Avatar feed
Responses: 7
LTC Psychological Operations Officer
5
5
0
Edited >1 y ago
It's not his tax position I 'm talking about. And he has a ton of positions that I could never support and could never vote for him. But on the Sunday talk shows, he expressed a concept that I think is lost on the republicans. He said that when you get into government, you have to make deals with the other party. So you start of with your best case position, recognizing that you will have to give a little on some things in order to get the most important things.

His example was that while his tax plan calls for lowering taxes on everyone, he accepts that it is likely that taxes on the rich may go up some in order to ensure he gets the cuts he wants for the middle class. IOW, he is willing to practice the art of politics and governing, which is the art of the possible.

Contrast that to the Republicans, and the difference is huge, and the impact on the country huge. During the 2012 republican primary debates, when asked if they would accept $10 in spending cuts for every $1 in tax increases, every candidate said no. Even in a hypothetical example that would reduce government spending greatly, the refused to compromise at all on their tax pledges that they made to G rover Nordquist.

Later, the republican congress took that same approach, and refused to consider any budget that increased taxes on anyone, no matter what spending cuts were offered in return. Instead they threatened to shut down the government and have the US default on its credit. They would rather damage the nation's economy than actually govern. This is what led to the sequestration limits that have forced the huge reductions in our military.

The sequestration limits that were passed into law were considered so severe and the damage that would be caused was so recognized, that everyone believed that the congressional committee tasked to come up with a budget alternative would have to compromise to avoid the sequestration limits to take effect. Because everyone knew how bad that would be.

But instead, the republicans still refused to even entertain the notion of any tax increases, even in the form of eliminating tax breaks for the very rich. So no compromised was reached, and the sequestration limits took effect despite everyone being well aware of what was to come.

IMO, it is that very republican principle that compromise is a dirty word, and it is better to obstruct and shut down than actually govern that has led to this situation. They think, mistakenly, that all they have to do is wait, and they eventually will get a filibuster proof majority in congress and a republican president. But they fail to realize that it won't happen because the majority of A mericans don't agree with them, and they expect congress to govern. And we end up with a congress that has the lowest approval ratings since they started polling for it, around 10-12 percent at most times.

But Trump appreciates that you have to deal to get things done, and isn't afraid to admit it, unlike the conservative republicans who go out of their way to not be accused of working with the democrats. So as much as I think Trump would be terrible for the country, I must salute his courage to admit that you can't always get everything you want when you have a divided government and that some progress is better than no progress. I think Trump already knows more about how to actually govern than the Tea Party republicans do.
(5)
Comment
(0)
Sgt Infantryman
Sgt (Join to see)
>1 y
As opposed under Reid in the senate who took up no house bills?
(0)
Reply
(0)
Sgt Infantryman
Sgt (Join to see)
>1 y
Obama came up with sequestration then blasted the republicans for it
(0)
Reply
(0)
LTC Psychological Operations Officer
LTC (Join to see)
>1 y
Sgt (Join to see) - really? So how many bills has the republican congress passed to repeal the provisions of the sequestration? After the dozens of Obamacare repeal laws they passed you think they could squeeze in the time to get rid of the law that is killing our military. But they aren't, and in fact the Tea Party republicans are pressing Ryan to go even lower than the sequestration limits or else they won't support his budget bills.
(0)
Reply
(0)
Sgt Infantryman
Sgt (Join to see)
>1 y
LTC (Join to see) - yes google it. It as obamas idea. The cuts are a joke. We rack up a half trillion a year in new debt. We have to slash spending across the board. I also like how he doubled the deficit then claimed he cut it in half later on
(0)
Reply
(0)
Avatar small
LTC Hbpc Physician Assistant
3
3
0
Edited >1 y ago
I would be happier if it was a flat tax, regardless of income...and eliminated the Huuuggee bureaucracy of the IRS. I did like that he suggested leaving it to the states to decide for minimum wage.
(3)
Comment
(0)
SPC Temp Worker
SPC (Join to see)
>1 y
I wouldn't want a flat tax I enjoy getting money back. Also I am totally against states determining their own minumun wages. Some states would lower the wage to 5 cents if they could.
(0)
Reply
(0)
LTC Hbpc Physician Assistant
LTC (Join to see)
>1 y
SPC (Join to see) - Quick reminder. We live in a Republic. The federal government has limited role...for very good reasons.
(0)
Reply
(0)
Avatar small
LTC Self Employed
2
2
0
We will need a flat tax and more for defense because the last 8 years of neglect have emboldened our enemies. Look at what the media, for whatever reason, won't publish here but its at our doorstep. Another war that could be prevented had we been strong and not wishy washy. https://www.rallypoint.com/shared-links/nicaragua-drops-80-million-on-russian-tanks
(2)
Comment
(0)
PFC Al Sethre
PFC Al Sethre
>1 y
The US spends over $600 billion on defense, the next closest countries are China with $160 billion, Saudi Arabia with $90 billion, Russia with $85 billion, France, UK, India, Japan are even lower. Why do we need to increase spending when we already spend more than the next 7 countries combined?
(0)
Reply
(0)
Avatar small

Join nearly 2 million former and current members of the US military, just like you.

close