When compromise is wrong...

[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.

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

Every deal in the past that traded Tax increases for spending cuts ALWAYS saw the taxes increased and NEVER saw the spending cut.

How many times must Lucy pull the ball away before Charlie Brown will start to predict that she will do it again?

For the Liberals in the crowd, the Dems are pulling the ball away time and again and the Reps have finally stopped agreeing to try to kick the ball.

 

[NYcarbineer]

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.

People who won't compromise lack the principle, and wisdom, of recognizing that when total victory is impossible,

getting a partial victory is better than getting nothing.

 

[bripat9643]

So did 50 million other people.

Hate to break it to you.

All the morons in American identified themselves.

 

[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.

People who won't compromise lack the principle, and wisdom, of recognizing that when total victory is impossible,

getting a partial victory is better than getting nothing.

When the compromise that is offered is not acceptable, then it's not acceptable.

For instance, compromising with a genocide minded Nazi would be that he would settle for killing only 2 and a half million Jews instead of 5 million. Is this a good solution?

Of course not.

A partial victory is a loss if the compromise fails to achieve the desired result in keeping with one's needs.

Comprimising with an agreement that only satisfies the talking points of the Dems and does nothing to reduce the debt or deficit does nothing.

 

[The T]

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

Did Reagan compromise his principles?
It would help if you listed Reagan's principles and then cross reference to the elements of the "compromises you mentioned.

Reagan never Compromised on his principles. He was suckered by Democrats that for one promised to Check the Borders...they lied.

 

[Avatar4321]

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

History has shown that he was. See, he naively trusted Democrats to keep their end of the bargain.

They lied.

 

[Flopper]

Comprimising with an agreement that only satisfies the talking points of the Dems and does nothing to reduce the debt or deficit does nothing.

I disagree. Any negotiations between parties that agree on nothing must begin with small concessions by both sides so small agreements can be reached. Major agreements are built on these small agreements.

The deficit problem did not begin with this administration nor with the previous. Deficit financing has been a problem for many decades and it's not going be solved by a super committee in 3 months, nor a congress in 2 years or an administration in 4. It will take a number of years and several administrations and Congresses controlled sometimes by Republicans and sometimes by Democrats. Paying for new expenditures with additional fees and taxes has to become a mindset for both parties.

The unilateral solution that Republicans seek will not be successful, unless they control all three houses of government for many years because Democrats will add spending to restore services the Republicans cut.

 

[peach174]

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

The House is compromising.
Dems and Pubs have passed bills and sent them to the Senate.
It's Harry Reid who won't allow the bills to be discussed and voted on because he said they are too controversial.
He is sitting on 20 bills TM

 

[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.

Sadly, nobody puts a percent in the bank. The deficit and debt are built using dollars.

 

[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.

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

We'll never know, will we. When the Speaker was ready to take the compromise to the House to work on it, the Big 0 moved the goal posts to assure that no deal would be proposed.

That's when he said that it was like working with Jell-o.

 

[code1211]

Comprimising with an agreement that only satisfies the talking points of the Dems and does nothing to reduce the debt or deficit does nothing.

I disagree. Any negotiations between parties that agree on nothing must begin with small concessions by both sides so small agreements can be reached. Major agreements are built on these small agreements.

The deficit problem did not begin with this administration nor with the previous. Deficit financing has been a problem for many decades and it's not going be solved by a super committee in 3 months, nor a congress in 2 years or an administration in 4. It will take a number of years and several administrations and Congresses controlled sometimes by Republicans and sometimes by Democrats. Paying for new expenditures with additional fees and taxes has to become a mindset for both parties.

The unilateral solution that Republicans seek will not be successful, unless they control all three houses of government for many years because Democrats will add spending to restore services the Republicans cut.

They cannot agree on anything. Moreover, it seems like the Dems are committed to extending the disagreement. The Reps have said what they need and the Dems are are not willing to move on what they are talking about.

The Reps have said pretty plainly that they have no problem with increasing revenues, but the Dems are completely committed to raising taxes on the "the Rich". That's a talking point.

They have no intention of reducing spending even though they have increased the Federal payrolls, run up deficits in years that used to take decades and are striving mightily to stop any jobs from being created.

Our only hope is that the Reps can stall any further damage and that the Dems fall from power in 2012.

 

[Flopper]

Our only hope is that the Reps can stall any further damage and that the Dems fall from power in 2012.

Assume you get your wish and Dems lose in 2012. What happens after 2014 and 2016 when a backlash due to massive spending cuts increase the power of the Dems. They will just retaliate by introducing new programs and higher taxes. Unilateral decisions are only effective if you have the power and can maintain it. Republicans, typically are only able to control government for two years. They have only controlled government for 4 years once in 80 years.

 

[rdean]

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.

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

If you start with "bullshit", then "bullshit" is all you have.

The Tea Party doesn't know what they want. They just want old white people in power.

The left wants jobs and fairness and "good" government that does what only government can do well.

What is wrong with you people? Get a mind.