to think it can be changed. No one wants to face the facts but without serious reforms soon, major fiscal problems will surface and there will be no options left. Austerity is coming whether it is voted upon or simply occurs naturally. Changes now could lessen the impact but we as a whole do not have the strength to make that happen.
curious
January 7th, 2013
10:32 am
What part of the healthcare industry was unregulated before Obamacare?
Brosephus™: "Team Gump will prevail over Team Rudy"
January 7th, 2013
10:33 am
Paul @ 10:23
That’s cold… funny but cold. I’m already prepping the bunker.
TaxPayer
January 7th, 2013
10:33 am
Willie thinks Georgia has its own president different from President Obama.
USinUK - not very ladylike (and former Girl Scout)
January 7th, 2013
10:33 am
“B.O. has had 4 years of misery as far as the economy goes. Spending your way out of debt just doesn’t work.”
don’t read the news much, do you?
we’ve had 3 years of positive GDP growth and 3 years of positive job growth.
THAT, my friend, is economic growth – and, when you consider that it’s being done with the European headwind, that’s spectacular economic growth.
and, I’ll add one more thing – the UK has demonstrated that you sure as hell can’t CUT your way to economic growth.
td
January 7th, 2013
10:33 am
indigo
January 7th, 2013
10:29 am
td
The Govt. also entirely regulates and runs our Military.
This is also pure Socialism.
Is this ok with you?
What does the military have to do with the economy? When you talk about economic systems (socialism, capitalism) then you talk about the difference in the amount of control and types of control the government has on capital. The military has nothing to do with this discussion.
larry
January 7th, 2013
10:34 am
I guess every industrialized country is socialist .
Towncrier
January 7th, 2013
10:35 am
“Mick, it’s called an entitlement because you’re entitled to it, because you’ve earned it. Your response validates the conservative crusade to turn “entitlement” into a dirty word. It is not.”
Please explain how many of the individuals receiving benefits have actually “earned” them. I don’t know how you (or anyone) can possibly say such a thing in earnest.
Williebkind
January 7th, 2013
10:35 am
indigo
January 7th, 2013
10:29 am
That is pure ignorance.
Doggone/GA
January 7th, 2013
10:35 am
“You can not have capitalism without some form of socialism. You can not have socialism without some form of capitalism.”
and you can’t have either one without regulation
DownInAlbany
January 7th, 2013
10:35 am
Obama says, “…we don’t have a spending problem.” Pelosi says, “…no cuts, more taxes.” Yet, the Republicans are extremists and out of touch?
USinUK - not very ladylike (and former Girl Scout)
January 7th, 2013
10:36 am
“And how many Republicans won in Blue states? Does Gerrymandering only happen in Red States?”
there are 27 Republican state legislatures and only 17 with Dem – in other words, more than half the states were gerrymandered by GOP -
getalfe
January 7th, 2013
10:36 am
Roll Tide?
Roll Tide.
larry
January 7th, 2013
10:36 am
When you talk about economic systems (socialism, capitalism) then you talk about the difference in the amount of control and types of control the government has on capital.
You can’t have one without the other. You cant have socialism without some form of capitalism and you cant have capitalism without some form of socialism .
DebbieDoRight - A Do Right Woman
January 7th, 2013
10:37 am
To understand the depth of the Republican dilemma that continues to brew in Washington, you only needed to listen to two voices last week.
One belonged to New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie. The primal scream he aimed at his fellow Republicans in the 112th Congress, who on their final day refused to take up a $60 billion relief bill for Hurricane Sandy victims, rumbled across the right-left spectrum of cable TV news.
Most outlets focused on Christie’s criticism of John Boehner. The House speaker was to face re-election by his GOP caucus the next day. But the New Jersey governor dropped large hints that his real target was the dominating right wing of the House GOP caucus, peopled primarily by Southern conservatives.
“New Jersey and New Yorkers are tired of being treated as second-class citizens,” Christie said. “New Jersey deserves better than the duplicity we saw displayed last night.”
“[The bill] just could not overcome the toxic internal politics of the House majority,” the governor said. Christie was asked to identify the culprits. “They know who they are,” he said.
Anyone else hear that death toll for the once great Party Of Lincoln?
http://blogs.ajc.com/political-insider-jim-galloway/2013/01/05/a-north-south-split-surfaces-among-republicans-in-congress/?cxntfid=blogs_political_insider_jim_galloway
Williebkind
January 7th, 2013
10:37 am
“we’ve had 3 years of positive GDP growth and 3 years of positive job growth.”
That is pure liberal math.
curious
January 7th, 2013
10:37 am
The military and related defense industries are a huge factor in our economy.
MANGLER
January 7th, 2013
10:37 am
Anybody from any district who had only one person running for office unopposed may not complain at all about anything. You don’t care enough, as a district, to offer anyone to run, so you don’t get to complain.
USinUK - not very ladylike (and former Girl Scout)
January 7th, 2013
10:39 am
“That is pure liberal math.”
oh.
my.
dog.
just when I think the righties can’t get any more delusional than they already are …
larry
January 7th, 2013
10:39 am
Please explain how many of the individuals receiving benefits have actually “earned” them. I don’t know how you (or anyone) can possibly say such a thing in earnest.
Unless you have been disabled from birth, you do earn them.
Brosephus™: "Team Gump will prevail over Team Rudy"
January 7th, 2013
10:39 am
EC
————
indigo
I have used write-ins for almost as long as I have been voting. I didn’t think many other people did until Mr. Darwin did so well here in GA. If the opportunity allows, you’re damn right I will put out a list of viable write-ins.
Doggone/GA
January 7th, 2013
10:39 am
“That is pure liberal math.”
Got proof?
TaxPayer
January 7th, 2013
10:39 am
Where is that unskewed data when the cons need it.
Paul
January 7th, 2013
10:39 am
Brosephus
Just remember what ‘Bama fans said a couple months ago: “what’s a Texas A&M and why are we even bothering with them?”
Williebkind
January 7th, 2013
10:39 am
DebbieDoRight – A Do Right Woman
January 7th, 2013
10:37 am
You really have a reading disorder or just read what fits that little liberal mind of yours. Oh by the way Debbie will everyone get to help with the rebuilding in NY NJ or must they have a union card to get taxpayer money.
TaxPayer
January 7th, 2013
10:40 am
Given that cons don’t do math (or science), “pure liberal math” appears to be the only option.
larry
January 7th, 2013
10:41 am
That is pure liberal math.
Proof please.
Williebkind
January 7th, 2013
10:41 am
“That is pure liberal math.”
Got proof?”
Yep, how many times will you have to read it to undersand it.
TBS
January 7th, 2013
10:41 am
“What does the military have to do with the economy?”
For starters, how about calling the Chamber of Commerce in Columbus, Hinesville and Warner Robbins for starters..
You can then sit outside Lockheed and ask the workers as they leave….
Maybe give Boeing, GE, Pratt a call
If you don’t have any answers by that time, I will see if I can assist you with that blind spot you seem to be having
USinUK - not very ladylike (and former Girl Scout)
January 7th, 2013
10:42 am
TaxPayer – 10:39 –
Paul
January 7th, 2013
10:42 am
“What does the military have to do with the economy?”
HAHAHOHOHEEHEEEEHEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE
td, you slay me.
What’s the military have to do with the economy?
Lessee,,, ever heard of California? Texas? Virginia? Florida? How many other states can you name, hmmmmm?
’scuse me while I catch my breath…
Granny Godzilla
January 7th, 2013
10:42 am
Liberal Math?
snicker
Christian Conservative
January 7th, 2013
10:42 am
jobs growth vs decline:
The average monthly job creation in 2012 was 150,000. That is the best one year performance during Obama’s first term. That is barely good enough to keep pace with the number of workers entering the job market every month for the first time, meaning that we have a long way to go to replace the 7-8 million jobs lost during the recession. This is without mentioning that if the number of workers that have dropped out of the workforce was the same as when Bush left unemployment would be over 10%.
personal wealth: The median family’s net worth dropped 38.8 percent during Obama’s first term.
Kamchak ~ Thug from the Steppes
January 7th, 2013
10:42 am
That is pure liberal math.
As opposed to Karl Rove math?
curious
January 7th, 2013
10:43 am
“Oh by the way Debbie will everyone get to help with the rebuilding in NY NJ or must they have a union card to get taxpayer money.”
Ask the Governors if you really want the answer.
Joe Hussein Mama
January 7th, 2013
10:43 am
williebkind — “You really have a reading disorder or just read what fits that little liberal mind of yours”
I wouldn’t be dissing others’ minds if you can’t follow simple math, son.
getalfe
January 7th, 2013
10:43 am
Stay the course cons.
You are doing a heck of a job but when facts don’t matter, you need a doctor to help you get a grip on reality.
Good luck with that.
Granny Godzilla
January 7th, 2013
10:44 am
I like liberal math….so does my 401K.
Paul
January 7th, 2013
10:44 am
Towncrier
“Please explain how many of the individuals receiving benefits have actually “earned” them. ”
That’s irrelevant, if you mean “paid money for.” Eligibility is established (earned) by meeting criteria established by law.
Kamchak ~ Thug from the Steppes
January 7th, 2013
10:45 am
What does the military have to do with the economy?
There’s your sign.
USinUK - not very ladylike (and former Girl Scout)
January 7th, 2013
10:47 am
“Given that cons don’t do math (or science), “pure liberal math” appears to be the only option.”
you know, I never really thought about it until now, but maybe the right really HAS been blinded by science!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V83JR2IoI8k
barking frog
January 7th, 2013
10:47 am
Christian Conservative
personal wealth: The median family’s net worth dropped 38.8 percent during Obama’s first term.
………………………………………………….
any idea how Obama did that ?
TBS
January 7th, 2013
10:47 am
td
You can also call Delta and ask them how much money they have made via chartered flights paid for by the military during both the Irag and Afganistan wars
I am a "rich pretty boy"
January 7th, 2013
10:47 am
Thanks debbiedoright!!!
Thanks for noticing. Maybe it’s the sand in front of my Sandestin beach house that keeps my legs toned and a nice tan 365 days a year. The luxury of enjoying the fruits of my labor! Btw, are you not ecstatic that we won’t be paying more taxes since the income threshold is @ 400k instead of 250!
Loving life!
Old Goober
January 7th, 2013
10:48 am
Just as a question, what’s wrong with spending all you’ve saved to take care of yourself our your spouse? Isn’t that a conservative battlecry – self reliance? If a person’s at the point where they require institutional care, why do they need to retain two cars, land, a stock portfolio or any other significant assets before asking other Americans to pay for their care?
Spoken like a good little Republican with Democratic pretensions. Your statement is true only if one subscribes to the view that we have the best possible healthcare system. I’m not a subscriber. I don’t think that people should be forced to bankrupt themselves merely because they get old or sick. That’s why I favor a single-payer system. Healthcare ought to be off the table when it comes to private financing.
As one who wrote out those $4,800 monthly checks when my wife was confined to a nursing home, I think I know a little about what I speak.
USinUK - not very ladylike (and former Girl Scout)
January 7th, 2013
10:49 am
“personal wealth: The median family’s net worth dropped 38.8 percent during Obama’s first term.”
let’s not confuse personal wealth with personal income …
let’s see … what else was going on during Obama’s first term … could it have been the property bust? why yes. property that was way the hell over-inflated and due for a correction, anyway
http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2011/04/case-shiller-100-year-chart-2011-update/
getalfe
January 7th, 2013
10:49 am
Matherbation.
clem
January 7th, 2013
10:50 am
freedomworks grassroot falacy:
http://news.firedoglake.com/2013/01/07/freedomworks-document-leak-reveals-reliance-on-rich-donors/
tpers working for their masters
Paul
January 7th, 2013
10:51 am
Christian Conservative
That’s the best you got? That’s how you assess the overall health of the economy to make the case the economy is the same or worse now than it was when Pres Obama was sworn in?
Really? Really?
You offer average job creation? O-kaaay…… What was the private sector job creation in the eight years before Obama? How ’bout the last three or four months?
You DO know the main driver of the decline in personal wealth, don’t you? You didn’t just do a googly and pull out something that sounded good, did you?
(HInt: it has to do with these buildings people buy to live it. Once you get that answer, then you can figure out when the values declined and why. THEN you can tell us how that answer from when Obama took office compares to now).
Williebkind
January 7th, 2013
10:51 am
“I wouldn’t be dissing others’ minds if you can’t follow simple math, son.”
Simple math with psuedo numbers? Now that is hard to follow but you got down pat havent you old man.
John Konop
January 7th, 2013
10:51 am
A few suggestions:
1) If we caped dividends at 400k of income at capital gains rate, yet lowered cap gains to 15 percent we would increase revenue via investment incentives……….verse a straight tax increase. Also save on welfare via jobs……
If we let people buy drugs from non third world countries it would save the average tax payers a lot of money
2) If we replace payroll taxes with a VAT we would lower taxes on workers and tax black market money…….
3) If we stop the war on drugs we would not only save money we would increase tax revenue and help fight lifetime handcuffs for the poor and lower middle class via a record…………….
4) If we ended NCLB and tracked kids via aptitude over one size fit all college prep or out we could fill the 3 million job openings ie create more tax revenue and save money on education …….
5) If we let seniors, family of VETS and government workers buy drugs from the VA we could save tax payers 60 percent on drugs
6) If we ended the policemen of the world foreign policy we could save 50 percent of the cost of military spending reactive to GDP
7) If we pushed dial a doc, drug store care…..for non emergencies especially for non insured and government workers tax payers would save a lot of money……
9) If we change the immigration policy toward best and brightest we would be magnet for future. Investment ie let hard science grads from Georgia Tech, MIT……….fast track for citizenship.
10) If we increased percentage of pay for elective Medicare procedures we would help keep the program alive
11) We could base SS on average life expectancy
USinUK - not very ladylike (and former Girl Scout)
January 7th, 2013
10:51 am
Good heavens Miss Yakamoto … you’re beautiful!
Kamchak ~ Thug from the Steppes
January 7th, 2013
10:52 am
Matherbation.
Though I doubt that Cotton Mather is amused.
Towncrier
January 7th, 2013
10:52 am
“At its most basic, politics is a process by which theories are tested and realities are sifted from illusions. It is disciplined by failure. Politics is also a crudely Darwinian process.”
Really? Seems rather idealistic and pseudo-scientific. But how does your hypothesis hold up against what we know from history? What form of government has EVER survived the test of time and proven itself more “fit” than others? Would you consider the 20th century, with all of it atrocities, an indication of human (not technological) progress?
Brosephus™: "Team Gump will prevail over Team Rudy"
January 7th, 2013
10:52 am
Paul
You’re right about that, but I think there were many who looked past TA&M. That said, Bama has proven that we rarely make the same mistake twice. Think last January, for example.
Kamchak ~ Thug from the Steppes
January 7th, 2013
10:53 am
If we replace payroll taxes with a VAT we would lower taxes on workers and tax black market money…….
There’s your sign.
Williebkind
January 7th, 2013
10:53 am
” I don’t think that people should be forced to bankrupt themselves merely because they get old or sick. ”
What are you going to do with your wealth? Leave it to your kids who did not help out or to that beloved cat.
Welcome to the Occupation
January 7th, 2013
10:54 am
What does the military have to do with the economy?
Head jerks to the side: WHO said that?
WHO said that?
I’ve got to know.
WHO?
Welcome to the Occupation
January 7th, 2013
10:54 am
td: “What does the military have to do with the economy? When you talk about economic systems (socialism, capitalism) then you talk about the difference in the amount of control and types of control the government has on capital. The military has nothing to do with this discussion.”
The military has EVERYTHING to do with the discussion. EVERYTHING.
td
January 7th, 2013
10:55 am
USinUK – not very ladylike (and former Girl Scout)
January 7th, 2013
10:36 am
“And how many Republicans won in Blue states? Does Gerrymandering only happen in Red States?”
there are 27 Republican state legislatures and only 17 with Dem – in other words, more than half the states were gerrymandered by GOP -
And 10, 20, 30 plus years ago the ratio was the opposite and the Dems gerrymandered the districts and halted the vision of Reagan from being implemented and stopped the plans of both Bushes. This is what our form of government is all about.
Our founding fathers did not want very much to get accomplished at the Federal level. They were afraid of tyranny and therefore wrote the Constitution specifically to make it extremely difficult for tyrants to come into power.
DebbieDoRight - A Do Right Woman
January 7th, 2013
10:55 am
TC: Please explain how many of the individuals receiving benefits have actually “earned” them. I don’t know how you (or anyone) can possibly say such a thing in earnest.
TC — why don’t you just look it up for yourself? Oh wait, maybe because you’re lazy?
Joe Hussein Mama
January 7th, 2013
10:55 am
williebkind — “Simple math with psuedo numbers?”
The math is what it is. If you have a problem with it, then show your work — just as you did back in school, son.
“Now that is hard to follow but you got down pat havent you old man.”
Nope. I simply understand mathematics better than you do.
USinUK - not very ladylike (and former Girl Scout)
January 7th, 2013
10:56 am
Kam – well, Jerry Mather WAS The Beaver.
(sorry … too much?)
Corbin Sharpe. Baby Boomer...and Ban the Gun Thug!
January 7th, 2013
10:57 am
OK, I just found out why Notra Dame will win….
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nliGpftosbE
Paul
January 7th, 2013
10:57 am
Old Goober
‘Spoken like a good little Republican with Democratic pretensions.’
See, you don’t do a lot for your position when you attempt to categorize, demonize and dismiss. It’s about the argument and the facts, man -
” Your statement is true only if one subscribes to the view that we have the best possible healthcare system.”
Ummm… not, it’s not. Doesn’t even enter into the discussion. It’s about what we have NOW and the requirement that people use their assets for long-term care before asking others to contribute.
” I don’t think that people should be forced to bankrupt themselves merely because they get old or sick.”
So I’ll ask the question I’ve been asked: why should people be able to keep a second home, several cars, land, a stock portfolio, etc and not use any of it and expect others to pay for long-term care?
“That’s why I favor a single-payer system.”
So do I. So much for your earlier assumptions.
USinUK - not very ladylike (and former Girl Scout)
January 7th, 2013
10:58 am
td – “And 10, 20, 30 plus years ago the ratio was the opposite and the Dems gerrymandered the districts and halted the vision of Reagan from being implemented and stopped the plans of both Bushes. This is what our form of government is all about. ”
you missed the first part of the conversation in which Morality (I think) was postulating that the reason Dems made gains in the house was due to Dem gerrymandering.
TBS
January 7th, 2013
10:59 am
Bro
Last Jan you played the same team. Not the same as this year.
I still say Bama but not sure if they cover the spread.
ND is a great team.
Bama has a few more weapons and that will probably be the difference imo.
Stevie Ray..Clowns to the left and Jokers to the right..here I am...
January 7th, 2013
10:59 am
Erwin’s cat
January 7th, 2013
10:27 am
No way Notre Dame wins…much less makes is close…they will have a desperately difficult time sans turnovers scoring points. By the 4th quarter, you will see a winded defense unable to stop the run. How can you compare Kelly to Saban and his crew with a month off?
A freshman qb how certainly isn’t Johnny Football. ND schedule also suspect. Common opponent Michigan…aside from Oklahoma and possibly Stanford, who else they beat?
getalfe
January 7th, 2013
10:59 am
Ward, you were too hard on the beaver last night.
Just Saying..
January 7th, 2013
10:59 am
Wow, bitter Con Convention here.
Not everyone’s emotionally suited to live in a democracy…
barking frog
January 7th, 2013
10:59 am
USinUK
Jerry Mather was plying the beaver……
Welcome to the Occupation
January 7th, 2013
11:00 am
td: “Our founding fathers did not want very much to get accomplished at the Federal level. They were afraid of tyranny and therefore wrote the Constitution specifically to make it extremely difficult for tyrants to come into power.”
Not so, td. The “founding fathers” were afraid of the masses overwhelming them and threatening the wealth they represented. That’s why the designed the anti-democratic monstrosity that is the Constitution: to hold the democratic aspirations and impulses of the people in check and thereby preserve their privilege.
Kamchak ~ Thug from the Steppes
January 7th, 2013
11:00 am
USinUK
Favorite line from that TV series:
June Cleaver: Ward, I’m worried about The Beaver.
barking frog
January 7th, 2013
11:00 am
sorry, playing the beaver…
Williebkind
January 7th, 2013
11:01 am
Nope. I simply understand mathematics better than you do.
Well, I guess my public education is a route.
Brosephus™: "Team Gump will prevail over Team Rudy"
January 7th, 2013
11:02 am
Corbin
barking frog
January 7th, 2013
11:03 am
getalfe 10:59
you win.
USinUK - not very ladylike (and former Girl Scout)
January 7th, 2013
11:03 am
“Nope. I simply understand mathematics better than you do.”
yay!!! so, tell us where the BLS is wrong on unemployment.
Towncrier
January 7th, 2013
11:04 am
“That’s irrelevant, if you mean “paid money for.” Eligibility is established (earned) by meeting criteria established by law.”
It is irrelevant in your mind. I understand that people are given benefits for which they have not worked or paid, but to say they have “earned” them is I think an interesting misuse of the English Language.
From Merriam Webster:
1
a : to receive as return for effort and especially for work done or services rendered
b : to bring in by way of return
2
a : to come to be duly worthy of or entitled or suited to
b : to make worthy of or obtain for
I guess to your way of thinking, being born in America is tantamount to “earning” benefits (rather than just saying being eligible to receive them). Saying someone earned something clearly implies they did something to get it. And that is simply not true in many case where benefits are extended today. I think it is misleading to say such a thing.