When compromise is wrong...

[code1211]

Was Reagan wrong when he compromised with Democrats on taxes? On SS reform?

Taxes, yes. SS, no.

The deal that the Dems disingenuously offered was to cut spending which never happened and in truth was increased significantly.

That's the same lie being offered today. Cuts made in the "out years" are all lies. They are today, they always were and always will be.

We need another deal on Social Security now. With no SS revision, there soon will be no SS.

 

[occupied]

Principals? What the hell is that? Is that something like a commandment that will land you in hell if you break it? Quit treating political ideals the same as religious orthodoxy, quit making everything black and white, all or nothing. I have watched the tea party, they tend to issue ultimatums and then dig in, there is no compromise with zealots like that who put their principals above everything and everyone else. Narcissistic self centeredness is not a virtue in anyone's book.

You realize that "principles" have nothing to do with "religious orthodoxy"!

Obviously then if you REALLY don't know because I PRINCIPALLY IGNORE idiots who don't KNOW the difference between "principal" someone you evidently know very well from being in the office frequently...
and "Principles"

Since you don't know the difference in spelling you definitely have none!
"Principles" distinguish controlled behavior that advances civilization and
the dog eat dog world you live in and will be a very good "darwinian" candidate!

So since ALL this goes WAY over your head I will ignore you as a principle that wasting my time with trying to educate you!

You? educate me? Do you see yourself as some paragon of virtue and morality? You are just an internet crank like the rest of us, quit taking yourself so seriously, no one else does.

 

[code1211]

Powell incorrectly complained about the Tea Party for "divisive tone" in Washington saying:
"They [Tea party] say compromise is a dirty word, and they try to point to the Founding Fathers and the Constitution."

Colin Powell Blames Media and Tea Party for Divisive Tone in Washington | NewsBusters.org

"Compromise is a dirty word"?

Let's define "compromise"...
A settlement of differences in which each side makes concessions.

So before a compromise is possible each side needs to clearly define the "differences" before making concessions.

Tea Party wants governmental spending cuts.
Non-Tea party does not want to cut spending.

These are the two most apparent "differences".

But when would "compromise" be wrong...
Simple..
You want something that will require me to violate my principles!

That's when it is wrong to compromise.

What's so special about YOUR principles? From what I've seen it's merely an excuse to not to have to think. Rather than use their brains, some would merely consult their "principles" checklist!!!

The problem with our current climate is that the Dems are saying that a pointless punishment of "the rich" is a pre-requisite to anything else.

The Reps have said before that changing tax rates is off the table.

The obvious answer is address the tax code's deductions, but now the Prez is now married to the tax the rich mantra and cannot come off that without losing face.

The Republicans want to increase revenue. The Dems want only to increase rates whether this increases revenue or not. It's insanity.

Removing the ceiling from the SS payroll tax deduction would be a great move and I'm pretty sure that Joe six pack has no idea that the average millionaire stops paying SS after about $107K.

Beyond that, eliminate all of the credits and deductions not available to the average guy due to the sheer size of the monies needed to get them. Also, reduce the Corporate tax to the lowest in the world to attract the declaration of profits in this country.

There can be no compromise without an honest partner with which to deal and the Dems are not offering one.

Referance the Jell-o comment.

 

[code1211]

Was Reagan wrong when he compromised with Democrats on taxes? On SS reform?

Did Reagan compromise his principles?

Yes, on numerous occasions. He increased taxes a number of times, he expanded SS and he created deficits.

If you are not aware of the above compromises, please do a bit of research.

The Congress was controlled by the Dems who increased spending dramatically during the Reagan years. The increased spending was often complained about by Reagan.

 

[code1211]

here is your problem cons.

This government was set up by the founders to work on compromise.

you are the minority party in the three branches.

NOT compromising with the majority is anti American

What proposed bills are you referring to?

 

[Chris]

Divisive is the wrong word for the Tea Party.

Treasonous is more like it.

 

[Chris]

Did Reagan compromise his principles?

Yes, on numerous occasions. He increased taxes a number of times, he expanded SS and he created deficits.

If you are not aware of the above compromises, please do a bit of research.

The Congress was controlled by the Dems who increased spending dramatically during the Reagan years. The increased spending was often complained about by Reagan.

Liar, liar, pants on fire....

Reagan's budgets were passed by all the Republicans and a few conservative Democrats.

Reagan doubled the National Debt by increasing defense spending and cutting taxes for the rich. The Republican game plan also used by George W. Bush.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

But when would "compromise" be wrong...
Simple..
You want something that will require me to violate my principles!

That's when it is wrong to compromise.

This makes no sense (as usual…); especially when you expect the opposition to compromise its principles.

And refusing to raise taxes isn’t a ‘principle,’ it’s political dogma, subjective and not based on facts or reality. During any given crisis the Nation needs Congress to engage in responsible governance and leadership – this the House leadership in general and the TPM in particular failed to do.

It’s inappropriate that millions of Americans are forced to suffer while the TPM and other rightwing extremists adhere blindly to their contrived ‘principles.’

If you are not aware of the above compromises, please do a bit of research.

Not that it will do any good.

 

[The T]

The TEA Party? Really?
The house has passed many bills with Democrat votes.
It's Harry Read who won't allow those bills to be discussed let alone brought up for a vote.

What do you expect? Powell voted for Obama...

 

[The T]

The TEA Party? Really?
The house has passed many bills with Democrat votes.
It's Harry Read who won't allow those bills to be discussed let alone brought up for a vote.

This really demonstrates the fear the Dems have for an honest debate and vote. Sometimes a compromise isn't efficient when the country has such large deficits and cuts are so desperately needed. Reid, we need to vote!

Compromise to the Statist and Repubicans as Powell means thier way or the highway.

 

[Chris]

The TEA Party? Really?
The house has passed many bills with Democrat votes.
It's Harry Read who won't allow those bills to be discussed let alone brought up for a vote.

What do you expect? Powell voted for Obama...

So did 50 million other people.

Hate to break it to you.

 

[8537]

Was Reagan wrong when he compromised with Democrats on taxes? On SS reform?

Taxes, yes. SS, no.

The deal that the Dems disingenuously offered was to cut spending which never happened and in truth was increased significantly.

Real dollar spending as a percent of GDP fell rather significantly.

 

[candycorn]

I totally agree; every bill passed by either house should get a vote in the other house of Congress. Maybe not immediately but definitely during the same congressional 2 year term. What the Democrats are doing in the Senate is shameful and should be illegal.

Does that mean Obama's jobs bill can get a vote in the Senate?

My computer just did a funny thing there; sorry if this is a double post.

I'm not sure what bill you're talking about. Any bill before the Senate or the HOR is introduced by a member of Congress.

The Constitution has it set up to where the Senate must approve certain Presidential appointments.

The Congress should not have the right to not consider the work of either the other house of Congress or the Constitutionally mandated duties required of their chamber.

I keep telling the board here that we need, desperately, to improve the Constitution. This is the #1 area where I'd make a change. Do the jobs you were sent to Washington to do. You'll lose some votes; you'll win some votes. But hell, the process is the process. Why even hold a session if you're not going to do the business of the People?

 

[Greenbeard]

I'm not sure what bill you're talking about. Any bill before the Senate or the HOR is introduced by a member of Congress.

U.S. Senate: Legislation & Records Home > Votes > Roll Call Vote

The American Jobs Act (S. 1660), which died with 50 votes on an unsuccessful cloture vote on a motion to proceed.

It's absurd to demand the Senate hold more final votes on House legislation when the Senate hasn't even been able to get votes on final passage of its own legislation.

 

[candycorn]

I'm not sure what bill you're talking about. Any bill before the Senate or the HOR is introduced by a member of Congress.

U.S. Senate: Legislation & Records Home > Votes > Roll Call Vote

The American Jobs Act (S. 1660), which died with 50 votes on an unsuccessful cloture vote on a motion to proceed.

It's absurd to demand the Senate hold more final votes on House legislation when the Senate hasn't even been able to get votes on final passage of its own legislation.

I'm not really demanding that; I'm demanding that each house consider the work of the other house. The instance given earlier in this thread was illuding to Reid's de-facto pocket veto of House passages of bills. Have the vote; thats all I'm saying.

 

[Flopper]

Powell incorrectly complained about the Tea Party for "divisive tone" in Washington saying:
"They [Tea party] say compromise is a dirty word, and they try to point to the Founding Fathers and the Constitution."

Colin Powell Blames Media and Tea Party for Divisive Tone in Washington | NewsBusters.org

"Compromise is a dirty word"?

Let's define "compromise"...
A settlement of differences in which each side makes concessions.

So before a compromise is possible each side needs to clearly define the "differences" before making concessions.

Tea Party wants governmental spending cuts.
Non-Tea party does not want to cut spending.

These are the two most apparent "differences".

But when would "compromise" be wrong...
Simple..
You want something that will require me to violate my principles!

That's when it is wrong to compromise.

Disagreement, debate, leading to compromise has always been the American way. All principles can and should be compromised to serve a greater principle. In this case the greater principal is the economic survival of the nation.

It should be quite clear that a unilateral solution to the nation's financial problems is not going to work. The only alternative is a compromise.

 

[rightwinger]

Powell incorrectly complained about the Tea Party for "divisive tone" in Washington saying:
"They [Tea party] say compromise is a dirty word, and they try to point to the Founding Fathers and the Constitution."

Colin Powell Blames Media and Tea Party for Divisive Tone in Washington | NewsBusters.org

"Compromise is a dirty word"?

Let's define "compromise"...
A settlement of differences in which each side makes concessions.

So before a compromise is possible each side needs to clearly define the "differences" before making concessions.

Tea Party wants governmental spending cuts.
Non-Tea party does not want to cut spending.

These are the two most apparent "differences".

But when would "compromise" be wrong...
Simple..
You want something that will require me to violate my principles!

That's when it is wrong to compromise.

The other side offered trillions in spending cuts....it was the Tea Tards who would not compromise on even a dollar of increased taxes

 

[code1211]

Yes, on numerous occasions. He increased taxes a number of times, he expanded SS and he created deficits.

If you are not aware of the above compromises, please do a bit of research.

The Congress was controlled by the Dems who increased spending dramatically during the Reagan years. The increased spending was often complained about by Reagan.

Liar, liar, pants on fire....

Reagan's budgets were passed by all the Republicans and a few conservative Democrats.

Reagan doubled the National Debt by increasing defense spending and cutting taxes for the rich. The Republican game plan also used by George W. Bush.

Keep the doobie lit and ignore reality.

During the Reagan years, tax revenues increased from about 517.1 billion to about 854.3 billion. During the same period, the outlays increased from 590.9 billion to over a trillion.

Denying what actually happened does not mean it didn't happen and ignoring reality only guarantees a bad out come for whatever it is you're trying to do.

During the same period, defense spending rose from 193.6 billion to 330.19 billion.

So, of the 487 billion increase in spending, 136 billion was for the military.

That's a bunch to increase, but the military spending was not enough to drive the deficits. That was entirely due to increased spending on other items. Only a little more than a quarter on the dollar of increased spending can be attributed to the DOD.

I do admire the strength of the grip you maintain on fantasy.

 

[code1211]

Was Reagan wrong when he compromised with Democrats on taxes? On SS reform?

Taxes, yes. SS, no.

The deal that the Dems disingenuously offered was to cut spending which never happened and in truth was increased significantly.

Real dollar spending as a percent of GDP fell rather significantly.

You're gong to have produce a link for that. This was a time of inflation and dramatic growth of GDP.

 

[BOBO]

guaranteed Constitutionally based Liberties. Plain & simple!

Powell incorrectly complained about the Tea Party for "divisive tone" in Washington saying:
"They [Tea party] say compromise is a dirty word, and they try to point to the Founding Fathers and the Constitution."

Colin Powell Blames Media and Tea Party for Divisive Tone in Washington | NewsBusters.org

"Compromise is a dirty word"?

Let's define "compromise"...
A settlement of differences in which each side makes concessions.

So before a compromise is possible each side needs to clearly define the "differences" before making concessions.

Tea Party wants governmental spending cuts.
Non-Tea party does not want to cut spending.

These are the two most apparent "differences".

But when would "compromise" be wrong...
Simple..
You want something that will require me to violate my principles!

That's when it is wrong to compromise.