It seems to me, the core problem with both parties (GOP especially, but both are culpable) can be summed up in one picture:

http://spectrain.files.wordpress.com/2010/11/my-way.jpg

It's like their stuck on their ideology, they act like their at war, and they both think that their the only ones who live in this country. They also seem to be oblivious of very novel word called "Compromise". Hell, some of the representives elected went to their post stating they had no intention of making any compromises. That's not exactly what i'd call a team player. And what effort is made at compromise, is laiden down with so much pork, as to be laughable at best.

"A house divided against itself cannot stand." - Abraham Lincoln

If this is how the two parties are going to operate for now on, the "American Experiment" will be doomed to failure. Perhaps it already has. Go ahead. Shut down the F'ing governtment, and revoke all pay for every Assclown in congress while were at it. If i had my way, id lock them all in a room for however long it takes, without pay, until they come up with a joint and united solution.

"Bipartisanship" has two meanings now. To the majority party, it means "You have to do things our way!", to the minority party it means "You guys should be nice to us or we'll walk all over you when it's our turn!"

I suggest we lock them in, and start fining them the equivalent of their salaries for each day the shutdown lasts.

It's politics. Compromise is a sign of weakness. Anything that your opponent can claim as a victory hurts you in your next re-election bid. It's not enough to oppose your foe. You have to destroy him.

You can't just oppose Bill Clinton's policies - you have to impeach him. You can't oppose Bush's ideas - you have to insult his intelligence and claim treason and 9/11 was an inside job. You can't oppose Obama's proposal - you have to delegitimize his presidency by claiming he's a Kenyan socialist Muslim Manchurian Candidate.

Yeah, heaven forbid they make the country their number 1 priority like their supposed to instead of getting re elected. F'ing C*********s.

The march has been inexorably in one direction for a long time. The amount of spending (the vast majority of which is on "social programs" (ie: "socialism")) has been going up and up. Compromise usually means that the insane spenders pitch some increase, and the supposed fiscal conservatives pitch a very slightly lower figure. Doesn't matter, now we spend over 20% of GDP on big government, when 100 years ago it was a tiny fraction of that %.

During the huge government spending days of the Great Depression we broke 5%, and got up above 10% of GDP!

The increase (other than WW2) was not driven by military spending, but by socialist programs.

Faced with mono-directional "change" we need something different. Note that the single direction is regardless of party, only the rate of change is altered, and even that is slight.

US politics has been polarized since the Washington administration, BTW.

In explaining why the North and South went to war in 1861, historian Shelby Foote argued that “the genius of American politics is compromise.” He was referring, of course, to the compromises that made the writing and adoption of the Constitution possible in 1787, of the Missouri Compromise of 1820 that quieted the debate over slavery for a generation, and of the Compromise of 1850 that briefly silenced the dispute over the expansion of slavery in the territories won from Mexico during the Mexican-American War.

However, I think it's safe to say that once again the political center, where compromises are fashioned, no longer exists. Are we drifting back to the climate of 1860?

Heh, interesting thought. If anything, nothing will get done. Ever. If both sides want it their way and no other, then nothing will get done. Meanwhile, the country will crumble down around them. I'll wager that in the future, In the history books, They'll be a chapter on "The American Era", and the conclusion of the chapter that describes how the era ended. Amongst other factors, one of which that ill be listed was constant infighting and bickering which contributed to internal stagnation and crucial issues of the day not being resolved. I'd bet money on that acutally, but that's a bet i'll never get to collect on.

@Tater
No, what you should mean is "sometimes a few might be" which is very different from "specificly, often(always)".

In an alternate reality maybe, but it has never happened anywhere throughout history.

Oh dear, there we see the problem, you believe in the myth of free markets, I hate to burst your bubble but that ideology is only a fairytale.

What on earth has that got to do with corporation tax?
So you want uniform import tarrifs

So now its uniform duty not corporation tax.

So lets get this straight, you want uniform income tax across the board with no write offs or allowances. You want uniform corporation tax with no write offs, delays or subsidies. You want uniform import tarrifs on all goods and materials. You want the same duty on everything so a bottle of whisky has the same duty as a bottle of childrens cough syrup.

You sound like a cambodian communist economist who thinks all things and everyone are absolutely equal.

Good point.

Unfortunately though compromise is rarely a permanent answer to anything. The Missouri Compromise for example might have delayed the civil war but it did not solve the underlying issues that caused the war to eventually break out.

Indeed had the 1820 compromise not happened the war might have been fought before the introduction of modern weapons (like the rifled musket) that made civil war battlefields so particularly bloody.

As to whether we're drifting back to the climate of 1860, you may be right, but a key difference is that the polarization is not concentrated into definable geographic areas. In a new civil war every state would be a "Bleeding Kansas" or "Bloody Missouri".

As Thomas Jefferson put it:

"...but this momentous question, like a fire bell in the night, awakened and filled me with terror. I considered it at once as the knell of the Union. it is hushed indeed for the moment. but this is a reprieve only, not a final sentence. a geographical line, coinciding with a marked principle, moral and political, once conceived and held up to the angry passions of men, will never be obliterated; and every new irritation will mark it deeper and deeper."

It has been a while since politicians worked for the country. Party before country is the state of our politics these days (and has been for many years). It is sad and makes me frustrated.

I wish I knew a solution to the party politics problem we have. Our fore fathers were right when they were concerned with political parties. :yep:

Here in my country once in a while the discussion flares up about introducing a two-party system like in the US, but this is exactly the reason why I'm opposed to that; there are only two sides. Reaching a compromise is much harder that way; since neither side wants to lose face, and that's what becomes increasingly important: every decision becomes a 'win' or 'lose' thing.
Multiple political parties partly takes this problem away. This doesn't mean this system doesn't have it's drawbacks (it usually takes three to four months between elections and the formation of a government coalition for example) but it does help governing parties to focus a little less on 'we win you lose' tactics.

Ok, well, that's a different topic, politicians promising but not delivering. It doesn't preclude tax cuts, spending cuts and balancing the budget.


Maybe so, but am I mistaken when I say I sense a degree of glee from a lot of people when the 93% (exorbitant) tax rates are mentioned?

:yep: x 10

...and I don't claim to know everything about this particular budget proposal, but between the two school of thoughts:

1. Tax the rich until everyone's need and wishes are satisfied
2. Cut spending and taxes and allow business to work with minimal interference

I will opt for #2. Sure, we disagree.

Well, that's certainly your opinion. You've earned the Skybird award for posing an opinion as undisputed fact.

My opinion contrasts that, I believe that free markets deserve a large share of credit for getting us this far. I sure don't think state run economies are the answer.

At least someone is making an effort. :)

@Neal
Can you find any example of a true free market system ever existing in any nation?
If it has existed you can surely produce one example as an item of fact, if you are unable to produce one then it reverts to mythical status.

A State run economy is just another ideology, and like most it is mythical.