
“Elect us, hold us accountable, and make a judgment and then go from there. But I do tell you that if [we] win, and have substantial majorities, Congress of the United States will be more bipartisan,”
That was Nancy Pelosi, 2 years ago, prior to the 2008 election. And of course, the “do as I say, not as I do” San Fran Nan liberal and the “you can go sit in the back” president have governed as anything but in a bipartisan manner. Their idea of bipartisanship is zero House Republicans and 2 Republican Senators voting for Obama’s stimulus package. It’s “agree with me, and we have bipartisanship.”
The Democrats, this time around, received a sound thumping. (And no, Mr. “I won” President, it’s not because you failed to communicate to the American people (if anything, it’s been overcommunication and constant campaigning) your agenda and all you’ve “accomplished”- it’s a rejection of your policy objectives).
Pelosi, as we all know, is out of touch with the American mainstream (as well as with reality).
But is “bipartisanship” really what the American people want? Certainly, not what the conservatives who voted Democrats out of office are itching for:
The fact is, compromise between diametrically opposed worldviews — in this political case, the state’s view (Democrats) versus the individual’s view (Republicans) — is just a nice word for the ploy Democrats use when necessary to leverage any disparity in strength into an asset.
When they’re strong, they sound like President Obama, who just a few weeks ago described compromise, Democrat-style: “We don’t mind the Republicans joining us,” he said. “They can come for the ride, but they gotta sit in back.”
When they’re weak, Democrats make mournful little appeals to “comity” and “civility” that Republicans can’t seem to ignore, especially with the media piping up with the manufactured threat of “gridlock” — another creaky ploy.
Honestly, who really believes the country can’t wait just a little longer for another thousand new pages of congressional laws?
If our new Republicans are as gullible as our old ones, instead of cutting taxes across the board, they just might “compromise” with Democrats, and that’s the end of that. Or, instead of refusing to raise the national debt ceiling another trillion dollars, they just might “compromise” with Democrats and up it goes. Or, instead of repealing Obamacare, they just might “compromise” with Democrats and fine-tune a few colossal programs.
When the all the votes are cast and backs patted, of course, “compromise” is a poor substitute for principle.
Let’s hope the new House Majority Leader wields the gavel in the same spirit of “bipartisanship” that Speaker Pelosi did: No compromise of principle. Do your job. Play by the president’s rules:
“on some of these issues we’re just going to have ideological differences.”
The president added, “I won. So I think on that one, I trump you.”
As Florida Pundit puts it, “Compromise is for the defeated“:
Funny, I cannot remember all the interviews with President-elect Obama two years ago asking him which of his promises he is willing to break in order to compromise with the badly beaten Republicans. Oh wait. That’s right. There weren’t any!
So enough with this double standard and the sudden call for “bipartisanship” after two years in which Democrats passed their major bills with not a single Republican vote.

A former fetus, the “wordsmith from nantucket” was born in Phoenix, Arizona in 1968. Adopted at birth, wordsmith grew up a military brat. He achieved his B.A. in English from the University of California, Los Angeles (graduating in the top 97% of his class), where he also competed rings for the UCLA mens gymnastics team. The events of 9/11 woke him from his political slumber and malaise. Currently a personal trainer and gymnastics coach.
The wordsmith has never been to Nantucket.
Compromise is Fiscal suicide. Bipartisanship is not mandatory or necessary. The problem here is negotiable Principles.
America Just Checked Into Rehab
http://patriotpost.us/opinion/victor-davis-hanson/2010/11/04/america-just-checked-into-rehab/
Pay Go as I recall was a shameless lie. I don’t reckon that more borrowing and frivolous spending is any solution either. Austerity and Frugality is no vice, it is required after the spending orgy of the 111th Congress. Earmarks need to go away as well. We honestly have no room for discretionary spending or economic illiteracy on the part of Congress.
Old Trooper wrote —
Because of Pay Go, from 1994 through 2001, the budget deficit disappeared and went into balance. Pay Go meant that tax cuts had to be offset with spending cuts and spending increases had to be offset with other spending cuts, or tax increases. Contrary to what you said, it worked and worked well . . . which is why the GOP decided to eliminate it. Pay Go was eliminated because the 2001 GOPer Congress did not want to cut spending to balance out the tax cuts they forced through. Result? The Hastert/Frist/Bush deficits. Now the GOPers are set to do the same thing all over again and we will, of course, have the exact same result: even larger deficits than what Pelosi/Reid/Obama drove up in 2009 and 2010.
I loved watching Jim DeMint yesterday on “Meet the Press.” He could not even keep a straight face as he tried to explain how you can cut a teeny tiny portion of the budget, cut taxes, refuse to cut military waste or Social Security or Medicare, yet get a balanced budget. He was laughing as he said it! Talk about a poor poker player!
Nope . . . by refusing to cut defense and entitlements, by insisting on tax cuts without offsetting dollar-for-dollar spending cuts, the GOP is basically PROMISING to increase the deficit. I am hoping that the teabaggers and Obama both call them on this nonsense.
GOPer deficit hawk David Stockman put it about as well as it could be put: the GOPer cons in Congress are complete frauds when it comes to deficit reduction.http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1110/44798.html
@ What balance? What are you smoking?
The Deficit is at an all time high. I blame the economic illiterates in Congress and the Current Regime. Pay Go did not work. The Summer of Recovery did not happen.
Why do you think that the Voters sent some irresponsible spenders Home and out of Congress, that by the way has an all time low approval rating? Cooking the books didn’t work. Unemployment is at Double Digits in some locales, Banks are not loaning money. Printing more money is no solution. Nor is more Public Sector employment.
You just don’t get it. Don’t try to coat this with partisanship as neither Party has any bragging rights here. The Private Sector earns money. The Public Sector consumes it. Until the Private Sector shows some growth the economy is stagnant.
Who had a majority in that time period? Complete frauds? I don’t think so.
Old Trooper —
You say “Pay Go did not work” but you don’t explain yourself at all; I contend it is because you can’t. It worked and the GOPers getting rid of it in 2001 to pass the Bush tax cuts PROVED it was useful. If it did not constrain deficits and control spending, then the GOPers would not have gotten rid of it, now would they? Conversely, if it did not work (as you claim here), then the deficits would have continued growing after 1994. But the exact opposite happened. As soon as the GOPers got rid of it, what happened? The Hastert/Frist/Bush deficits happened, that’s what!
The GOPers are complete frauds when it comes to deficit reduction. Look at how they shuck and jive when trying to explain why they will not cut any spending to pay for renewing the Bush tax cuts. Do they ever say “this will be deficit neutral”? Of course not! Because they KNOW it will increase the deficit. They just don’t care!
I PRAY Obama calls them on this. Just says “I will sign off on the $157 billion in tax cuts as soon as you show me $157 billion in spending cuts.”
If you cons really believed in balanced budgets, there would be NO WAY IN HELL that you could oppose this. But you do oppose this! Because you know it would mean dealing with your pet projects and breaking the irresponsible “we can have a free lunch” promises y’all made during the 2010 election cycle. But keep shoveling, cons . . . just pray that nobody smells what you are shoveling.
Hard Right —
Who had a majority during WHAT time period? 2001 to 2007? The GOPers controlled everything . . . and they ran up the deficit and Bush signed off on each budget. Which is why I call them the Hastert/Frist/Bush deficits. Not sure what your point is . . . .
@ Old Trooper 2, #1:
Perhaps the richest 5 or 10 percent should also be a part of that program?
Instead, it appears they’ll be the primary beneficiaries of another round of tax cuts, which will add another $4 trillion to the national debt over the next 10 years.
For a majority of middle class, blue-collar class, and poor Americans, Austerity and Frugality have already become part of daily reality. Witness the drop in consumer spending as prices that actually matter continue to rise, and as real wages and employee benefits continue their steady decline.
Unfortunately, most politicians HAVE no principles.
@ Greg,
Under the Obama Regime it will indeed continue. Smaller Government with a reduction in spending is the only answer. You don’t get it. The last Congress was paying Credit Card Bills with another Credit Card in essence. The next one will have to do better.
Has there been a President who was considered successful and didn’t compromise? Even Reagan compromised.
@ GaffaUK, so far compromises made here and now were not what the economy needs. The record deficit speaks for itself. The unemployment figures speak for themselves. No US President has ever faced that and not acted decisively until now. This one is Economically Illiterate.
Success is measured by Voters. Look at the last election results for reference. Presidents LEARN and trade their Agenda for some success for something larger than themselves. The current one is like that old jimi hendrix tune, ‘House Full of Mirrors’
You can understand that. So can American Voters in 2012.
The budget surplus in the nineties was created by raiding Social Security. It is a fraud.
@ Wm T Sherman, Thank You. There is no substitute for the Truth.
The Economically Illiterate can dispute that but I do not have the time or inclination to offer Econ 101 here at FA.
@Greg: You said:
Contract with America FTW!!!!! 1994 was the year that the GOP took big gains in the mid-term of William Jefferson Clinton’s first term.
Hmmm, who said this? “The era of Big Government is over.”
Oh yeah, Clinton said that! And he was forced to by the GOP take over in ’94. Greg, you have once again proven not only your ideology, but your short sighted, narrow views as well.
@Greg: You said:
Actually, I didn’t.
Clinton said what you’ve quoted him as saying, however: “The era of Big Government is over.” I guess President Clinton didn’t see the George W. Bush expansion of the federal government coming:
@Greg:
What a surprise, here comes Greg with another “look over there.”
Compared to what Obama and the ‘ahem’ bipartisan democrats have done in less than two years, Bush was a scrooge.
@Greg:
Your party just spent over $3 trillion in 21 months and got “shellacked” for it but they still think they deserve some kind of a trophy and the voters are stupid.
@Old Trooper 2:
Two types of paygo, used to be three. This from a decent conservative blog by Keith Hennessey, and yes, he is a DC insider….he explains:
Much more:
@ Missy, Pay Go is basically a way to cook the books. If I used those book keeping or accounting methods I would be broke in about a year. It always amazes me that Lawyers ans Lawmakers keep a close eye on their Personal Finances but when it comes to OPM, Other Peoples Money, they play fast and loose and bet the Farm on Programs that are unsound, unnecessary and foolish.
As always, follow the money and Let the Buyer (TAXPAYER) Beware. The real mischief comes when No One reads the Bill and vote for it to see what’s in it. When talking with a Career Politician, watch their hands and keep one hand on your wallet! When Politicians don’t get what they want, they vote to change the rules!
anticsrocks —
I was the one who said that about Pay Go. But look at the dates. When did the budget go back into deficit? Yep . . . 2002, when the GOPer President was in control, along with the GOPer House and the split-then GOPer Senate.
The Dem president handed off a balanced budget. Had the GOPers followed Pay Go, and cut spending to pay for the tax cut, we would not be in the situation we are in now. We would not have had accumulated deficits from 2002 through 2007 when the economy tanks in 2008, thereby leaving less future interest and principal due, and giving more flexibility to deal with the recession. But all that debt hamstrings us. And the worst parts? The deficits were run up during a time of an expanding economy. That would have been the perfect time to balance the budget by cutting spending! But the GOPers did the exact opposite.
Oh Greg, you really ought to learn to read.
From your comment #16 –
I never said you were responsible for that quote. This is from my post #15
LOL, Greg. Let me ask you something. Is your last name Pelosi? I only ask because you truly are the gift that keeps on giving… 😆
While Bush was President AND the Congress was held by Republicans there was a concerted effort to use the media to twist any slicing of any agency’s rate of growth as a CUT.
Over and over the NYTimes, LATimes, NBC, CBS, ABC, MSNBC ran bleeding-heart stories of someone in some weird situation (like being an illegal in high school and having to pay out of state tuition for college) as losing out all because of the Republicans’ proposed ”cuts” in the rate of growth of a federal program.
I recall this in Food Stamps, medical coverage for illegals, college tuition for illegals, all sorts of sad tales of woe hit the airwaves and would be the Republican’s fault IF they didn’t give this-or-that program MORE MONEY!
Emails and phone calls and letters flooded in on each of these trumped-up issues.
That is the real reason the federal budget kept going up while Republicans were in charge.
Notice many stories about the homeless encampments nowadays?
Nope.
But I live by the freeway/riverbeds and see them everyday!
They haven’t gone away.
The media just doesn’t want to embarrass Obama and the Dems in Congress.
Now that the Republicans have the House, what do you want to bet you’ll start seeing those types of stories again?
( http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2009/11/27/down_by_the_river_la_homeless_watch_their_backs/ See the photo….
Our last story on them only happened after 3 men and two women were shot by the 7th Street offramp, last November!)
New Pelosi op-ed: I’m now ready to listen to Republican ideas
http://hotair.com/archives/2010/11/09/new-pelosi-op-ed-im-now-ready-to-listen-to-republican-ideas/
Irritated Shepard Smith Decries ‘Sour Grapes,’ ‘Slimy’ Methods of Anti-Pelosi Democrats
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/scott-whitlock/2010/11/09/irritated-shepard-smith-decries-sour-grapes-slimy-methods-anti-pelos
So there you have it. BTW, Shep is the “Fair and Balanced” part of Fox News. He tilts to the right just far enough to NOT be Olberman or Rachael Madcow but is a Newsie, not a Journalist. He is not quite as amusing as “Bullet Magnet” Rivera, equally gifted in Showmanship but lacking in any semblance of honesty.
So You folks that throw rocks at Newsies should have an abundance of targets. Pelosi is light years away from the real world but so are her compadres that the American Voters sent to Minority Status.
Compromise or Bipartisanship not Mandatory. You see the poor results in Unemployment Numbers, the Summer of Recovery that wasn’t and the Record Deficit.
Republican idea Number One.
Since “ideas” is plural, there must be more specifics soon to be revealed.
@Silly Rob: My apologies, I called you Greg instead of Silly Rob.
Bottom line, you have some problem with the GOP not following Pay Go, but remain silent about Pelosi and company totally ignoring it since ’06.
Typical.
Greg, you have a “class envy” issue??? I’ll ask you, WHO owns factories and creates jobs?? A guy making 100,000 a year??? Or a guy making 1,000,000+ a year??? Seriously. A good tax cut, COMBINED with tax rules to ENCOURAGE in America investment, and DISCOURAGE “foreign investment”… will help get us up and moving…. if the rich get richer, SO WHAT??? The REST of us will get pulled up along with them.. way it worked before… before the Progressive Socialists make villains out of entrepreneurs….. Look back in History, when the Rich got richer, the Country ran well, when the rich got screwed, so did the rest of us.
@Hankster
Why discourage foreign investment? Doesn’t foreign investment into the US also create jobs – which the US desperately needs?
Or should other countries also discourage foreign investment (including US investment). Isn’t world trade, capitialist and republicans generally supposed be in favour of free trade? Or do you think high tariffs, trade barriers and resulting global trade wars is really going to help US economy, jobseekers and consumers?
@ Hankster, #25:
That’s certainly not how it’s worked over the past decade. The rich indeed got richer, but the rest–the great majority–saw a steady decline in real wages; an errosion of employee benefits; the disappearance of employee pension plans; frequent corporate defaults on the plans that remained, with taxpayers getting stuck with the bill; massive outsourcing of jobs overseas, etc. Add to that the decline in the value every earned dollar saved, which is a predictable result of the increased deficits that have always gone hand-in-hand with unfunded tax cuts.
Trickle down is a sales pitch. If you want to see the real results of regressive taxation and trickle down theory in practice, look at what’s happened to the national debt since the concept took hold, and look at the growing financial insecurity of 80% of the population.
When was it, exactly, that the rich “got screwed”? They’re presently contending with the lowest real tax burden since 1950, while having acquired the highest percentage of the total wealth in history. Why should we risk crashing the entire monetary system to maintain that extraordinary level of advantage?
Class envy has nothing to do with it. Most Americans just want a fair deal and a fair system, that allows them to work toward a reasonable and sustainable level of comfort and security.
@B-Rob:
Oh yes, the Clinton/balanced budget/surplus binky.
brob dishonestly opines:
You would have to go wwwwaaaayyyy back in history to find a balanced budget or surplus, Clinton never snagged the brass ring, N.E.V.E.R, never…..ever:
http://www.craigsteiner.us/articles/16
This smoke and mirrors game was known of way back in 1998.
http://baltimorechronicle.com/balance_this.html
Missy, I found the following article
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2001/02/24/national/main274334.shtml
Key quote:
So are you trying to tell me that Bush was perpetrating a fraud on the American people, saying there was a $5.6 trillion surplus projected over ten years, when in fact there were deficits actually projected? Why did Bush lie to us, Missy?
And if you are correct, and there was no surplus, why did Hastert, Frist and Bush still insist on adding on more and more and more debt on top of those deficits?
So you are claiming, in essence, that Bush was even more fiscally irresponsible that we all thought! Wow!
@B-Rob:
He was talking about his first budget.
P.R.O.J.E.C.T.S.
While still acknowledging the national debt:
Then came, the announcement of Clinton’s recession, 9/11 costing 1 million jobs in the first month alone and Clinton’s dot.com bubble burst. Still, up until 2007 Bush policies grew us out of a recession by 8 million jobs, increased revenues due to the tax cuts, unemployment rates we will never see until Obama leaves. And then what happened in 2007? Pelosi, Reid and the democrats dance with Wall Street and the Maes.
All, inspite of having to pay off democrats to get each and every budget passed, two wars, and two horrendous hurricanes., actually three. Yet, deficit spending, contrary to what many believe was a little below average compared to former presidencies, including Clinton’s.
And, a hell of a lot lower than Obama’s.
Missy, what you wrote made no sense whatsoever. You said there was no Clinton surplus. But that surplus was what Bush was talking about as justifying a tax cut in 2001 — because there was enough revenue coming in to satisfy government spending needs. So either there was a surplus in 2001 (as Bush, Clinton, the OMB, the 2001 GOPer cons, and every person looking at the budget contends) or there was no surplus, as you now contend.
The rest of what you wrote is either nonsense (like the “Clinton recession” b.s.) or just a post hoc excuse. Either there was no Clinton surplus and Bush was lying about it, or there was a surplus and he blew the budget. Take your pick. You seem to be contending the former, even though every government chart and even the plain words spoken by Pres. Bush contradict your position.
I see as you give credit to Bush for getting us out of the March 2001 to November 2001 recession, you also like to blow right past the fact that Bush ran deficit after deficit after deficit LONG BEFORE any Dem take over in 2007. Your efforts at revisionist history — trying to ignore the Hastert/Frist/Bush deficits run up during a time of economic expansion, when a spending cut or a tax increase would not have hurt as much as now — have not gone unnoticed. But here is the REAL question:
How hard will the GOPers fight to OPPOSE the Obama deficit reduction commission’s proposals? Are they forever wed to being known as “Republicans: The Party of Borrow and Spend”?
Greg, A lot of my comments are based on the REAL world, things that I have witnessed first hand, not some crap I “read” somewhere…. case in point. I was a Union Cabinet maker. We did High end work, not cheap kitchen Cabinet stuff. Corporate offices, Doctors offices, High end stores etc etc… When they were doing good, WE MADE LOTS OF MONEY. I PERSONALLY benefited from their big spending on goods, put money, from wages AND massive overtime into MY pocket!! Things were good…. Then the tax laws shifted…. you could get stuff done OVERSEAS cheaper than here… so Bosses started looking into “importing” some of the work done…. then Tax laws started piling up against those in business… AND the “well off”… so they spent less…. and we had less work to do. My SECOND to the last job, went SOUTH to A non-union state. I lost my job to CHEAP labor and less regulation…. The LAST job I had in the Woodworking industry, I left seeing it was going to go south. MY daily Commute was 165 miles!! But the PAY was good…. that shop had 25 guys working there…. now down to 7-8 depending….. the RICH ain’t buying, WE aren’t working. THAT is the real deal off the Street, Greg. No HuffPost crap, no WSJ Story… just REAL LIFE!
GaffaUK…. I didn’t USED to be “protectionist”…. BUT, I’ve seen all the jobs We USED TO HAVE go overseas….. because Tax law allows it, AND “They work cheap”!!! I see two alternatives available now… become “protectionist”, and FORCE work back here.. or, we work for the wages THEY do, to bring jobs back here. This would result, using my personal work/wage experience as a example, of workers having to live with a 66% wage and benefit cut from now on. That’s what my industry would have to drop to, to compete with work done abroad. And, tell me what “foreign” nation is investing money in US???? When I was younger…. almost EVERYTHING I used/needed was made here, now virtually NOTHING is made here…. all overseas, so why don’t YOU tell us how to get our jobs back here!!!!
By the way, don’t you live in a Country, where if you protect yourself from a Robber or thug, YOU go to Prison?? Hmmmm…….
@B-Rob:
Bush was not talking about anything to do with Clinton, Clinton’s economy, or the debt Clinton left.
Bush was talking about his own upcoming, very first budget he was presenting and a surplus his own, upcoming, very first budget he was presenting would generate, go back and read your article in it’s entirety. You either took a paragraph out of context and tried to spin it or you can’t comprehend the article.
Hint, from your source:
projects, as in the future, get it yet? 🙄
Bush, Bush, Bush, blah, blah, blah…………..”
and rising. 🙄
http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/02/how_to_blame_bush_lie.html
Missy!! WHAT are you doing!!! Facts will only CONFUSE these guys!!! The DNC/MSNBC/MSM/Soros talking points are SO much easier for the limited capabilities of the leftyloons to follow!! You are you so CRUEL as to try and overload their minds with terrible things, like FACTS!?!?!?! 😆 😆
Looks like Mr. ParaLegal2 has gotten his shoelaces tangled in the tricycle wheel again.
@Missy – YOU GO GIRL!!
@Silly Rob: Go sit down for a while, the grown ups are talking.
@Hankster
There is a difference between companies (including and particularly US companies) which go overseas for cheap labour and foreign investment where companies are set up in the US.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_investment
So there is plenty of foreign investment into the US. If the US is so concerned about foreign goods then why do US consumers continue to buy foreign goods? Maybe because they are cheaper and sometimes better made elsewhere. People care about value for money. Do you go out of your way to buy American made clothes and consumables? Might be tricky but not impossible. This trend has happened for a long time – I’m thinking when Nixon opened up China in the 70s it sped up this change. The same is for most 1st world countries – UK and Australia where I’m living now.
The US has long epoused trade and capitialism – I guess US workers don’t mind foreigners using US products whether they are from US companies or/and made in the US. So unfortunately workers within developed countries will have to avoid jobs which can be easily shipped abroad or have something extra that trumps anything that can be made elsewhere which consumers will want to buy. At the end of the day – individuals, companies and countries are selfish – they will do what is in there best interests. Foreign investors and workers care just as much as US investors and workers about the employment conditions etc of those overseas – which is very little.
Unfortunately in Australia I have to pay $35-$70 on average for a book because of protectionist measures which protect around 3000 jobs in a country which has over 20million people. Why not protect all jobs and stop free trade altogether – do you think financially we would all be better off?
Bit of a tangent isn’t it?
I presume you are refering to the UK. Those sort of incidents are pretty rare and happen in plenty of countries where people arrested, taken to court or/and jailed for protecting yourself.
http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2010/09/07/long-island-man-arrested-for-defending-home-with-ak-47/
and of course don’t forget Bernie Goetz. But then again some on here think the UK is overrun by muslims and that the law across has the land has been replaced by Sharia Law – based on exaggerations they like to pick up by the rabid right-wing Uk tabloids.
@Hard Right:
Due to the 60 vote rule in the Senate, it was the Obstructionists (even one individual,) and Corporatists (of BOTH parties – very much including Baucus, Nelson, Lieberman, and yes – even President Obama;) of both parties, who “had the majority” – AND ALWAYS HAVE.