Will there be compromise now?

[Photonic]

Where was all this sacred "compromise" thingy when Obolshevikcare was being jammed up America's ass?

Hack fool.

Thanks for proving my point.

The only point that was proven is that leftist hacks like you are only interested in "compromise", when it means that others abandon their principles to go along with the progressive/socialist program.

That's not compromise, it's immolation.

Still proving it.

 

[freedombecki]

There are a lot more moderates in the new Republican caucus. They will compromise.

If the current congress will not compromise, then we will go over the fiscal cliff.

Two weeks over the cliff and the new Republican caucus will be Obama's bitch.

No doubt about it!

You're mistaken.
We're not going to become communists like Obama and Hillary Clinton.

 

[edthecynic]

The dems have been trying to work with the GOP since day one, but they refuse to cut one penny of their own insane spending no matter what.
It's time for the GOP to get their heads out of their asses.

Republicans haven't been in charge of the spending since '06.

Hope that helps.

Obama looked into the Cameras at the 3rd Debate and Promised the Country we would not go over the Fiscal Cliff?

guess that was just another lie eh?

gee I didnt know he controled EVERTHING?


Guess what he dosent control the senate or the house.


I guess if he cant prevent you guys from stalling a compromise so we do go over the cliff then he wont get re elected.......oh wait

He has almost complete control over spending.

Notice how Bush as president had no control over spending but Obama as president has almost complete control over spending! Yet another example of the CON$ervoFascist Brotherhood being on BOTH sides of every issue from moment to moment.

 

[Photonic]

There are a lot more moderates in the new Republican caucus. They will compromise.

If the current congress will not compromise, then we will go over the fiscal cliff.

Two weeks over the cliff and the new Republican caucus will be Obama's bitch.

No doubt about it!

You're mistaken.
We're not going to become communists like Obama and Hillary Clinton.

Lowering taxes sure as hell sounds communist to me!

 

[saveliberty]

Democrats have to stop defining compromise as doing things their way.

 

[jwoodie]

The Democrats had total control over spending for two years and refused to let a budget bill even come up for a vote. Now that's what I call leadership...

 

[Oddball]

Thanks for proving my point.

The only point that was proven is that leftist hacks like you are only interested in "compromise", when it means that others abandon their principles to go along with the progressive/socialist program.

That's not compromise, it's immolation.

Still proving it.

All it proves is that you have a very self-centered and corrupt notion of "compromise".

 

[saveliberty]

Wonder when the dimwits are going to realize that the House creates spending bills? The Republicans get to layout the plan the Democrats get to compromise on. lol

 

[edthecynic]

Reagan's strategy in the late 1980s was to balloon the deficit.

Total lie.

Tip O'Neil totally stiffed him on the spending cuts he wanted.

Pathological lie.

O'Neill and Dole had a deal worked out and St Ronnie nixed it because it cut his Star Wars pork barrell spending, as you well know.

http://hnn.us/articles/120370.html
Reagan continued to rail against deficits while doing everything he could to protect his tax and defense programs that were their primary cause. In 1985 he adroitly outmaneuvered GOP Senate leader Bob Dole’s efforts to cut a deficit-reduction deal with House Democratic Speaker Tip O’Neill that included tax increases and defense cuts in return for entitlement economies.

Reconcilable Differences? "d0e4234"
Dole accused Reagan of "surrendering to the deficit." "If the President can't support us, he ought to keep his mouth shut,"

 

[Photonic]

The only point that was proven is that leftist hacks like you are only interested in "compromise", when it means that others abandon their principles to go along with the progressive/socialist program.

That's not compromise, it's immolation.

Still proving it.

All it proves is that you have a very self-centered and corrupt notion of "compromise".

This is entertaining, please keep pushing voters away from the conservative party. Really. It's rather entertaining to watch you spill your own blood to yell "I refuse to change."

 

[toomuchtime_]

Ok democrats need to cut spending and the GOP needs to raise taxes. Only problem is the Grover Norquist pledge. Will the GOP stay true to America or Grover? Will the democrats cut those entitlements for the good of the country or sacrifice it all for the poor?

With real GDP growth nudging 1.5% whatever compromise the D's and R's come up with will only have the effect of turning the fiscal cliff into a downward slope. Both tax increases and spending cuts will have the effect of slowing growth and making that slope steeper. The one and only solution to high unemployment, soaring deficits, etc. is raising the rate of growth of real GDP to 4% or higher.

Reagan inherited a stagnant economy and made bold moves to revive it that gave us the prosperity of the late 1980's and 1990's, but his policies carried with them risks both the Clinton and Bush43 administrations were slow to acknowledge and deal with. What we need today is a President who is bold enough to free up capital and inspire increased private investment in American industry and who is wise enough to manage to manage this reinvigorated economy better than Clinton or Bush43 did, perhaps Romney was that man, but what we have is a president whose every policy seems intended to make us more comfortable with a slowly failing economy rather than trying to turn it around.

Instead of proposing measures to that might help the economy recover, Obama proposes putting it on life support with more deficit funded "stimulus" spending. You can only see Obama's vision of hope and change as a good thing if the change you are hoping for is the decline of America.

Reagan's strategy in the late 1980s was to balloon the deficit.

That was government borrowing, combined with deregulation, to stimulate economic growth, not government borrowing to pay for programs we can't afford. Reagan did add significantly to our debt, but the theory was that the economic growth that would result from his policies would provide enough new revenues to do away with deficits eventually. It worked, too, the Clinton surpluses were the result of the reinvigorated economy Reagan created. Clinton understood the debt he owed to Reagan and signed legislation that continued to deregulate financial markets.

The problem was that Clinton chose to ignore warning from people like Alan Greenspan about the "irrational exuberance" that had gripped investors because negative statements about the economy would be bad for the Democrats in the 2000 elections and that led to the tech bubble crash and an ensuing recession, and after the economic impact of the 911 attacks and both the Congress and the Bush administration chose to ignore the warnings about the madness going on in mortgage markets because with new elections coming up every two years no one wants to be the first to bring bad news.

Obama asked the question, "Do you want to go back to the policies that gave us the financial crisis and recession?" Those, of course, were the policies of Clinton and Bush. Romney suggested but never clearly articulated the question, "Do you want to go back to the policies that gave us the prosperity of the late 1980's and 1990's but this time but this time with a government wise enough to manage the risks?"

Romney offered a plan for economic recovery. Obama said it was risky. Voters chose to seek what comfort they could find in a slowly failing economy rather than assume any risks that might lead to economic recovery.

 

[Oddball]

Still proving it.

All it proves is that you have a very self-centered and corrupt notion of "compromise".

This is entertaining, please keep pushing voters away from the conservative party. Really. It's rather entertaining to watch you spill your own blood to yell "I refuse to change."

I left the very un-conservative "conservative" (whatever the hell that's supposed to mean anymore) party in 1995.

Their squishy, double-dealing "compromiser" candidate lost, yet again....That doesn't signal to anyone who has an IQ above that of a gopher, that more compromising with people who themselves are uninterested in it is called for.

 

[saveliberty]

Seems to me that compromise is where BOTH parties move toward an agreement. You seem quite entrenched Photonic. Actually you are attempting to be antagonistic, which is the opposite of trying for compromise.

 

[ScienceRocks]

As long as it doesn't lead to the shit going on in Greece. Ok.

 

[Photonic]

Seems to me that compromise is where BOTH parties move toward an agreement. You seem quite entrenched Photonic. Actually you are attempting to be antagonistic, which is the opposite of trying for compromise.

Nah, I'm just trolling a tad to prove my point. See how easy it is to fall into the trap of no compromise though?

Everyone needs to take a deep breath and step back and understand that shit like this will end this country.

 

[Oddball]

Seems to me that compromise is where BOTH parties move toward an agreement. You seem quite entrenched Photonic. Actually you are attempting to be antagonistic, which is the opposite of trying for compromise.

Nah, I'm just trolling a tad to prove my point. See how easy it is to fall into the trap of no compromise though?

Everyone needs to take a deep breath and step back and understand that shit like this will end this country.

But you're not interested in compromise...You're interested in steamrolling.

 

[saveliberty]

Pretty sure a lack of control in government spending will have very serious consequences. How about we start there?

 

[Avatar4321]

Will there be compromise? No. War is much more likely.

 

[Photonic]

Pretty sure a lack of control in government spending will have very serious consequences. How about we start there?

Why don't we start by getting rid of this "corporations are people" bullshit first. That's where the problem starts.

 

[saveliberty]

Once cuts in spending occur and we see they are working, then we can consider additional revenues. Cuts alone will not take care of the debt. Take a percentage tax increase and apply it to everyone equally.