View Single Post
Old 04-28-2009, 05:43 PM   #28
Achilles
Dapper Chimp
 
Achilles's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 8,204
Helpful! Veteran Modder Forum Veteran 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tommycat View Post
Good economy at end of Clinton years: That was because neither the Democrats NOR Republicans had full control of the government.
Help me understand what this means. You seem to be conflating two topics:

1) my discussion with Q as to whether or not both parties are trying to ruin the country
2) partisan control is inherently bad

Furthermore your argument contains a couple of premises which I think you're going to have a very difficult time supporting:

1) that Clinton couldn't have balanced the budget with a partisan legislature
2) that the balance budget was only possible because there was a Republican majority.

So at the risk of repeating myself:

So?

and

I don't buy the argument that both parties are just looking to shotgun a sixer and park the country in a ditch somewhere. Sorry.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tommycat View Post
When Bush took office, he had a majority Republican congress that he did not feel the need to veto(even though there were many things he failed to veto that he should have).
Yes, I am aware that Bush only issued one veto and that this is largely due to his use of signing statements and the fact that he had a legislature that lobbed him softballs for his first 6 years in office.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tommycat View Post
Whereas Clinton vetoed far more of Republican BS than Bush did.
Right, hence my point: it's much easier to get things done when the branches work together. Your argument is that this automatically = bad. My argument is that it depends entirely on the agenda, therefore bad agenda = bad and good agenda = good. Sorry to shatter your false dichotomy, but it had to be done.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tommycat View Post
For the current admin, this is still up in the air. We haven't even completed one year(not even a fiscal quarter), and our national budget is way larger than the largest Bush budget.
Supposing that this was relevant or indicative of anything in any way: which part of the budget are you referring to? Expenditures? Are there any mitigating circumstances that might be applicable? How does this compare to budget revenues?

Talking points can be dangerous.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tommycat View Post
Did I back in 96-06: Yes, however as I was not a member of this board at this time it is impossible for me to prove that. I can certainly point to a number of negative things I have said about the Republicans on the board. And if you notice quite a number of occasions I had chastised GarfieldJL on many of his accusations.
Congratulations.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tommycat View Post
Partisan and ineffective: No, I prefer that they not be able to ram partisan policies down our throat. I would rather they be forced to work with the other party to get anything done. If neither party is willing to give, I would rather nothing be done than a whole lot done in one party's favor. Clear enough?
So if you can't have bi-partisan and effective, you'll take bi-partisan and ineffective instead? Got it.

Just let me draw your attention once more to a couple of things:

The war in Iraq
The war in Afghanistan
pig flu
North Korea
Housing bubble burst
Economic depression
Record unemployment

Forgive me if I don't share your "if the other team doesn't want to play nice then we should throw the ball in the river and sulk at each other until 2010-12" perspective on things. As I stated earlier, I don't necessarily care for one party having all the power either. But interestingly, when the Republicans had all the power, they used it to abuse their power ("nuclear option" anyone?). Now that the Democrats have all the power they're talking about things like making sure everyone can go to the doctor when they need health care. Forgive me if I don't see these as equitable evils.

Republican conduct has been deplorable. They've consistently demonstrated that they will go to almost any length to make sure that bi-partisanship fails (and if the house majority/minority leaders, the chairman of the RNC, and Rush Limbaugh don't speak for the entire RNC, then please forgive me for generalizing about all the people who helped put them there).

So right now, I'm far more interested is seeing business get handled than I am making sure that we tack on months of political posturing so that the GOP can position themselves better for mid-term elections next year

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tommycat View Post
you paying attention to what the Republicans say: I believe you listen to what the Dems say the Reps say.
It's called CSPAN/YouTube/etc.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tommycat View Post
Partisanship is evil: Yes, That is what I would say. It makes people willing to ignore the faults in their party's logic.

Opportunity to revise: I still stand by it.
Partisanship is partisanship. It's the agenda that has the capacity for harm or good. Checks and balances are always preferable, however if one party is more committed to the party than the job, then there is a problem.
Achilles is offline   you may: quote & reply,