Should Democrats and Republicans Compromise With Each Other?

[Oddball]

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?

They better compromise if they are to retain their duopoly power. Its gotten so bad recently though, that we might see a third party in the next few decades

I'd settle for a second party.

 

[Vidi]

No, it's absolutely correct.

Unlike you, I don't worship at the altar of economic meddlers, social engineers and other do-gooders.

I -correctly- hold that the greatness of America has come from its ordinary, highly inventive and infinitely flexible people and not from on high via its petty politicians and parasitic bureaucrats.

But feel free to venerate your graven images....Freedom of religion and all that.

I hold that Americas greatness comes from the willingness of the people to work hard for their own future. Not from the multinational corporation who moves American wealth out of our great nation.

Where you see petty politicians and parasitic bureaucrats ( and they are there as well, I do not deny it ) I see the will of the people demanding their FAIR and EARNED share of the American Dream.

No, we all wont be rich and thats fine. But everyone whos willing to work their ass off for it, ought to have a job, put food on the table and a decent home to call their own. Not handed to them, not given to them for free, but earned and not stolen from them through the colusion of a multinational foreign owned corporation and a slimy politician spread lies about the poor and working class so they can get re elected.

 

[Oddball]

Wow...Didn't take too long to get you to invoke the classic progressive socialist strawman: The eeeevil and reviled corporation.

I guess all the nefarious aspects of human nature cease to apply, the moment you become a progressive socialist politician or bureaucrat, huh?

I imagine that there's absolutely nothing that progressive socialist demagogues say and do that would make anyone desirous of moving their business operations elsewhere.

Nope....The hands of the authoritarian and the do-gooder are absolutely clean, aren't they?

 

[Vidi]

Wow...Didn't take too long to get you to invoke the classic progressive socialist strawman: The eeeevil and reviled corporation.

I guess all the nefarious aspects of human nature cease to apply, the moment you become a progressive socialist politician or bureaucrat, huh?

I imagine that there's absolutely nothing that progressive socialist demagogues say and do that would make anyone desirous of moving their business operations elsewhere.

Nope....The hands of the authoritarian and the do-gooder are absolutely clean, aren't they?

Actually human nature is exactly why we need the government to regulate corporations. It is human nature to get away with whatever it can as long as its in tehir own best interests, nevermind the best interests of the country.

But as long as we are on the subject, human nature is also the reason Communism can never and will never work in a real life situation. It doesnt take into account human greed and their lust for power, so Communism will always turn into an Authroitarian nightmare that opresses the people.

The best solution is to keep the country squarely in the middle. Unfortunately, as the Republicans move further and further right, the middle moves further and further right as well, thus upsetting the balance.

But I know how that seems nowadays. Advocating for a 1950's style middle of the road appraoch is seen by the extreme right as socialism. Well, then if Eisenhower was a socialist, count me in too. cause I like Ike!

 

[Oddball]

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.

 

[Interpol]

I don't think everything needs to be political.

For instance, the idea of reducing corporate welfare by, let's say, half a trillion over a decade, is something that three quarters of the public agrees on. Even if Republicans and Democrats pass something that reduces corporate welfare, they're getting the people's business done. It's just beyond partisanship, some of the stuff that is out there right now.

Republicans have cut tax loopholes and giveaways before, I don't see how it hurts them, but our friends on the right who are elected in Washington continue to protect their corporate benefactors.

I don't think it's blasphemous to ask a little favor from a friend who you happened to make very wealthy because of the advantages you've given them along the way. Asking them to now kick in a little bit by not accepting taxpayer money makes perfect common sense.

I know far more Republicans in my life who are for that than against even, but I fear that our leaders, once they get elected, they get deaf really quick to very basic things that would have been agreed to a long time ago when Democrats and Republicans always passed the easy stuff.

I mean, holy crap, they're having trouble with a highway bill because we've got a very raucous wing with our Tea Party friends, who now believe that all infrastructure amounts to pork. We should care about spending and look for ways to both reduce it and increase revenue, but we can't start doing it at the expense of infrastructure, which makes capitalism work better the better it's maintained!

It's a split Congress, so you can't get everything you want. Although I love the spirit of the Tea Party, I fear that they are too extreme within the framework of a gov't that requires compromise when both parties share power. It's as though the Paul Ryan budget was meant to fail, since they passed everything they wanted knowing full well they would meet with opposition from the other party who controls the Senate. Instead of real debt reforms being made last year, we got political stunts.

I think compromise would be best, but that would take more moderate folks like myself to be populating the Republican party, and right now I get bullied by them if I don't fall in line with every single extreme view they have. I just feel like more people like myself and other Republicans and Democrats I know in real life would've compromised in our business to make things work better. We would have found a way.

I think if you have a Congress filled with fairly moderate folks who aren't beholden to corporations, but do encourage capitalism, I think that if they had sent President Obama something that keeps in tact some of the things he wanted to, he would have signed onto about a $4 trillion package over 10 years, which to me is a nice start.

I think maybe if we passed more things by piecemeal, rather than in a lump sum fashion, maybe it would be easier to find compromise.

Mitt Romney and Barack Obama agree with the student loan reform stuff, and something on Pell Grants should get passed, hopefully. It's another thing that to me is not political. Pell Grants don't represent what's wrong with the investments we do make. But corporate welfare does.

I can't say I'm optimistic about compromise happening in Congress any time soon, we have total gridlock right now and things like the job package are sort of getting passed by piecemeal, but hardly anything outside of the focus of returning vets into the workforce. We have a House that seems to be stuck. If they pass things that help the economy, they fear it will help the President. A lot of this stuff is stuff that Republicans have passed before.

From the Senate we read headlines almost every week about another one of those issues where three quarters of us agree, but then we read, "Bill Fails 52-47" and it makes people scratch their head at how things don't get passed even though the majority is in favor of it. We have filibuster-happy folks over there willing to hold up anything and everything.

I think instead of holding things up, you have to put your stamp on the things that go forward. Influence big decisions, influence history! Don't just sit on your hands and hold it up! What we have currently is a government afraid to agree with the President, a fellow that 72% of the general public would like to see do successful things, even if some of them aren't strong supporters of him.

So yeah, I'm tired of the extremism I've been seeing, and I'd like to see more moderates in there again who can actually move things along. We can get ourselves out of this trouble, we just need serious folks who want to work together to do it, not just folks who are out to make a point.

 

[IndependntLogic]

I don't think everything needs to be political.

For instance, the idea of reducing corporate welfare by, let's say, half a trillion over a decade, is something that three quarters of the public agrees on. Even if Republicans and Democrats pass something that reduces corporate welfare, they're getting the people's business done. It's just beyond partisanship, some of the stuff that is out there right now.

Republicans have cut tax loopholes and giveaways before, I don't see how it hurts them, but our friends on the right who are elected in Washington continue to protect their corporate benefactors.

I don't think it's blasphemous to ask a little favor from a friend who you happened to make very wealthy because of the advantages you've given them along the way. Asking them to now kick in a little bit by not accepting taxpayer money makes perfect common sense.

I know far more Republicans in my life who are for that than against even, but I fear that our leaders, once they get elected, they get deaf really quick to very basic things that would have been agreed to a long time ago when Democrats and Republicans always passed the easy stuff.

I mean, holy crap, they're having trouble with a highway bill because we've got a very raucous wing with our Tea Party friends, who now believe that all infrastructure amounts to pork. We should care about spending and look for ways to both reduce it and increase revenue, but we can't start doing it at the expense of infrastructure, which makes capitalism work better the better it's maintained!

It's a split Congress, so you can't get everything you want. Although I love the spirit of the Tea Party, I fear that they are too extreme within the framework of a gov't that requires compromise when both parties share power. It's as though the Paul Ryan budget was meant to fail, since they passed everything they wanted knowing full well they would meet with opposition from the other party who controls the Senate. Instead of real debt reforms being made last year, we got political stunts.

I think compromise would be best, but that would take more moderate folks like myself to be populating the Republican party, and right now I get bullied by them if I don't fall in line with every single extreme view they have. I just feel like more people like myself and other Republicans and Democrats I know in real life would've compromised in our business to make things work better. We would have found a way.

I think if you have a Congress filled with fairly moderate folks who aren't beholden to corporations, but do encourage capitalism, I think that if they had sent President Obama something that keeps in tact some of the things he wanted to, he would have signed onto about a $4 trillion package over 10 years, which to me is a nice start.

I think maybe if we passed more things by piecemeal, rather than in a lump sum fashion, maybe it would be easier to find compromise.

Mitt Romney and Barack Obama agree with the student loan reform stuff, and something on Pell Grants should get passed, hopefully. It's another thing that to me is not political. Pell Grants don't represent what's wrong with the investments we do make. But corporate welfare does.

I can't say I'm optimistic about compromise happening in Congress any time soon, we have total gridlock right now and things like the job package are sort of getting passed by piecemeal, but hardly anything outside of the focus of returning vets into the workforce. We have a House that seems to be stuck. If they pass things that help the economy, they fear it will help the President. A lot of this stuff is stuff that Republicans have passed before.

From the Senate we read headlines almost every week about another one of those issues where three quarters of us agree, but then we read, "Bill Fails 52-47" and it makes people scratch their head at how things don't get passed even though the majority is in favor of it. We have filibuster-happy folks over there willing to hold up anything and everything.

I think instead of holding things up, you have to put your stamp on the things that go forward. Influence big decisions, influence history! Don't just sit on your hands and hold it up! What we have currently is a government afraid to agree with the President, a fellow that 72% of the general public would like to see do successful things, even if some of them aren't strong supporters of him.

So yeah, I'm tired of the extremism I've been seeing, and I'd like to see more moderates in there again who can actually move things along. We can get ourselves out of this trouble, we just need serious folks who want to work together to do it, not just folks who are out to make a point.

Dude, you make a lot of common sense points but you lean a bit to the Left. Also, you didn't declare Obama the anti-Christ. Which means the extremists here are going to shat a brick and label you everything under the sun.
Nice, reasonable post though.

 

[Skull Pilot]

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.

 

[LoneLaugher]

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?

 

[Vidi]

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.

If that's what you read in my post, the fool is YOU.

Take a reading comprehension class. You obviously need it.

 

[Oddball]

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?

 

[whitehall]

Democrats and republicans should do what they think is best for the United States instead of what they think will benefit the party and their chance for re-election. If they have differences of opinion along the way that's fine as long as the citizens pay attention and elect the people who best represent their values and the US Constitution.

 

[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.

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?

 

[IndependntLogic]

Democrats and republicans should do what they think is best for the United States instead of what they think will benefit the party and their chance for re-election. If they have differences of opinion along the way that's fine as long as the citizens pay attention and elect the people who best represent their values and the US Constitution.

Good to see an intelligent opinion expressed - and without slinging petty insults at anyone... imagine that! Good post. Too bad they don't do that anymore.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

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?

I'm not sure how you can compromise with people who refuse to be reasonable and that's something we see in politicians of both parties. We have a lot of problems currently going on in this country and future problems we already know are coming (financial stability of Social Security, Medicare, the national debt, etc.) that most of the politicians on both sides of the aisle are refusing to accept the reality of. How do you compromise with people who refuse to acknowledge the problem and then demagogue the proposed solutions?

 

[midcan5]

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.

I used to agree with that idea but practice has shown what happens is the third party gains too much power over legislation and in the end the citizens lose as now the odd man out controls the results. David Deutsch writes about this and the video below is worth a listen.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c0pZ9LTZW1g]David Deutsch on the AV Referendum (UK) - YouTube[/ame]

 

[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.

 

[ThinkCritically]

This is the presidential and congressional election game every election cycle. Suppose there are 10 voters each election. 3 voters always vote republican (because they believe the party is always right), 3 other voters always vote democrat (because they believe the party is always right), and the other 4 voters are independent and always vote for the lesser of the "two evils" (because they believe that both parties are wrong but they prefer the least worse candidate for a given election cycle.)

The 4 voters who vote for the "lesser of two evils" prop up the system. If they were to take their 4 votes and give them to a reform candidate then they wouldn't have to vote for the lesser of two evils.

The vote total would be.
4 votes 40% towards reform candidate
3 votes 30% towards democrat
3 votes 30% towards republican

But if one independent voter decides to vote for a "lesser of the two evil candidates" then the reform vote fails, because either the democrat or republican gets majority vote at that point. The 3 remaining voters realize that their votes will be waisted if just one independent votes for either of the two parties, thus all independents vote for the "less of two evils" even though all the independents would prefer a reform party.

Both Republican and Democrat Parties realize that they will never lose duopoly power because independent voters would have to unify perfectly (if one independent votes for either of the two parties the reform is broken). Thus Republican's and Democrat's are never held accountable because they will never be replaced by a third party. Additionally, since both parties are unaccountable, they can honestly accuse each other of wrong doing. Thus perpetuating the "lesser of two evil" voting system.
__________________

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

The 4 voters who vote for the "lesser of two evils" prop up the system. If they were to take their 4 votes and give them to a reform candidate then they wouldn't have to vote for the lesser of two evils.

But haven't you heard? Voting third party is a "wasted" vote.

 

[IndependntLogic]

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.