Should Democrats and Republicans Compromise With Each Other?

[konradv]

The only way to make any progress with the petty partisanship in government is to inject a third party with enough members in in both houses of congress to prevent super majorities or one party control.

Inject? What does that mean? The only way I see a third party getting any traction is if we go to public financing of elections and break the lock incumbents and the two major parties have on campaign contributions.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

While we usually disagree, this is an exception. We really do need a third party. Now, the only way I can think of for that to be possible is massive campaign finance reform. Of course the whackjobs will post "LOL" or little icons without ever having a counterpoint or reasoning but if you or anyone else would care to offer something a tad more sutbatantive, please do.
I believe Ron Paul is against it, which is ironic because I think he'd have a VERY viable chance if we had it. I'm sure the Dems & Repubs are against it but it seems the only way to fix what's wrong with our government. Comments?

I don't really see how campaign finance reform will help third parties.

For the last 20 years, whichever candidate had the most money in their warchest, won election for a federal office 90% of the time.
Think about that.
Citizens United has given companies, unions and PACs the ability to pour unlimited funds into campaigns.
Think about that for a minute. Special Interests can now buy the candidate of their choice with a 90% certainty that their investment will pay off.
Now think about how things would be different if that was taken away. If Ron Paul started with exactly the same amount of money as Romney and Obama. If people who actually wanted what is best for our country, had a viable chance due to a level playing field. If lobbyists lost their ability to buy politicians.
The power of the individual vote would return in a big way. It would be like America.

I don't think that would do anything to help third party candidates get elected, though, for the reasons stated in posts 58 and 59. Furthermore, all candidates starting off on a level playing field cash wise only makes it more easy for the incumbent to get reelected. They are already a known quantity in their area and challengers need to be able to raise money in order to compete with that advantage by getting their name out there too.

 

[CausingPAIN]

I guess that last question was a real stumper.

Nah, it was just the kind of extremist hysterics and nonsense that both sides display often. Indicative that if I reply with soemthing reasonable and intelligent, it is unlikely the same will be returned in kind. But okay, let's see.

Why should the Republicans EVER compromise with the Democrats? How about special tax breaks for Big Oil?
Regan said "Any company that needs help from the government to survive, shoudln't."

I guess he was wrong in your opinion?

Because the Dems have proposed ending the special tax breaks for Big Oil and the GOP is fighting them tooth and nail on it.
Why should companies that ship jobs and tax revenues overseas get better treatment than my company or the millions of American small businesses that hire 100% American workers and pay taxes 100% in America?

Now the Liberals I have debated here, would now come up with a counterpoint and very specific reasoning to support it OR they would criticize Obama and the Dems (as they often do). Let's see what you do. Or Infidel, whose cerebral firepower seems limited to cute little icons. Actually any Conserv who can actually provide a reasonably intelligent debate would be a refershing welcome.

I find no LOGIC in this sentence below!
“Why should companies that ship jobs and tax revenues overseas get better treatment than my company or the millions of American small businesses that hire 100% American workers and pay taxes 100% in America?”

Well first, these companies have other things going on that needs money generation and tax free BTW. Your FEELINGS have no monetary value and they can’t issue dividend of tears btw. So sob away my friend! I see truly see your point and you are so spot on!
My small little problem is the 100% & 100% part. Not all worker's here are legal and the illegal one's are paying state and federal taxes btw.
Please see my small unworthy suggestion point to the above less then 100% sentence.
Law's are just like junkmail, to be trashed asap. Oop's what am I saying, I follow them 100% the american way! Gee....

 

[IndependntLogic]

I guess that last question was a real stumper.

Nah, it was just the kind of extremist hysterics and nonsense that both sides display often. Indicative that if I reply with soemthing reasonable and intelligent, it is unlikely the same will be returned in kind. But okay, let's see.

Why should the Republicans EVER compromise with the Democrats? How about special tax breaks for Big Oil?
Regan said "Any company that needs help from the government to survive, shoudln't."

I guess he was wrong in your opinion?

Because the Dems have proposed ending the special tax breaks for Big Oil and the GOP is fighting them tooth and nail on it.
Why should companies that ship jobs and tax revenues overseas get better treatment than my company or the millions of American small businesses that hire 100% American workers and pay taxes 100% in America?

Now the Liberals I have debated here, would now come up with a counterpoint and very specific reasoning to support it OR they would criticize Obama and the Dems (as they often do). Let's see what you do. Or Infidel, whose cerebral firepower seems limited to cute little icons. Actually any Conserv who can actually provide a reasonably intelligent debate would be a refershing welcome.

I find no LOGIC in this sentence below!
“Why should companies that ship jobs and tax revenues overseas get better treatment than my company or the millions of American small businesses that hire 100% American workers and pay taxes 100% in America?”

Well first, these companies have other things going on that needs money generation and tax free BTW.
Um. Hmm. No offense but is English your first language? Would you like to explain what you mean by the above?

Your FEELINGS have no monetary value and they can’t issue dividend of tears btw. So sob away my friend! I see truly see your point and you are so spot on!

Again, if it's easier for you, I speak Spanish, Russian and a bit of French because obviously expressing yourself in English is a bit of a challenge for you.
My small little problem is the 100% & 100% part. Not all worker's here are legal and the illegal one's are paying state and federal taxes btw.

Well at least you've finally made a comprehensible point. Okay fine. Somewhere out there are small businesses that hire illegals. ooooh. Your point is?
Please see my small unworthy suggestion point to the above less then <than> 100% sentence.
Law's are just like junkmail, to be trashed asap. Oop's what am I saying, I follow them 100% the american way! Gee....

Um okay. We won't have any laws then. That was a um "special" post! Very nice. Really.

 

[Vidi]

I guess that last question was a real stumper.

Nah, it was just the kind of extremist hysterics and nonsense that both sides display often. Indicative that if I reply with soemthing reasonable and intelligent, it is unlikely the same will be returned in kind. But okay, let's see.

Why should the Republicans EVER compromise with the Democrats? How about special tax breaks for Big Oil?
Regan said "Any company that needs help from the government to survive, shoudln't."

I guess he was wrong in your opinion?

Because the Dems have proposed ending the special tax breaks for Big Oil and the GOP is fighting them tooth and nail on it.
Why should companies that ship jobs and tax revenues overseas get better treatment than my company or the millions of American small businesses that hire 100% American workers and pay taxes 100% in America?

Now the Liberals I have debated here, would now come up with a counterpoint and very specific reasoning to support it OR they would criticize Obama and the Dems (as they often do). Let's see what you do. Or Infidel, whose cerebral firepower seems limited to cute little icons. Actually any Conserv who can actually provide a reasonably intelligent debate would be a refershing welcome.

I find no LOGIC in this sentence below!
“Why should companies that ship jobs and tax revenues overseas get better treatment than my company or the millions of American small businesses that hire 100% American workers and pay taxes 100% in America?”

Well first, these companies have other things going on that needs money generation and tax free BTW. Your FEELINGS have no monetary value and they can’t issue dividend of tears btw. So sob away my friend! I see truly see your point and you are so spot on!
My small little problem is the 100% & 100% part. Not all worker's here are legal and the illegal one's are paying state and federal taxes btw.
Please see my small unworthy suggestion point to the above less then 100% sentence.
Law's are just like junkmail, to be trashed asap. Oop's what am I saying, I follow them 100% the american way! Gee....

Many undocumented workers are working under stolen documents ie someone elses social security number. Then when the IRS decides that person hasnt paid their federal income taxes guess who they go after? Not the Illegal but the Legal citizen who had their identity stolen. And yes there are outs for the accused but guess what? It takes as long as 18 months to get everything worked out and in the mean time the IRS is garnishing wages and freezing bank accounts. And even once everything is worked out, the IRS is a LOT slower to send you your money back as they were to grab it in the first place.

I had to lay off nearly half my work force from my old bakery in order to meet payroll because the IRS was taking so much because some illegal had gotten ahold of my SSN.

The idea that illegals still pay taxes is bullshit.

 

[saveliberty]

Compromise as in, loosening immigration law, allowing unconstitutional programs and laws, spending more money we don't have? That kind of prinicpled challenges to evil? Stick that compromise where the sun doesn't shine.

 

[rdean]

It amazes me that so many people say no. If that's you're answer, please let me know how you would expect anything to ever get done?

Compromise is good, crazy isn't. War on Science is crazy. War on Gays is crazy. War on Hispanics is crazy. Can you compromise on "crazy"?

 

[Not2BSubjugated]

The only way to make any progress with the petty partisanship in government is to inject a third party with enough members in in both houses of congress to prevent super majorities or one party control.

Inject? What does that mean? The only way I see a third party getting any traction is if we go to public financing of elections and break the lock incumbents and the two major parties have on campaign contributions.

Public funding would be a horrible way to do it. You'd end up having to make an ugly choice:

1. Let any crazy who wants to run have that funding and force taxpayers to pay for a lot of whack jobs to pretend they have half a clue or any chance at swaying anyone to vote for their psychotic BS

2. Implement some sort of bureaucratic body to decide who is and who isn't a serious candidate. If you can't imagine what the potential problems would be with either political party getting hold of -that- control panel, then I'm not sure what sort of reasoning led you to believe campaign finance reform is a necessity in the first place.

So that's the choice it boils down to if you publicly fund elections. Either blast exorbitant amounts of the government's budget on a whole lot of stupid, or accept the eventuality that we'll go from a 2 party to a 1 party system. No thanks.

 

[Not2BSubjugated]

On the broader topic, I suppose I can somewhat appreciate where the OP is coming from, but I can't help but think as I read the post that it sounds like your idea of compromise in government is for the republicans to make concessions to whatever parts of the democrat agenda is popular, but not necessarily vice versa. Maybe you just didn't have room in your post for more examples, but that's the impression I get.

Mind you, I'm not trying to make the implied point that the republicans are correct and not the democrats, I just can't help but notice that every time someone says the government needs to start compromising what they mean is that the party they oppose needs to roll over for the party they support. This smells strongly of more of the same.

As far as compromise in general, I'd have to say it's a double edged sword. When a serious problem arises and the answer is obvious enough for there to be universal support, then yes, compromise and coming together is great. The reason there isn't universal support for the example you listed is partially, I'm sure, because of the influence of lobbyists, but it's also partially due to a genuine difference in philosophy. Where I see this primarily is in what one considers to be a "tax loophole" and what actually qualifies as corporate welfare. Widespread public support of a policy doesn't make it sound policy, just as popular opinion doesn't define truth.

For my money, however, I'm not so sure I want the government "getting more done". After all the lobbying influence from people trying to cheat the game into their favor, then all the bullshit fringe focus groups that have to be appeased by virtue of comprising large enough chunks of voting blocks, then the pork bi-product and earmark garbage, and factoring in occasions of plain old fashioned incompetence, the government's actions fuck things up at least as often as they actually pay off these days. You know what big economic deals had massive bipartisan support in recent years? NAFTA and GATT. Bye bye textiles! Bye bye high tech industry! How's that compromise workin out for you?

 

[kiwiman127]

I'm convinced.....You're a fool.

You honestly believe that those with massive political power will be any less corrupt than those who have amassed their power in the business world.

I weep for my nation.

Pop Quiz:

What is the key difference between politicians and corporate leaders in America that makes it more sensible to trust the former with the responsibility of running things?

Pop quiz:

Which business can force you, at gunpoint if necessary, to use their product or service?

Any industry that deals with the basic human necessities would such as healthcare. One's chances of living a healthy and full life without healthcare are pretty damn slim.
The healthcare industry knows that they have Americans by the balls. Other civilized countries negotiate healthcare cost with the healthcare industry providers and the result is healthcare at half the price. Where as the healthcare industry has so much influence that the art of negotiation has hit a brink wall that shields an excellent economic deterrent of negotiation that would help reduce deficits and enhance overall economic growth is not going to happen.
There's a gun to America's head alright.

 

[Vidi]

The only way to make any progress with the petty partisanship in government is to inject a third party with enough members in in both houses of congress to prevent super majorities or one party control.

THANK YOU! for understanding how a third party would need to function in order to have any power at all.

 

[Not2BSubjugated]

Pop Quiz:

What is the key difference between politicians and corporate leaders in America that makes it more sensible to trust the former with the responsibility of running things?

Pop quiz:

Which business can force you, at gunpoint if necessary, to use their product or service?

Any industry that deals with the basic human necessities would such as healthcare. One's chances of living a healthy and full life without healthcare are pretty damn slim.
The healthcare industry knows that they have Americans by the balls. Other civilized countries negotiate healthcare cost with the healthcare industry providers and the result is healthcare at half the price. Where as the healthcare industry has so much influence that the art of negotiation has hit a brink wall that shields an excellent economic deterrent of negotiation that would help reduce deficits and enhance overall economic growth is not going to happen.
There's a gun to America's head alright.

Having the means to help someone, but then deciding not to help them, is not the same as forcing them at gunpoint to use your product. If you have moral issues with the healthcare industry, you can opt out of using their services without any other person forcing consequences on you. It's your choice and nobody will ever try to take it from you. . . feel free to try and fix yourself or let your ailment run its course.

It's the same reverse logic that they use with the tax breaks vs entitlement spending argument. If I have money and you need money, but I don't give you money, that's not the same as me taking away your money.

 

[saveliberty]

The only way to make any progress with the petty partisanship in government is to inject a third party with enough members in in both houses of congress to prevent super majorities or one party control.

THANK YOU! for understanding how a third party would need to function in order to have any power at all.

It will start small and grow Vidi.

 

[kiwiman127]

Pop quiz:

Which business can force you, at gunpoint if necessary, to use their product or service?

Any industry that deals with the basic human necessities would such as healthcare. One's chances of living a healthy and full life without healthcare are pretty damn slim.
The healthcare industry knows that they have Americans by the balls. Other civilized countries negotiate healthcare cost with the healthcare industry providers and the result is healthcare at half the price. Where as the healthcare industry has so much influence that the art of negotiation has hit a brink wall that shields an excellent economic deterrent of negotiation that would help reduce deficits and enhance overall economic growth is not going to happen.
There's a gun to America's head alright.

Having the means to help someone, but then deciding not to help them, is not the same as forcing them at gunpoint to use your product. If you have moral issues with the healthcare industry, you can opt out of using their services without any other person forcing consequences on you. It's your choice and nobody will ever try to take it from you. . . feel free to try and fix yourself or let your ailment run its course.

It's the same reverse logic that they use with the tax breaks vs entitlement spending argument. If I have money and you need money, but I don't give you money, that's not the same as me taking away your money.

If the US government would negotiate the cost of healthcare it would lower the cost of healthcare for everybody, individuals and business. It would not be any cost to you as a matter of fact your wallet would get thicker. So lets see,,two-thirds of our economy is driven by consumer spending. Lowering healthcare costs gives the consumer more money to spend. Business would benefit because they just received a very significant cost of doing business reduction (the cost of their employees benefits), thusly putting more money in their coffers. This helps US business compete internationally and create more jobs at home.
And your problem with this is,,,,?

 

[IndependntLogic]

The only way to make any progress with the petty partisanship in government is to inject a third party with enough members in in both houses of congress to prevent super majorities or one party control.

Inject? What does that mean? The only way I see a third party getting any traction is if we go to public financing of elections and break the lock incumbents and the two major parties have on campaign contributions.

Public funding would be a horrible way to do it. You'd end up having to make an ugly choice:

1. Let any crazy who wants to run have that funding and force taxpayers to pay for a lot of whack jobs to pretend they have half a clue or any chance at swaying anyone to vote for their psychotic BS

2. Implement some sort of bureaucratic body to decide who is and who isn't a serious candidate. If you can't imagine what the potential problems would be with either political party getting hold of -that- control panel, then I'm not sure what sort of reasoning led you to believe campaign finance reform is a necessity in the first place.

So that's the choice it boils down to if you publicly fund elections. Either blast exorbitant amounts of the government's budget on a whole lot of stupid, or accept the eventuality that we'll go from a 2 party to a 1 party system. No thanks.

No, not at all. You simply require anyone who wants to run, to obtain "X" number of signatures and that weeds out the whackjobs. We already have states that use clean elections. We just need to look at it again, with an open mind and see if we can improve what's in place.
Or we can enjoy the perfect system we have...

 

[Not2BSubjugated]

Any industry that deals with the basic human necessities would such as healthcare. One's chances of living a healthy and full life without healthcare are pretty damn slim.
The healthcare industry knows that they have Americans by the balls. Other civilized countries negotiate healthcare cost with the healthcare industry providers and the result is healthcare at half the price. Where as the healthcare industry has so much influence that the art of negotiation has hit a brink wall that shields an excellent economic deterrent of negotiation that would help reduce deficits and enhance overall economic growth is not going to happen.
There's a gun to America's head alright.

Having the means to help someone, but then deciding not to help them, is not the same as forcing them at gunpoint to use your product. If you have moral issues with the healthcare industry, you can opt out of using their services without any other person forcing consequences on you. It's your choice and nobody will ever try to take it from you. . . feel free to try and fix yourself or let your ailment run its course.

It's the same reverse logic that they use with the tax breaks vs entitlement spending argument. If I have money and you need money, but I don't give you money, that's not the same as me taking away your money.

If the US government would negotiate the cost of healthcare it would lower the cost of healthcare for everybody, individuals and business. It would not be any cost to you as a matter of fact your wallet would get thicker. So lets see,,two-thirds of our economy is driven by consumer spending. Lowering healthcare costs gives the consumer more money to spend. Business would benefit because they just received a very significant cost of doing business reduction (the cost of their employees benefits), thusly putting more money in their coffers. This helps US business compete internationally and create more jobs at home.
And your problem with this is,,,,?

Maybe I don't feel like I share the responsibility to help businesses pay for their employees' benefits.

And you'll have to forgive me if I don't take your economic assessment at face value. As I said before, I won't argue the economics of healthcare with you, but I will say that there's enough different contradicting opinions by people with actual credentials to put my chances of believing a random guy on USMB has it all worked out and can explain this complex problem's solution in a paragraph or two well outside of betting range.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

It amazes me that so many people say no. If that's you're answer, please let me know how you would expect anything to ever get done?

You mean like, work together for the good of the country?

Never happen. I hope that President Obama stops compromising with the damn R's. all they care about is hurting him and they have hurt the whole country.

And now, this new book -

Robert Draper Book: GOP's Anti-Obama Campaign Started Night Of Inauguration

If the R's hate the US so much, let them leave. They won't be missed.

 

[kiwiman127]

Having the means to help someone, but then deciding not to help them, is not the same as forcing them at gunpoint to use your product. If you have moral issues with the healthcare industry, you can opt out of using their services without any other person forcing consequences on you. It's your choice and nobody will ever try to take it from you. . . feel free to try and fix yourself or let your ailment run its course.

It's the same reverse logic that they use with the tax breaks vs entitlement spending argument. If I have money and you need money, but I don't give you money, that's not the same as me taking away your money.

If the US government would negotiate the cost of healthcare it would lower the cost of healthcare for everybody, individuals and business. It would not be any cost to you as a matter of fact your wallet would get thicker. So lets see,,two-thirds of our economy is driven by consumer spending. Lowering healthcare costs gives the consumer more money to spend. Business would benefit because they just received a very significant cost of doing business reduction (the cost of their employees benefits), thusly putting more money in their coffers. This helps US business compete internationally and create more jobs at home.
And your problem with this is,,,,?

Maybe I don't feel like I share the responsibility to help businesses pay for their employees' benefits.

And you'll have to forgive me if I don't take your economic assessment at face value. As I said before, I won't argue the economics of healthcare with you, but I will say that there's enough different contradicting opinions by people with actual credentials to put my chances of believing a random guy on USMB has it all worked out and can explain this complex problem's solution in a paragraph or two well outside of betting range.

OK,,,,try these links, they all paint a pretty consistent picture.

U.S. Health Care Spending In An International Context

List of countries by total health expenditure (PPP) per capita - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Why an MRI costs $1,080 in America and $280 in France - The Washington Post

 

[Not2BSubjugated]

Inject? What does that mean? The only way I see a third party getting any traction is if we go to public financing of elections and break the lock incumbents and the two major parties have on campaign contributions.

Public funding would be a horrible way to do it. You'd end up having to make an ugly choice:

1. Let any crazy who wants to run have that funding and force taxpayers to pay for a lot of whack jobs to pretend they have half a clue or any chance at swaying anyone to vote for their psychotic BS

2. Implement some sort of bureaucratic body to decide who is and who isn't a serious candidate. If you can't imagine what the potential problems would be with either political party getting hold of -that- control panel, then I'm not sure what sort of reasoning led you to believe campaign finance reform is a necessity in the first place.

So that's the choice it boils down to if you publicly fund elections. Either blast exorbitant amounts of the government's budget on a whole lot of stupid, or accept the eventuality that we'll go from a 2 party to a 1 party system. No thanks.

No, not at all. You simply require anyone who wants to run, to obtain "X" number of signatures and that weeds out the whackjobs. We already have states that use clean elections. We just need to look at it again, with an open mind and see if we can improve what's in place.
Or we can enjoy the perfect system we have...

The "or" part is my main problem with this post. This is not an either or situation. If we don't go to purely public funded elections, we don't absolutely have to keep everything the same as it is now. I agree that the campaign funding system's dicked up as it stands, I'm just not sure that full-on government override is what's necessary, or that it wouldn't hinder the electoral process more than it helped.

The problem I have with the signature idea is this new tactic that the major parties are employing for public initiative measures, where you flood the petitioners with frauds signing fake names and get the samplers to declare that too high a percentage of the signatures are [probably] fake to validate said measure. The best part about this method is that it's all under-the-table. That means you don't have to use "official" campaign funds to pay asswipes to do it. That's the nice thing about basing the legitimacy of the campaign on campaign donations: Monopoly money lends no credence to someone buying ad time.

If you ask me, it would -seem- (I haven't examined this issue nearly thoroughly enough to think that I've got it figured out from all angles, mind you. Pointing out problems with proposed solutions is, sadly, easier than coming up with the correct solution) that a cleaner fix would be getting rid of the corporate personhood bullshit, for one. Easy rule to implement: If you can't vote in said election, you can't donate in said election. General Electric doesn't get a ballot. . . no GE donations. UAW also gets no ballot and thus no donations.

Next, implement a couple rules in light of Citizens United. Pick a time frame, maybe 8 months out from any election, any ad taken out by -anyone- that specifically takes a stand on any candidate (or any of said candidate's policies or their party) on the coming ballot is automatically considered a campaign donation worth the cost of the ad itself, and is subject to all implied limitations.

Last, I suppose I'll concede to the point that I could see partial public funding being a good option. Get this: drastically lower the limit that any individual can donate to a candidate. Since this will drastically lower the amount most candidates have access to, use the public funding end to say, match their donation funds 1:1 to pay for campaigning expenses, but those matching funds -only- kick in when the expenses are verified. This way, nut jobs still wouldn't be able to hit up the public coffers to prop up their soap boxes, yet you could still drastically cut down on the massive advantage that wealthy special interests have in getting their candidates elected.

Once again, this off-the-top-of-my-head solution leaves much to be desired and has more than a few holes in it, I'm sure. My main point is simply that there are alternatives other than the current shoddy system and complete government control over the campaign purse strings.

 

[Liability]

It amazes me that so many people say no. If that's you're answer, please let me know how you would expect anything to ever get done?

From my perspective, if a Democrat contends that all gun owners should be summarily shot with a fifty caliber weapon and the Republicans contend that the Second Amendment prohibits shooting gun owners at all, the compromise is not to shoot them with a .22.

In fact, there is no proper compromise.

The proper GOP response to those particular Democratics SHOULD be, "go fuck yourselves."

That said, there might very well be many things for which it's worthwhile to seek a valid middle ground.

But there are some things where ANY "compromise" is a foolish move.