So it's fine if they vote against something that will benefit their constituents, take any and every measure to delay or block its passing, then take credit for it when it passes anyway? (EDIT: After thinking about that for a while, it seems incredibly tsundere-like. That's a scary thought... ) It's akin to taking a sledgehammer to construction work on your own house, then taking pride in the fact it got completed. That's my issue with the obstructionist mindset. Why should we accept that childish mentality? I want our politicians to work together, for the benefit of all of us, regardless of party affiliation. Not just for their wealthy friends' tax breaks, not just so they'll have guaranteed speaking engagements after they leave office, but for the good of the country, and because it's their damn job.

They often won't; or they'll move the goalposts back repeatedly, then claim the other side didn't "compromise enough". Enough of that bullshit. One can't legitimately argue that obstruction at any cost is making this country better. It's not increasing the minimum wage, or lowering the cost of living, or reducing the income disparity. It's not providing jobs for much of anyone other than lobbyists and ad agencies. Meanwhile, superPACs are free to throw unlimited amounts of money around, with no real accountability for where that money is coming from, and even less accountability for truth in advertising. This is not the sort of job creation we need right now, because it's not sustainable.

We also have far too many single issue voters, which is in itself a huge problem. Ignorant of or apathetic to most other issues, anyone who appeals to that wedge issue, particularly using fear-based tactics, will likely get their vote. The more polarized the population is about certain issues, the less likely they'll work together, even on the issues in which they do agree. Sadly, it also makes the population much easier to control through propaganda, which is ultimately the reason for this divisiveness to exist.

As for the death panels issue, you're arguing against the public option, i.e. socialized medicine, while the term "death panels" was used initially for exactly what I described. As we are arguing two related, but separate concepts in context, this part of the discussion will not foster any mutual understanding.

Bill Clinton increased the Nation Debt each and every single year of his Presidency. Clinton had a *surplus* because he took money from the Social Security fund with had a surplus and used to to pay down the national debt, which made it look like he passed a surplus. In short, he cooked the books.

I like how you just totally marginalize all the information that was gathered in the Bush term which led to Osama being killed, and think Bush could have sent a simple task force and it would have been over shortly.

The economy crashed because of the Dot Com bubble bursting. Clinton benefited from the Dot Com Bubble Boom, and then it burst in beginning of Bush term. Reason was because the federal reserve manipulated interest rates to banks and business's took loans out and invested in their companies and waited for the demand to come, but it never did, because there was no demand to begin with. It was phony growth.

But I guess your talking about the Housing Crash. Do you not even have the slightest clue as to why that happened? Do you just automatically assume that if a Republican was President it must have happened because of him? We had a crash right after the Democrats got elected in 2007 because they wanted the banks to lend out money to poor minorities who naturally would have never gotten a loan because they were too risky. Gov was threatening action against the banks using the Community Reinvestment Act and then on top of that told the banks that they would bail them out if the loans went bad.

What do you think the banks were going to do then? They were going to loan out to as many people as they possibly could, because they know they would get their money back either way, but having it paid back by the borrower, or having the government bail them out. The government produced the bad incentives, not wall street. And this was by a Democrat Congress, which Bush actually tried to stop.

Republicans did not obstruct Obama in his first 2 years. He had complete Dem and Repub control and didnt give a damn about bipartisanship and shoved Obamacare and the rest down our throats.

After failing so badly, the tea party got elected in the House to try and bring us back in the right direction. And Obama got in their way. Obama didnt even pass a budget, he sent a budget to the Dem Senate that got voted down 97-0 so that he nothing to do with Repub obstructionism, that had everything to do with his budget being such a pathetic piece of garbage that not one single Democrat voted for it.

But whats with the idea that Dems didnt block Repubs? We actually passed a budget and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid wouldnt even let it come to the floor. So drop this nonsense that Dems were the only ones being blocked.

Rising stock prices means absolutely nothing. Inflation is what makes those prices rise, not because of some stupid thing Obama did. Plus, you let him take credit for rising stock prices, what about rising gas prices as well? Guarantee you will disagree with that.

You dont know jack shit about economics. If you knew anything about it you would understand that an economy issues its own antidote to recover itself, but the government keeps getting in the way in order for it to work.

Taking money from the productive and giving it to the unproductive in the name of Growing the Economy is like having 2 private Retirement accounts with the same security and one has a 30% return on investment and a 1% return on investment and you think taking money out of the 30 to place into the 1 is somehow a good economic plan.

Bailouts do not work. They simply distort the economy. If Bailouts worked, then why is the unemployment rate still above 8%? Oh wait, you will just say the economy was in a worse shape then we thought so we needed to do more.

Outsourcing is not inherently bad, you clearly no nothing about economics. Government intervention is the problem, which increases outsourcing, but outsourcing itself is not inherently bad.

If Im making an Ipod, I could sent jobs overseas to make a certain part of the Ipod, but have jobs here in America to make the more technologically harder parts. So I create jobs here in America and in other countries as well. And what am I going to do with the money I make? Im going to invest it back into my company to increase jobs over there and here at the same time. Its not an all or nothing game. Its a mix and its a net benefit to the economy no matter how you look at it.

Once again, a persons intentions is irrelevant, what matters is his actions. You complain that a capitalist wants to make money, but not anything else. Who CARES!? What matters is what his actions do, not his intentions.

Capitalism has government involvement, its called protecting private property rights and resolving disputes that involves force.

Bush deregulated the economy? NAME ONE SINGLE THING THAT BUSH DEREGULATED. Seriously, name one.

Competition makes sures that business's cant automatically do whatever they want because if they start to overprice people will shop somewhere else.

Obama is the best President? Jesus fucking christ.

Im done, you clearly no absolutely nothing about how an economy works and only know how to repeat stuff thats fed to you. Sorry for being rude, but this is ridiculous