GoBirds
Footballguy
A lot of good aspects to it for small business.....I think once we get to see the actual impact after a full tax season we will be more aggressive with looking for new investment and hiring.
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.
It’s time for Democrats and Republicans to get together... (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter timschochet
- Start date
GoBirds
Footballguy
Link to why I have to respond to every angry left troll?
Link to why you can’t see @bradyfan responded and showed infrastructure was provided?(we all know once he debunked the claim an excuse like “not enough” is coming and more excuses blah blah).
Does it make you feel tough acting like this in cyber space? Good job? Really grilled me on atopic Tim started I was in agreement with.
Go read Joe’s thread to Sho and Jon, may be good for you. You’ve put on this act for a couple years now, it’s not impressing anyone beyond the same 10 guys that echo the same things in here daily (if them). I guess you can’t get in trouble as an app tester or whatever which is why I really have no interest in engaging with you as you just look to start arguments or insult those not in the groupthink. Good luck to you, I don’t use the ignore function but encourage you to if needed. Thanks.
Those are an awful lot of words about how you can't answer a simple question.Link to why I have to respond to every angry left troll?
Link to why you can’t see @bradyfan responded and showed infrastructure was provided?(we all know once he debunked the claim an excuse like “not enough” is coming and more excuses blah blah).
Does it make you feel tough acting like this in cyber space? Good job? Really grilled me on atopic Tim started I was in agreement with.
Go read Joe’s thread to Sho and Jon, may be good for you. You’ve put on this act for a couple years now, it’s not impressing anyone beyond the same 10 guys that echo the same things in here daily (if them). I guess you can’t get in trouble as an app tester or whatever which is why I really have no interest in engaging with you as you just look to start arguments or insult those not in the groupthink. Good luck to you, I don’t use the ignore function but encourage you to if needed. Thanks.
Still a great question. Where is the answer to why we shouldn't have done this? All I've seen are pathetic personal insults
Last edited by a moderator:
timschochet
Footballguy
It isn’t.
Look I actually tend to agree with tommygunz and Slapdash about this. I’m on the liberal side; I blame conservatives much more than I do liberals for what’s wrong with our politics. I’m a partisan, I see things a certain way, probably always will.
But that’s neither here nor there. I don’t want to argue over the past. Frankly I’m sick of it. I want to move on. I think we can forget about the past and whose to blame and move forward. Otherwise we’re ####ed.
timschochet
Footballguy
We could have a conversation about that instead of random personal, and incorrect, insults.
timschochet
Footballguy
I don’t think we need to. GoBirds says he agrees with the proposition that we should work together to fix infrastructure. Why relive the past?
Where is that admission?
The past matters though. Infrastructure spending was opposed by the right ten years ago. It still is
timschochet
Footballguy
Here it is.
And I think it’s enough. We don’t need to rehash the past. What purpose does it serve? To prove the Democrats were right? Yay team.
tommyGunZ
Footballguy
Nah, GoBirds isn’t ready to admit he’s wrong, or self reflect as to why the ideology he follows has continually ####ed us the last 20 years, whether it’s invading Iraq, ignoring the warning signs while our economy goes down the tube, fighting conventional macroeconomic solutions and blaming Obama for the mess they handed him, electing and handing the nuclear codes to a hot headed imbecile, etc.
timschochet
Footballguy
If he’s willing to agree with us on infrastructure, why is it so important to get him to admit that he’s wrong? What purpose does that serve?
Dedfin
Footballguy
@GoBirds, you own a small business? What is it if you dont mind me asking? This is one of my biggest blind spots and I'd love to know the challenges small business owners had with the business climate over the years and what has changed since trump. I'm sure I'm not the only one here that doesn't know the perspective of a small business owner.
GoBirds
Footballguy
The whole purpose of the PSF, nice work Tim.
There was money for Infrastructure back then, sorry it wasn’t enough. Too bad Obama was the great divider and didn’t work with the other side.
Have fun with this one, just need to find Bruce for the troll all start team.
Last edited by a moderator:
GoBirds
Footballguy
You elected Obama the great divider which gave us all Trump, nice work. Sorry you did that.
He was asked a simple question about past policy and could do nothing but post pathetic personal insults. It says alot about the sincerity of that already weak claim. I'm sorry it ruins your attempted coming together to point out that he is more interested in trolling and insults than actual policy, but ignoring reality won't help that either.
timschochet
Footballguy
There are millions of conservatives who share GoBirds’ political views. They’re not a majority, but there are enough of them that they can block anything important that the rest of us want to do most of the time. That’s the reality of American politics as it currently stands. We have to work with them, and I don’t see how we accomplish that by continually pointing out how wrong they are.
I don't see how you can expect to productively accomplish something without talking about policy.
timschochet
Footballguy
Past policy matters. Republicans fought counter-cyclical deficit spending, but have engaged in pro-cyclical deficit spending through tax cuts for the wealthy and military spending. Now we want to increase it further? It is fair to ask how we should fund this and talk about how we got here.
timschochet
Footballguy
1. We got here by putting off proper spending on infrastructure for decades and allowing it to erode.
2. We should fund it through deficit spending. What other choice is there?
Do you agree?
We could repeal the most recent tax cut or introduce taxes on things like carbon. More deficit spending now is just going to make the Fed raise rates.
Stealthycat
Footballguy
rich white folks are coming here illegally? arrest them and send them back - just like any other colors and monetary worth - illegally here is illegally here, I have no use for that
timschochet
Footballguy
We can’t. At least not now. You know very well that Republicans will never agree to repealing the tax cut, nor will they agree to a carbon tax. To accomplish those things, the Democrats need to win big majorities. So at least for the next two years, those options are out.
Therefore the question becomes: do we wait to fix infrastructure until we get that strong majority and do it the right way? I say we don’t. Who knows when that strong majority will come? We should work with the Republicans now, increase the deficit now. We lose more by waiting.
Grace Under Pressure
Footballguy
Practically speaking, if they can reach an agreement that has the correct priorities in place that passes with large majorities in both houses and has a high percentage of public support, then they should move forward on infrastructure. While spending is always an issue, we shouldn't continue to stand for inferior infrastructure either.
Two things I disagree with here:timschochet said:
First, no way I view Trump as a lame duck. I've said since he was elected that I view him as 50/50 to get a second term, and while I might put it at slightly less than that after the last couple weeks, I still think Democrats underestimate him at their peril. Particularly if they nominate an uninspiring candidate, he could very easily win with roughly the same map as 2016.
Second, I think the biggest problem with your formulation is that you assume a normal functioning political system where both parties are pursuing the same goal, and just have slightly different ways to get there. But that's not how things work nowadays. The GOP caucus is effectively controlled by a faction that has zero interest in compromising to achieve part, or even most, of their goals. Not only will they reject anything short of their maximalist demands, they will punish any Republicans who want to form a working coalition with Democrats (see, Hastert Rule). Trump is mostly in agreement with this group, and to the extent that he isn't, he is captured by them (eg, when he blew up an agreement to fund the government because Anne Coulter criticized him).
We have already seen this dynamic play out with the shutdown as well as last year's immigration compromise. Furthermore, given the fact that Pelosi just dog-walked him over the shutdown and he's seen as weak, the last thing the House Freedom Caucus is going to stand for is Trump cutting a deal with Pelosi. He wants to focus on the exact opposite -- repairing his relationship with the GOP base and proving he's not a loser.
In practical terms, the way that would play out in terms of an infrastructure bill is that the right wing would only sign on to a bill that they knew was unacceptable to Dems. That wouldn't be an issue in the House, which would presumably pass something the Dems actually wanted, but it would almost certainly lead to Trump following the lead of the HFC and opposing it, which would in turn lead to McConnell refusing to bring it up in the Senate.
Now, what if they sat down ahead of time and tried to hammer out a compromise? Well, conservatives wouldn't trust Trump to cut a deal, and Democrats would have zero confidence that he'd actually stick to anything they could get him to agree to.
(And before anyone tries to "both sides" this problem, yes, there would also be pressure from the left not to work with Trump. The difference is that Pelosi is a strong enough leader that if she were able to cut a mostly favorable deal with Trump that he actually stuck to, she could get her caucus behind it.)
In other words, all of the incentives are against anyone making a deal.
timschochet
Footballguy
Good points zctfg. You may be right about the current state of the Republican Party. Sometimes (often) I feel the same way about them. But I remain an optimist: the prison reform deal was a sign that it doesn’t have to be that way on every issue. I think that we have to try and see what happens.
Disagree with you on the lame duck, but even if you’re right, I would expand the meaning of the term. One could argue that on domestic affairs Obama became a lame duck in January of 2011 and stayed that way for the rest of his 2 terms; he was effectively blocked from getting anything he wanted accomplished. I think the same is true for Trump and will remain true even in the unlikely event he is re-elected.
Disagree with you on the lame duck, but even if you’re right, I would expand the meaning of the term. One could argue that on domestic affairs Obama became a lame duck in January of 2011 and stayed that way for the rest of his 2 terms; he was effectively blocked from getting anything he wanted accomplished. I think the same is true for Trump and will remain true even in the unlikely event he is re-elected.
I don't think it is as simple as you lay it out. The deficit is already projected to be $900B this year. That is simply not prudent in a growing economy at full employment. The Fed will raise rates to prevent overheating and we will likely go into a recession (worsening the deficit further while rates are higher). Add in the gritters Trump would have in control of this disbursement (spending $2 million a person to recruit border agents?), I don't mind waiting.
msommer
Footballguy
More importantly, the reverse is true: the longer you wait to invest in infrastructure, the higher the cost. Citing the deficit as a reason not to do infrastructure is like citing your ATM balance as a reason not to get the oil changed in your car (assuming you could secure an unlimited amount in low-cost loans from the bank in order to cover the cost).
ETA: Just in case anyone's wondering if this post contradicts my previous one, I think infrastructure is a hugely important issue and would absolutely support a reasonable compromise. The issue is that I think there is zero chance Republicans would agree to something reasonable (or anything, really).
Last edited by a moderator:
timschochet
Footballguy
Yep. This is why I disagree with Msommer and Slapdash. Let’s get this done now. We’re going to have plenty of crisis later, especially regarding climate change. We need to get this out of the way.
msommer
Footballguy
So you'd rather do something inadequate now (again) than waiting to years to get it done properly. I hope you don't work like that in your professional life
See, I disagree with both of you in that I think it's like debating if the Senate should remove Trump from office or agree to let him resign and avoid prosecution. None of those things are going to happen, so there's really no point in even having the argument.So you'd rather do something inadequate now (again) than waiting to years to get it done properly. I hope you don't work like that in your professional life
Mr. Know-It-All
Footballguy
Overgeneralizing a little bit. I think many in the Midwest (mistakenly) believed he was going to "clear out the swamp". Turns out he just introduced a whole bunch of new swamp monsters. I do believe that the next president will likely be a democrat - especially if Trump runs again. If for some crazy reason he does not run again - I don't think Midwest necessarily votes D en masse. That said - he can't help himself, he will run again - and your prediction is likely spot on.timschochet said:
timschochet
Footballguy
The United States Congress and federal government bear no resemblance to my professional life (thankfully)msommer said:So you'd rather do something inadequate now (again) than waiting to years to get it done properly. I hope you don't work like that in your professional life
Jayrod
Footballguy
Tim's in Cali, so I can excuse him a bit, but if you are really in Nebraska, Mr. KIA, how can you honestly believe this? Maybe the Omaha area is a liberal oasis, but the rural people in Missouri are still gung-ho for Trump.Mr. Know-It-All said:
I'm telling you all from my experience, he has lost almost no one that voted for him. If they can't get him impeached or to quit, he will run again. And if the Dems don't come up with someone to rally behind, it will be like 2016 all over again.
The Midwest is still sick of the liberalization of the country. The biggest story around these parts is the New York State abortion laws. You want to fire up the conservative base, few things will do it quite like abortion. Also, they are livid about the refusal to fund the border wall, viewing it as petty politics and games from the Dems.
Maybe the rust belt is turning against him? Maybe FL, NC and AZ turn against him? But in the Midwest, he is still going to win. I am still shocked at his win and how much he dominated Missouri. Ideally, I wish he wouldn't run again, but I think that is a pipe dream. If there is another lame candidate like Clinton was, we may have to deal with 4 more years of this crap.
Question for @timschochet and anyone else arguing in favor of an infrastructure deal: What would you do if you were Nancy Pelosi right now? What kind of deal would you be willing to make with Trump and McConnell, and what would you walk away from?
timschochet
Footballguy
The deal would start with this: “Mr President, let’s put everything else aside and spend a trillion dollars on infrastructure. We can have a bipartisan group of Senators and Congresspeople figure out the details. But let’s announce our intention to do so today. Right now!”
He’d go for it. Of course he would.
OK, let's say he does. Then you leave the room and Stephen Miller has five minutes alone with him, after which he tweets that you're a big-spending socialist who wants to bankrupt the country and the deal is off.
So now what do you do?
timschochet
Footballguy
Then we wait, try and get a Democrat elected, and make infrastructure part of the Democratic platform. But at least we tried.
msommer
Footballguy
timschochet
Footballguy
The Commish
Footballguy
OK, then maybe we're not that far apart. I thought you were making a similar argument to the Very Serious Deficit Hawks who used to say, "Why can't the Democrats and Republicans sit down and make a deal to cut the deficit?" while ignoring that Democrats were perfectly willing to make a deal and Republicans were dead-set against anything that smelled of compromise. Not that I think you're that naive (I've seen newborn foals who were less naive than those folks.) But I thought you were missing that what you were advocating was almost certainly a pipe dream, and the reason it was a pipe dream was entirely because of the GOP.
But if you are realistic about all that, and started the thread merely to express what you would like to see rather than what you think could actually happen, then I withdraw my objections.
timschochet
Footballguy
Hold on. I may be more naive than you think. Because I don’t think Trump will reject an infrastructure deal over the wall or anything else. I think he wants it very badly and he’ll grab at it, and most Republicans will as well.OK, then maybe we're not that far apart. I thought you were making a similar argument to the Very Serious Deficit Hawks who used to say, "Why can't the Democrats and Republicans sit down and make a deal to cut the deficit?" while ignoring that Democrats were perfectly willing to make a deal and Republicans were dead-set against anything that smelled of compromise. Not that I think you're that naive (I've seen newborn foals who were less naive than those folks.) But I thought you were missing that what you were advocating was almost certainly a pipe dream, and the reason it was a pipe dream was entirely because of the GOP.
But if you are realistic about all that, and started the thread merely to express what you would like to see rather than what you think could actually happen, then I withdraw my objections.
I actually would be OK giving Trump some wall money if it was in exchange for something that really made a difference. I agree with Tim that infrastructure is crucial, and if I thought there was an opportunity to take serious action to forestall a looming crisis, I'd be happy to let Trump do his little symbolic victory dance.
But there is zero chance that Trump and the GOP would agree to that kind of trade-off.
OK, then I take back my taking back.
Look, I would have no issues if Pelosi came out tomorrow and said, "We want to do a deal on infrastructure, here are our principles, call me Donald." I trust her to hold the line and not sell liberals out. I really don't see any risk there. Guess that means our area of disagreement is just over the likelihood of an actual deal.
By the way, from what I understand of the issue, the innovation Democrats should be pushing is the creation of an infrastructure bank that would remove some of the politics around funding decisions and prioritize them based on need.
timschochet
Footballguy
Agreed.OK, then I take back my taking back.
Look, I would have no issues if Pelosi came out tomorrow and said, "We want to do a deal on infrastructure, here are our principles, call me Donald." I trust her to hold the line and not sell liberals out. I really don't see any risk there. Guess that means our area of disagreement is just over the likelihood of an actual deal.
By the way, from what I understand of the issue, the innovation Democrats should be pushing is the creation of an infrastructure bank that would remove some of the politics around funding decisions and prioritize them based on need.
Similar threads
