bbauska wrote:How many Democrats voted for the Presidents budget? (Shhh. The answer is zero...)

That's because their #1 priority is to see him out of office.

rickyp wrote:super
You actually think there is objective truth concerning the use of a descriptive term?

Yes. In a range of 1-10, 1 and 10 are the extreme.

In this discussion, my own view that its extreme really doesn't matter. The point is, will the majority of the electorate view the Ryan plan as extreme?

No, that wasn't your point. Your point was that his policies are extreme. End of story. Ray's point was that the political machines unfairly paint each other as extreme, when they aren't. Which you conveniently demostrate:

I believe that most seniors who currently enjoy Medicare would resist changes to the program. (The oft quoted "get your government hands off my medicare". )The fact that Ryan plans the changes occurring only to people 55 and younger suggests he understands that Medicare is popular. He apparently thinks that people aged 45-55 won't consider changes that will cost them money when they are ready to take advantage of medicare unacceptable. There are estimates circulating that it will cost about $6,000 a year per senior .... I'm pretty sure that group 45-55 will stand up and listen carefully to these estimates. And they'd probably feel the changes were extreme.
$6000 being a fairly large sum for most voters.
And that backs up my position that extreme depends on one's point of view.

No, it doesn't back up your point. In fact, it backs up Ray's point perfectly. It has nothing to do with "their view", it has to do with the view that you (read: the political machines) are giving them. I don't really give a damn about the numbers, particularly as you admit they are only estimates. But let's take those estimates at face value for now.

You want to go to a group of seniors and tell them Romney wants them to pay $6000 more per year. You don't give them any other options, just the message about Romney, Paul and $6000. Of course they will think it's extreme. But now, let's go to those seniors and present them with all the options: No coverage at all - partial coverage - full and uninhibited coverage. Then we ask them to rank the extremes. Ahhh, well now they have a different perspective.

It's not about their point of view, it's about the distorted point of view you (again, read: the political machines) are giving them. That's what makes Ray Jay so annoyed with the whole situation: political machines are taking policies that are not extreme and painting them as such.

Thanks ... I really couldn't have said it better myself.

The I guess Super, you and Ray must be pretty frustrated by the Romney Ryan approach to answering exactly how they intend to achieve their balanced budget. Since they won't even address the specifics.
Without the specifics of budget expenditures that just don't add up right now, you aren't really being offered a comprehensive idea of what you are evaluating..
Of course, if you are willing to accept that "they'll work it out", then I suppose having to answer the charge that the average 54 year old will have to incur a $6,000 tab for insurance that Meidcare doesn't cover would seem unfair...
In an election candidates need to address the issues as best they can through the fog of the media, and the competing noise. Complaining about fairness, seems like complaining that your candidate can't manage that process. or perhaps complaining that their ideas just don't resonate when challenged?
I note that most of the media that have tried to evaluate Ryan and Romneys proposal's in a non-partisan fashion have a real problem with the math and the specifics....

Here's something quite precious from Ryans Fox interview.....

Brit Hume of Fox News asked Ryan to counter that charge. "What we're saying is get rid of special interest loopholes and deductions that are uniquely enjoyed by the wealthy to lower the tax rates for everybody," Ryan said.
But lowering middle-class tax rates, if coupled with eliminating key deductions, could lead to an effective tax increase, the cornerstone of the analyses of Romney's tax plan. Hume pressed for specifics.
"That is something that we think we should do in the light of day, through Congress," Ryan told Hume, promising to "have a process for tax reform so that we do this in the front of the public. So no, the point I'm trying to say is, we want feedback from Americans about what priorities in the tax code should be kept, and what special interest loopholes we want to get rid of."

What's wrong with the light of day provided by an election campaign? So people can make a decision about whether your ideas are supportable or not?
reminds me of Kim Campbell, a former PM of Canada who said, "an election isn't a good time to have a debate about that issue..."
(One of the reasons she's a former PM)

rickyp wrote:The I guess Super, you and Ray must be pretty frustrated by the Romney Ryan approach to answering exactly how they intend to achieve their balanced budget. Since they won't even address the specifics.
Without the specifics of budget expenditures that just don't add up right now, you aren't really being offered a comprehensive idea of what you are evaluating..

Right. How dare they? After all, with President Obama's precise prescription for getting to a balanced budget . . .

Of course, if you are willing to accept that "they'll work it out", then I suppose having to answer the charge that the average 54 year old will have to incur a $6,000 tab for insurance that Meidcare doesn't cover would seem unfair...

All I hear are Obama surrogates bragging, literally, that Medicare will be solvent for 12 years.

Um . . .

In an election candidates need to address the issues as best they can through the fog of the media, and the competing noise.

So, when is the President going to start addressing the issues?

Here's something quite precious from Ryans Fox interview.....

Brit Hume of Fox News asked Ryan to counter that charge. "What we're saying is get rid of special interest loopholes and deductions that are uniquely enjoyed by the wealthy to lower the tax rates for everybody," Ryan said.
But lowering middle-class tax rates, if coupled with eliminating key deductions, could lead to an effective tax increase, the cornerstone of the analyses of Romney's tax plan. Hume pressed for specifics.
"That is something that we think we should do in the light of day, through Congress," Ryan told Hume, promising to "have a process for tax reform so that we do this in the front of the public. So no, the point I'm trying to say is, we want feedback from Americans about what priorities in the tax code should be kept, and what special interest loopholes we want to get rid of."

What's wrong with the light of day provided by an election campaign? So people can make a decision about whether your ideas are supportable or not?

Here's what is really funny: you think the TEA party and Republicans are going to pass a middle class tax increase?

That's a riot.

And, as soon as Romney/Ryan announced anything, what would happen? Would Obama engage in a discussion of competing ideas or demagogue whatever they put forth?

Recent history yields an obvious answer: Obama doesn't debate anything when he can go for the kneecaps instead.

reminds me of Kim Campbell, a former PM of Canada who said, "an election isn't a good time to have a debate about that issue..."
(One of the reasons she's a former PM)

For President Obama, there's never a time for debate. After all, he is the king.

That's why he will be the former President.

RickyP,
Let me be more precise than DF. I want you to provide the link to the Presidents budget that shows a balanced budget. Until then, your words mean little other than poking at others with bias. Personally, I call that hypocrisy.

Here is the account of the Republican meeting to oppose Obama: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/2 ... 52899.html

I have not seen any Republican deny that this meeting occurred.

If I disagree politically with someone, am I supposed to "roll over" and let the President have his way? Or am I obligated to do what I think is best for the nation?

I would have to say yes. I would think you would feel the same.

Were Democrats obligated to do what they felt they could to stop President Bush? Yes.
Did the Dems leaving Wisconsin and fleeing to Illinois bring any questions from the left? No.

More hypocrisy...

No, brad, the Republicans were not acting on principle-- they acted to obstruct the president because they thought if they could prevent him from any legislative accomplishments they could beat him in 2012. I have never of a political party in the U. S.doing that before in wisconsin the democrats acted out of their belief on one issue--they were not just being obstructionist so as to beat the governor in the next election
What the Republicans did was a disservice to their country--they were willing that the country be harmed as long as they beat Obama
So,no, there is no hypocrisy in calling out Republicans on this What they did was disgraceful

bbauska wrote:If I disagree politically with someone, am I supposed to "roll over" and let the President have his way? Or am I obligated to do what I think is best for the nation?

I would have to say yes. I would think you would feel the same.

However, having made that decision on day 1, they can't then turn around and complain that they are not being 'compromised' with. Well, they can and are, but it's hypocritical and dishonest if they do.

freeman2 wrote:Here is the account of the Republican meeting to oppose Obama: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/2 ... 52899.html

I have not seen any Republican deny that this meeting occurred.

Invoking the Harry Reid standard. Nice.

Republicans, for the most pary, stood on principal. Obama pushed government solution after government solution. That is not something conservatives support.

Obama went out of his way to be partisan. Did he expect Republicans would take his sniping and just shrug it off?

He has never stopped campaigning or attacking. If he had, he might accidentally lead. That's not a role he's comfortable with.

Did John Boehner work with the President on the "Fiscal cliff" we were supposedly falling off of? I do believe so.
Remember the working meeting on the golf course?

danivon wrote:However, having made that decision on day 1, they can't then turn around and complain that they are not being 'compromised' with. Well, they can and are, but it's hypocritical and dishonest if they do.

The President famously rubbed McCain's face in the 2008 election. He told McCain in 2010, "I won."

After getting shellacked in the mid-term election, did Obama moderate? Did he reach out?

Is bipartisanship a one-way street? Should he whine about "obstructionism" when he has done zero to reach across the aisle?

Doctor Fate wrote:The President famously rubbed McCain's face in the 2008 election. He told McCain in 2010, "I won."

Gosh, he said that! How UnAmerican to acknowledge success or be competitive.

Seriously, if that is all it takes to prompt sheer obstructionism, the the GOP are seriously bad losers.

Let's be clear: BOTH parties these days are guilty of polarizing policies and a general unwillingness to compromise. I blame the Republicans, who consciously decided in the late '80s to move right, in an effort to energize a particularly active segment of the party and reverse what was then a seemingly permanent minority status in both houses. It worked, and I don't begrudge political success, that's what democracy is about. The unfortunate consequence is that we've lost the bipartizanship that helped make our government work. The Democrats are also guilty.

What is not acceptable, in my view, is a decision not just to support policies from one wing of the party, but to decide to be deliberatly uncooperative - even on legislation where your stated positions are in agreement - just so that the administration will be seen to have failed. It's not acceptable for Democrats under Bush, and it's not acceptable for Republicans under Obama. I'll leave it to others to crunch the numbers on whether or not it actually happened.

The fact is that [given a Democrat in the White House] the 110th Congress, when there was a Democratic majority, was one of the most productive in recent history, while the 111th, with a Republican House majority, was one of the least productive in recent history. Personally, I think that this has a lot more to do with the partizanship if today's political environment than it does with the identity of the individual in the White House.

This is sad. Demonizing the opponent, which is all-too common today, whether it be comparing Obama to Hitler, Stalin or Mao (which has been done), or saying Romney will murder Grandma, does NOT help our country; it only makes it harder to find workable solutions. Playing the zero-sum game results in a zero sum. From a partizan standpoint that might be desireable - if you can blame the other party. But from a national perspective it leave us all worse off.

And I don't think the Tea Party is about to help. While on a case-by-case basis I might be prepared to agree to some of their favored policies, I DON'T get the impression that compromise is one of their strengths.

Apologies for the rant. You man now return to your regularly-scheduled debate.