Bipartisanship?


#1

Looks like the new congress already has the democrats up in arms. On the TV this morning there was another democrat telling us we need bipartisanship while defending democrats efforts to be able to undermine republican objections along with filibusters.

Funny now that there may be actual input from republicans besides the Rinos the democrats are running scared.

NationalJournal.com - Senate’s Returning Democrats Unanimously Favor Filibuster Reform - Thursday, December 23, 2010


#2

“Bipartisanship” is like “tolerance” - unilaterally demanded of but never extended to conservatives. It’s a rhetorical game, a straw dog, socio-political shtick.

And conservatives need to confront, not bow to, it!


#3

#4

We dont need no stinking Bipartisanship!!!


#5

As far as I am concerned the dirtiest word I can think of is “Bipartisanship” right now.

I want these Nazi’s defeated, not compromised with.


#6

#7

To the Liberals and their beloved press, ‘bipartisanship’ means doing what ever the Democrats want even though they are not in the majority. Of course, they seem to think that they need not compromise when they are in the majority.


#8

The only place where bipartisanship might play a role is the military, and the 'cRats can’t even manage that, so all I’ve got to say is ‘toot-a-loo’!


#9

The filibuster should be removed and replaced with every single vote requiring 66 votes to pass and 50 to repeal.

The same ratios should apply to house votes also.


#10

From Webster; bipartisan : marked by or involving cooperation

So in order to have bipartisanship, Republicans must cooperate with democrats to continue excessive spending, extraordinary debt and further expansion of the federal government until we have collapse of our nation…

No, bipartisanship is not the answer. :zombie:

.


#11

Some of the republicans are just as guilty as the democrats, they are plenty bipartisan.

There are certainly enough of them to run the country into the ground.

There are several realities that anyone balancing the budget will need to accept:

  1. Raising taxes will not improve revenues. Regardless of tax rates, revenue has been the same since the 50’s (Taxes need to be adjusted down until revenues quit rising, which would be near the top of the Laffer curve. The reason I know they need to be adjusted down is because the Bush tax cuts increased revenues)
  2. The supposedly “non-discretionary” parts of the budget need to be gutted, as they are what is producing a deficit.
  3. Government workers need to be banned from bargaining their pay: the tax payers are their employers, their bargaining hurts everyone
  4. Social(ist) Security and Medicare will have to be drastically scaled back and ultimately removed
  5. The standing army and veterans benefits will need to be cut, military research should be continued at even greater levels to keep our armed forces competitive.

If these policies were put in place this year, we would have a $1 trillion surplus and could pay the debt off in a decade or two, which would give us another $400 billion a year from not paying interest.

Then, taxes could be dramatically reduced, even below the top of the Laffer curve.


#12

Yes, The filibuster should either go away, or you should be actually doing the work. You shouldn’t just be able to say you are going to filibuster then go have lunch with your K street buddies.
The blind hold should be transparent too. Be a man about what you are putting a hold on. Own up to your convictions!