tragabigzanda wrote:I am almost always in favor of some bipartisan horse trading.
Sure. But most everyone is in favor of the idea of bipartisan negotiation. I like that this exercise asks you to put skin in the game by trying to produce those trade-offs for yourself...imagining a deal that involves ideological sacrifices on your part.
At least for me, trying to produce those tradeoffs oneself tends to reinforce my priors. I did that on what I said would be my ideal tax policy, it has some pieces both the right and left like and dislike, but I like it all because...I made it up, after all. And it could also be trivially easy for me to include planks on issues I don't care that much about in "exchange" for the planks that I want.
The more interesting exercise, which we did a bit in here already, is to have other people give an thumbs up or thumbs down on your proposed compromise. Hell, that might even be an interesting new thread idea.
4/5 wrote:An idea straight out of West Wing designed to make Mickey's head explode:
Would you (anybody) be open to a grand bargain offering entitlement reform for infrastructure/climate programs? Or less specifically, what I'm getting at is if we imagine that politics is the result of negotiation and compromise and it's understood that there isn't one party rule, then what would you be willing to give to the other side to get what you want? And similarly, what would you need to get in return to be willing to compromise on other things?
Ah yes, entitlement reform, that thing Biden Democrats definitely don't want to do themselves.
VinylGuy wrote:its really tiresome to see these ¨good guys¨ talking about any political stuff in tv while also being kinda funny and hip and cool....its just...please enough of this shit.
4/5 wrote:An idea straight out of West Wing designed to make Mickey's head explode:
Would you (anybody) be open to a grand bargain offering entitlement reform for infrastructure/climate programs? Or less specifically, what I'm getting at is if we imagine that politics is the result of negotiation and compromise and it's understood that there isn't one party rule, then what would you be willing to give to the other side to get what you want? And similarly, what would you need to get in return to be willing to compromise on other things?
Ah yes, entitlement reform, that thing Biden Democrats definitely don't want to do themselves.
N&D has been a bit off with Mickey's brief absence. The balance has been restored.
VinylGuy wrote:its really tiresome to see these ¨good guys¨ talking about any political stuff in tv while also being kinda funny and hip and cool....its just...please enough of this shit.
Mickey wrote:Don't worry, soon I'll be gone in the dark.
I'd rather you check in on RM from time to time than become Commandante Miguel of the Shining Path.
No, I take that back, Commandante whatever is a title worth death for a gringo.
You can't possibly mantain your dignity as an academic nodding along to this CRT shit that does not acknowledge the primacy of (whatever school of Marxism you are on).
4/5 wrote:An idea straight out of West Wing designed to make Mickey's head explode:
Would you (anybody) be open to a grand bargain offering entitlement reform for infrastructure/climate programs? Or less specifically, what I'm getting at is if we imagine that politics is the result of negotiation and compromise and it's understood that there isn't one party rule, then what would you be willing to give to the other side to get what you want? And similarly, what would you need to get in return to be willing to compromise on other things?
Ah yes, entitlement reform, that thing Biden Democrats definitely don't want to do themselves.
N&D has been a bit off with Mickey's brief absence. The balance has been restored.
"The fatal flaw of all revolutionaries is that they know how to tear things down but don't have a f**king clue about how to build anything."
...As such, congressional action on federal voting rights legislation must be the result of both Democrats and Republicans coming together to find a pathway forward or we risk further dividing and destroying the republic we swore to protect and defend as elected officials.
...As such, congressional action on federal voting rights legislation must be the result of both Democrats and Republicans coming together to find a pathway forward or we risk further dividing and destroying the republic we swore to protect and defend as elected officials.
Green Habit wrote:I'll at least give Manchin credit for saying he was going to vote against it, instead of hiding behind the filibuster to kill the bill.
That’s true. But he has to know that the best way to kill any incentive for Republican engagement is to assure them that the bill is dead without their engagement. “This bill might get passed with or without your support, so don’t you at least want a seat at the table“ has produced a heck of a lot more bipartisan discussion in the last 30 years than this tactic ever has. He’s being more honest here, and that honesty seems to be saying “I don’t want any version of this bill to pass.”
Green Habit wrote:Not sure what's left to means test other than the big two of Social Security and Medicare. And removing the FICA cap (which I really like) would be something Democrats would like more than Republicans, so I don't see why that's a concession for the Dems.
But to broadly answer that part of the question, I don't think Dems today are in any mood to concede on entitlements, and since 2016 I'm not sure if the GOP has it as that high of a priority, either, as Trump has pretty much ignored the point and most Republicans are following him instead of Paul Ryan these days. Thinking about it, I'm not sure if that's the place to negotiate.
The other issue is that the GOP under McConnell has turned into the Party of No. Trump has aggravated this with his boorish manners, but the real challenge that predated Trump is that Republicans are increasingly disinclined to get on board with anything the Democrats even marginally like. So the likely result ends up being...nothing happens. As you know, most of the time I think that's not bad, as I feel both sides have excesses that get checked when there's gridlock. 2020 was one massive exception to that rule, though.
I get that I'm not really answering the main question, but it's difficult for me to do so when I quite frankly don't know what the GOP's legislative desires are these days other than tax cuts. As we know, they pissed away two years of total control when that's all the legislation they got out of that time.
That's fair. You're probably right that entitlement reform isn't as high on the Republican wishlist as it used to be and so even if Democrats were inclined to make a deal on that (again, hard to imagine) it'd be a lot different than 2011.
"I want to see the whole picture--as nearly as I can. I don't want to put on the blinders of 'good and bad,' and limit my vision."-- In Dubious Battle
Green Habit wrote:On taxes, my preference as always is to make them as proportional as possible. Not sure if corporate taxes do that, though, I'd rather focus on who ultimately earns the income from activity, be it corporate or not. My longstanding white whale is to get rid of as many upper tier brackets as possible in exchange for taxing capital gains and estate gains the same as any other income.
My tax preference is to mostly have lower rates but I have no issue with it being progressive. Of course, I'd also like to get rid of the payroll tax altogether and roll that into income taxes because I think the setup of the payroll tax (a 15.3% tax that looks like a 7.65% tax if you only look at your pay check) is extremely deceptive.
"I want to see the whole picture--as nearly as I can. I don't want to put on the blinders of 'good and bad,' and limit my vision."-- In Dubious Battle
