Red Mosquito

McParadigm wrote:

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.

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?

Mickey wrote:

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.

Mickey wrote:Don't worry, soon I'll be gone in the dark.

simple schoolboy wrote:

Mickey wrote:

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.

Bi_3 wrote:

Joe Manchin: Why I'm voting against the For the People Act

...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.

McParadigm wrote:

Joe Manchin: Why I'm voting against the For the People Act

https://www.wvgazettemail.com/opinion/o ... f870f.html

...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.

McParadigm wrote:

Bi_3 wrote:

Finally a meme that applies to every poster in N&D.

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.

BurtReynolds wrote:

McParadigm wrote:

Bi_3 wrote:

Finally a meme that applies to every poster in N&D.

We're all winners here.

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.

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.

dimejinky99 wrote:Fucking disgusting. Worse than anything trump said in years of his bullshit.

Fuck this.