Dyandod wrote:As for what Romney would do to and/or for America, all we have to do is look at his past. He's had a lot of economic success as governor of Massachusetts, and we can also see success in his work at Bain Capital, and for the Salt Lake City Olympics. Honestly, he had/has a lot more achievements under his belt than Obama did when he was elected.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Governorsh ... itt_Romney
Romney issued 844 vetos as governor, the large share of which of which were overturned by one or the other of the state houses.
he got steamrolled. As you'd expect a R in MA to be. Whenever he says 'I reached across the aisle', it was more that the aisle was jammed down his throat against his strenuous objections. Whenever he says 'we got things done', that's true in the loosest sense that he was part of the government and the government got things done.
The rest... isn't public policy. He can manage/own well. That's nice. The President isn't a manager/owner. A president - particularly with a divided congress - faces a lot more opposition. Opposition that couldn't overwhelm him like in MA, to be sure. But it does mean we haven't seen how he does in such a situation.
But I wasn't asking about how
he'd act, I was asking what he'd actually do
while he was acting that way. There's hardly a platform position he's held that survived from March to September, aside from abortion. Can you find any others?
Death 999 wrote:
This political divide really is such a terrible thing.
Then tell congressional republicans not to reject compromises 75% or 90% in their favor, next time? Seriously - rejecting Obamacare as communist when it was basically identical to the 'Republican counteroffer' Clinton rejected in the '90s? Rejecting "N dollars of spending cuts for each dollar of raised revenue", with N > 3? These block rejections do NOT look like good faith opposition. Please, make a case for those actually being good faith opposition.
Mallo Oture wrote:Dyandod, I'm not 100% for the president, but I have to agree with Death. The last house, and congress continually rejected the compromises made by the administration.
Could you give some examples of these? I'm pretty sure most of them weren't 75-90% in their favor.
Most, sure! And I'll grant that none of the real offers were 90% - the republicans merely made their single position on such a deal known. But should
most negotiations end up around 80% in favor of the party with less representation in office?
Let's look at that debt limit extension matter. Note that we are presently borrowing at around the inflation rate, so it's a very favorable time to borrow - it was not exactly the most important time to tackle the debt. Next year or the year after, once we're solidly recovering, is a much better time.
So, let's see how the two sides approach this. There's an interesting quote here
The Washington Post wrote:“Most Americans would say that a ‘balanced’ approach is a simple one: The administration gets its debt-limit increase, and the American people get their spending cuts and their reforms,” Boehner told reporters at a news conference before heading to the White House. “Adding tax increases to the equation doesn’t balance anything.”
To solve our entire problem your way is not compromise - it's not compromise for a mugger to say he won't kill you if you hand over your money! (and if you say taxation is muggery... No, it isn't. I strongly suggest you not go there) Moreover, the ending factual assertion is ridiculous - adding tax increases DOES balance things. Reagan, solving his budget problems, raised taxes 3 times more than he cut spending. We are nowhere near the point of diminishing revenue on the Laffer curve.
Meanwhile, Obama's best offer was 83% spending cuts, 17% revenue - and he was rejected. If republicans had taken that, it wouldn't have gotten half the democratic votes in either house unless they were whipped pretty hard by their leaders.
If this was a 50/50 compromise, then the democrats must have initially been inclined towards 66% spending cuts and 34% revenue - basically, republicans lite - and yet they get called socialist
The republicans never accepted the vaguest possibility of a single cent of new tax revenue - until, arguably, the very end, when they accepted it without accepting it by attaching it to the fiscal cliff.
In the debates, each of the candidates was asked if they'd take a debt deal with 10 dollars of spending cuts for each 1 dollar of revenue, and each indicated that this deal was not good enough - and they were all cheered for it.